Having watched most of the videos on the playlist, I was already expecting a great video. Yet seeing 🇺🇦 on sample photos was an extra heartwarming touch. Thank you for an amazing review, David, and greetings from Kyiv!
excellent and very helpful review. it does not only reflect my experience with the gold200 but helps me to understand my mixed feelings about it much better. and when to use it. thank you.
Nice video, David! My go to negative film is Ektar 100, I think it gives overall better and more predictable results than Gold. If I could find Gold cheaply, I would still buy it as a budget alternative. However, I shoot more positive film, and hence I choose Velvia for saturated colors, that said, E100 is great under all conditions, far away from the old blueish Ektachrome 64 that I previously tried to avoid.
The best thing about 200 Gold is its price. No matter how good a colour film is, Portra 400 for example, it is of no use when it is so expensive that a photographer could not buy ten rolls of it to learn the film. I think with Gold 200, learning the film is more of a possibility.
Great Review. I started shooting with Gold 200 based on online hype. Was dissatisfied immediately by the color cast and poor shadow detail and washed out highlights. Like you rightly said, it is a furniture stock and the color cast always reminds me of wood varnish. Now I moved to Ultramax. Though you dislike Ultramax 400, IMO it is the best consumer grade Kodak stock in terms of versatility, as it works very well for any lighting situation, any subject. I am just an amateur who got into film photography and found ultramax works great on my Konica mg point and shoot as well as my Pentax MX with sharp SMC lenses. Maybe Ultramax is not for Pros, but for everyday color photography, I think it serves the purpose
I actually see why people like UltraMax, and definitely wouldn't fault anyone for it. I can definitely see why the color profile of UltraMax is more appealing than other films to a lot of people.
Great write-up on the Gold 200. I was suprised to hear you did not favor Ultramax 400. You might change your opinion if you tried Ultramax with bleach bypass develoment. Kodak Gold is way overpriced and overhyped for what it is, or what it can do. If I were to choose, I'd take Ektar over Gold every time. Add a cooling 82B filter to the mix and you have an amazing combo. Thanks for the vid!
Yeah, UltraMax is pretty grainy and I'm not a huge fan of the colors. I may be spoiled, though, from shooting so many great films like E100, Ektar, and Velvia.
This makes makes sense after comparing some strong reds on some recently shot Gold, Cinestill 400D, and Portra 400. I really like it in 120 and it helps me cope with not being very happy with Portra 160 or 400, or completely frustrated with Lomography's misaligned backing paper. If I need something that doesn't have a more notable color cast and more color ... separation? I'll reach for Ektachrome, Ektar, or now maybe 400D. But for a ton of the general portrait work I do, I love Gold's boost in saturation and hint of character vs. Portra 160 and 400. Another good review!
I've enjoyed Gold 200 since it was first introduced in the 80's. Back then there was also a 100 speed stock labelled GA, this was GB, and what is now UltraMax was GC. To me, GB gave me *almost* the speed of GC and *almost* the quality of *GA*, so it was a winner. This has been my go-to stock for decades, knowing full-well that improvements have been made along the way in all stocks. Nowadays however, there is very little savings ($5/roll of 36 exposures with no savings in processing) with GB so I'm considering switching to Portra 400 as my standard fare; it has less grain and more speed. By the way, as with all my negative film, I routinely set my light meter to give ⅔ stop overexposure.
Excellent video as always. I have had a very similar thought on this film for a very long time but I always seem to be in the minority on this. It's a good film & I'm glad it's here in 120 but it doesn't do anything better than any other stock. Barring price or any other logistical reason, I can't think of a reason I'd shoot this over Ektar or Portra 160. It's good, just not the be all/end all like some people say it is. I do vastly prefer this over ColorPlus, ColorPlus just doesn't have the good tonality that Gold has and UltraMax (as you said) is really not super well suited to a lot of different situations...which kind of puts gold in this weird in between. Not a professional film but a cut above the ultra entry level stuff. Credit where it's due, some of my favorite photos I have ever taken have been on Gold
Gold seems to me to kind of want to be a steppingstone from consumer-grade to pro-grade stocks, and it's okay at that. I like it as an entry for film users into 120, a better-than-consumer-grade option for first-time or learning medium-format users.
@@DavidHancock That's the best way to put it. Everything kind of shifts down a step when going from 35mm to 120. It's not a bad film if its what you have but more often than not, there is going to be a lot of other stocks I'd rather be shooting unless the gold look is what I want
Too bad you can't comment pictures because I have been pushing gold in 120 to 400 and it works EXCELLENT. Phenomenal popping colors. Doesn't seem to be grainy at all to me either, which I suppose is odd.
RU-vid used to allow links outside of the platform in comments, but stopped doing that just less than a year ago. It's immensely frustrating to me because I used to get occasional posts from people with photos they'd taken with films or cameras and it was great to give others a platform to share.
I was thinking of trying this film, thank you for the video. I would like to run some thru my Olympus Flex. Very interesting on the mahogany furniture! Cheers!
Thanks so much for this video, David! I was wondering about using Gold 200 on a point-and-shoot as I have a couple of them lying around. How bad of an idea do you think it is? Cheers! And thanks so much for the series, it's amazing!
Thank you! It would likely depend on the camera. If it shoots 200 ISO film at 100 or 200, then it will be a-okay. But if it shoots 200 ISO film at 400, then the images will suffer. The manual ought to indicate the way that the camera handles ISO.
Gold is a hit and miss film. The yellow tone can look great for golden hour and portraits. The colours are really nice. But for some shots it doesn’t work and photos can have too much grain and too much contrast. If I was depending on shots to look great, I would not buy this film. The price rise will make it far too expensive for what it is too.
Contrast is very hard to reign in with this and I agree that the grain is a bit much in some cases. Shooting it in medium format helps with that, but it's not a magic panacea for the grain.
Hi David, thanks again for wonderful job reviewing film stock. Can I ask what lens was used on the 1:54 time moment shot of pickup caravan with SUV standing in the parking? It has this strange quality to make picture look like artificial items in it, like Lego items on painting. I see this effect in some picture and curious where it is coming from.
Pentax made one of those about 20 years ago. Also: www.rustoleum.com/product-catalog/consumer-brands/specialty/metallic-spray/ Use it on your lenses to make every photo warm-toned and blurry. It's the new IG trend.
It's the film I used the most for years back in the day. It's okay, a mid-tort film with strong greens. I'm using it again for the review on it. I probably like it more than UltraMax, less than Gold.
Hello David! Do you have any good comparisson or suggestion on how Portra 400 compares zu Portra 800 @EI1600? I tried to find something on that topic, but information is pretty limited
I do not, unfortunately. I tend to shoot color films at the box speed to save on the hassle of tracking which were pushed and pulled when I develop them.
Yes, and it wasn't until the (late) seventies that Asian skin tones started being accounted for and either late eighties or early nineties for very-dark skin tones.
