Kodak Gold 200: 35mm vs 120 

The difference in the exposure between the shot may be explained also by the real shutter speed of the camera. The shutter of those old camera tend to loose speed over time depending how it was used and maintain, also it does not loose speed equally over the speed range of the shutter. An adjustment at 1/125 it can be close to the real speed but at 1/500 it can be way off. So maybe a 1/500 s speed shutter is not the same on both camera .... but it was nice to see the diffrence in the sharpness the 120 format and 35mm

Absolutely loved the comparison between the two formats. The 120 looks absolutely incredible and Rosemary looks stunning!

These videos getting better every time. Thanks for doing the test, needed that 🙌🏻

I wanted to say, your video is something natural and classic at the same time. It feels different to other photography reviews. I enjoyed watching this one as well. Thank you always.

Love the concept of this video! Sissi you executed this so professionally. And you’re 120 images are absolutely stunnnnnnning

i just picked up some kodak gold 200 35mm and this video was SOOOOO helpful. coming from a digital background i am so used to underexposing, but i can already tell i will definitely be overexposing these rolls of film. THANK YOU SO MUCH

Aw this is lovely I just picked up a couple rolls of Gold in medium format myself so i'm excited to see how it goes!

yay new video!!

So glad you posted this. A comparison b/w the 35mm and 120 stocks is what I was most excited to see when this film stock was announced.

very excited to try 120 kodak gold! it was my go to stock when i shot mainly 35mm and have missed it dearly since shooting more 120. another great video, ive spent a lot of time in NYC and your videos always make me very nostalgic for it :)

Another great video! loved the comparison, I think I will try it in 120 soon :) looking forward to the next video 👀

It’s really helpful to compare like that and I love your photos. And it’s impressive that you keep thinking up new projects! I am looking forward it:) p.s. I love how you talk(with the little cute mic🎙) and your style..! Every season, you retain your own mood but it’s not boring, even new!! Your style is also inspiring. I hope to see you on youtube more~.~

Great video , can’t wait to try it 😎

The photos look great!! Gold is a very nice film and you did a great job showing its potential!!

Such a fun video, keep them coming

thank You for comparing both films, I just got my 120 gold 200 a couple of days ago and want to try them as soon as possible😉👍

Been sitting on my Kodak Gold to test for the perfect day.. lovely video!

Super cool comparison, I loved it! I came across your self portrait video a while ago and thought it was really good, I'm glad you're still making videos! I need to get on the medium format train, it is so beautiful. Film prices seem to be constantly rising though :(

Amazing video‼️ Very thorough and clean comparison

Found your channel recently and I freaking love it! Videos are also super informative and great for learning!!! Love from Singapore 🇸🇬❤️

Great to see this comparison!

I love the mini microphone haha. Very cool comparison. I love that you chose to go back and shoot with the store owner. Also, you are so pretty☺.

As I'm hoping to be able to go to Venice this summer and planning to bring almost the exact same loadout as you are, this is pretty much convincing me to pack Gold200 as the default for the trip.

After watching this I am going to try some in my 1957 Yashica Mat with the 75mm Lumaxar f3.5 lens.

Def inspiring my next video! Helpful 🔥🔥🔥

Great comparison video, crushed it!

Great comparison! Fun video!

thank you for this comparison. Great video :)

Sissi ❤️

Thanks for the comparison, I imagine the 120 is better at resolving fine detail since the negative is larger. Also, one little thing I noticed. When shooting daylight film under tungsten light like in the shop, you need to use an 80a cooling filter on your lens to get the correct white balance. That’s why the colors in the indoor shots are so overly warm. Also I’m fairly certain your F3 needs a CLA so that all the shutter speeds are accurate.

I'm actually surprised at the 120. That warmth is so lovely. Can it dethrone Fuji? I dunno I call shenanigans. LOL.

Great video!!

Can I just point out I think it's hilarious how small the mic is lmaooo its cute tho and good quality, great video sissi!

Got myself a pack. Can’t wait to shoot it myself 😩

Thanks, this is very well presented! As per your results, I am thinking the 120 requires more light to gather in to expose well compare to the 35 small size film surface?? Usual in digital photography we get opposit results to your test done here.

I think I just found my new favorite RU-vid channel 👀

You should check the light meters on your cameras. For a start compare the values to some other camera, possibly even digital one. Or use external light meter with same settings applied to both cameras. Now, not even that is the guarantee for proper exposure with such old cameras...

Seems like 120 gold could have been aimed at a more experienced market who can get their exposures right, because when you do its miles better than the 35 version, but the 35 is more forgiving of over or under exposures “mistakes” that someone new to photography might make. That being said! Id happily shoot gold 35 at 400 or even 800….. but the 120 at 800 looks horrible lol Great vid, thanks for sharing!

We’re they scanned on the same scanner? Because sich a difference in look would be easiest explained by them having been scanned on two different scanning systems.

HI, I´ve been using Kodak Gold in 35mm for years and I usually overexpose 1 stop. Seems I would not tend to do this in 120mm. Very interesting test.

How much of the difference is calibration of the camera? I know in my Nikon F3 if I use an LR44 verses an SR44 battery I can get a slightly different exposure because the batteries have slightly different voltages.

The nikkor 50mm f1.2 has a cool look to it, so the difference does make sense. The Pentax lens is warmer, I have both lenses and I have seen a difference in them

I'm pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that kodak did reformulate the gold emulsion for 120, instead of just recutting the same film from 35mm, which is really interesting! but also makes sense. it's visible here I think, but, for example, how 120 reallyyy doesn't like to be underexposed is probably because kodak knows that 120 is almost exclusively going to be used by professionals and thus there's probably some trade-off by formulating it this way to achieve better results in some other characteristic of the stock, compared to the 35mm equivalent which is ofc a consumer film which kodak knows will be used by amateurs (it is the cheapest color film, at least where I live, anyways) who will most definitely underexpose plenty. I also noticed 120 is way more saturated and has more contrast and 35mm has a much more neutral look. however, I do also find that even kodak portra doesn't like underexposure all that much in 120 as it can handle it in 35mm, in my experience. the difference in film stocks is so so cool to me. loved the video! keep it up!

I love shooting gold on 35mm now I just need to save up for a 120 camera

What would be interesting is doing a comparison of a expired roll of gold 120 from a decade or two ago to the gold 120 now. I thought this was a great video.

Nice review! Anw, can anyone recommend me some film as my first roll? I'm shooting on a toy film cam

The issuance of Gold 200 in 35mm and 120 roll formats has provided a unique opportunity, but it is not to compare film, as the film in each format is exactly the same. For this video, and the several dozen of the same sort which have preceded it, What is shown is the technical incompetence and willingness to post trash videos by "creators". What we learn is that this creator either doesn't have the knowledge to make such comparisons in a meaningful way, or she doesn't give a crap. So, why do the same subjects and exposures yield images which are at least 2 stops apart in apparent exposure between 35mm and 120? The cameras and lenses were not calibrated before the test. The Pentax 67 uses a highly accurate, electronically controlled shutter. The Nikon F3 shutter is similar, but one is clearly "off". The lenses: The Pentax 105mm was shot wide open. Lenses are allowed in the industry a measure of "fibbing" on maximum aperture. Most are less fast than rated, often by as much as a 1/4 stop. The Nikon lens was shot below its max, so is likely to be more accurate. However, there could be issues of slow aperture actuation or stop setting adjustment to throw off the Nikon exposure. The difference in color and saturation between the lenses was interesting. Neither lens represents the peak of technical performance compared to others in its line-up, but that's clearly a lens issue, not one of film. There are other possible issue to difference the film results. These are scanned image, so may have been rendered differently by that process. Also, they were probably developed separately, which should not make a difference, but often will. So, what is the objective lesson of this video? It is that the creator probably doesn't keep her cameras serviced, and she does't know any better. What do we learn about Gold 200 in either format? Nothing at all. In fairness to this creator, nearly all of her fellow "Gold 200 comparison" creators don't do any better, just a bunch of B-Roll and snapshots.