Kodak Relaunches Kodak Gold 200 in 120 Format. Cheaper too.

Excellent news, though the "cheaper" bit is misleading. Cheaper than Portra, yes. Who would pay more for Kodak Gold than Kodak Portra? But anyway I'm happy to have a new color option for 120 film! I wish Fuji would take notice!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BWF
Can you read the numbers through a red window? Portra is particularly bad for this, especially as the only clue as you approach the number is "Kodak" in very small, faint script!
 
Yes this is really fantastic news. I think Porta is about the best thing Kodak has done in color film since Kodachrome, but Kodak Gold is still a fine quality color film for many purposes. Certainly welcome, especially in 120 format.
 
Good news indeed. I've not yet seen this in 120 here in Australia, but as with most things down under, we live forever in hope.

Have Kodak managed to tame the magenta bias in this film? Also its tendency to blow out the highlights. The latter I suspect may be due to the ageing Planar lens in my Rolleiflex 3.5E2, but I've found the overblown highlights in bright sun like at the beach means a lot of post processing work for me after scanning.

From dourbalistar's fine beach image (#8) it would seem so. It may be that overexposing by a full stop cuts down the glare. I must try this.

I look forward to trying out this film when it eventually lands in our shops.
 
Last edited:
bigeye said:
sorry (not sorry, and a bit drunky) but does anyone remember that c-41 is crap and positive was the only way to go?
Click to expand...

Yes, this was a prevalent myth in the '80s and '90s. E6 was better mostly when a competent lab did the processing.

C41 properly handled can give superb results. Most of the problems with C41 (also E6) films are the result of poor processing, not the film.

I write this from considerable experience over many decades. This weekend I'm going thru a folder of some 40 C41 films I took in Indonesia in the 1980s. Home processed with IRRC Tetenal kits. Back then I had a more makeshift darkroom and used an old mercury thermometer for temperature control/adjusting. Obviously I didn't pay enough attention to the basics.

I examine the negatives at 100% magnification and I cringe at the messes I see. Not so much to do with color shifts, but sloppy darkroom work on my part. Also scanning without having given proper attention to adjusting levels etc. resulting in many future hours of my life to be given over to spotting - if I can be bothered. TBH, I'm not sure I will.
 
bigeye said:
sorry (not sorry, and a bit drunky) but does anyone remember that c-41 is crap and positive was the only way to go?
Click to expand...
DownUnder refers to this as a "myth", but I respectfully disagree. The whole point of shooting reversal film was (and is!) that it gives an objective referent for reproduction and/or archival purposes. Not "The Truth", whatever the hell that is, but for the viewer, knowing how a given film responds, it is possible to have a clearer understanding of the tonal relationships and colors that were present before the lens at the time of exposure. Before digital, there were a multitude of processes for printing color, and each introduced variations and divergences into the final image, and digital shooting and printing of course introduce those to an even greater degree. This is why, for color, a Kodachrome transparency was the de facto standard for color imaging.
I continue to shoot color transparency film (meaning Ektachrome, these days, as the only real option) for the archival aspect that I've cited above. For that matter, I shoot film for the same reason!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top