Gold 100 and 200 In 120 Format

Im aware Kodak made both Gold 100 and 200 in 120 format up until the late 90s. I assume both were discontinued around the same time. I really wish Kodak would bring back Gold 100 in both 35mm and 120, but since that will probably never happen, it would be nice if they offered Gold 200 in 120. That would sell to Millenials wanting a cheap film option in 120 to shoot on their medium format gear. And they all seem to like the look of Gold 200, so I think Kodak should consider it again. I'd buy it in 120. More grain and bolder colors. Gold 200 has a different color balance then Ektar 100, and more obvious grain. Plus there really isn't a cheap $5 to 6 dollar a roll option at the moment. If you want 120, you pretty much have to shoot the Pro films which are twice the dollar amount. I dont know why Kodak won't slit a small batch off the master roll in 120? They certainly sell enough of this in 35mm.

 

That said, Gold 100 was one of my favorite color films until they discontinued it. I grabbed a roll out of the freezer in 120, and it is dated 06/94. Being over 25 years old, and no idea how it was kept before I purchased it a few years back, I'd like to shoot some of this to see what I end up with. Im expecting color shifts, massive grain, loss of speed, and some fogging. Im wondering if I should rate this at 25 ISO to be safe? Im shooting it in my Fuji GW690, so Im only wasting 8 shots if it doesn't turn out. Any recommendations?

35mm and 120 usually have a different base, so they can't come off the same master roll.

 

Film pricing is sometimes strange, so I am not so sure that it would be cheaper than the pro films.

 

Years ago, 40 or 50 years, 120 film was not so rare for non-pro use, with cameras like Diana

and Holga, before they got popular for their artistic use.

 

So Fuji doesn't make any of their films like that, either?

No Fuji is pretty much out of the C41 game when it comes to 120, and their pricing wasn't cheaper then Kodak. Yeah I forgot about the different film base. I still wonder if it would be doable though? If they are able to get Gold 200 and ProImage 100 for less money in 35mm, I'd wonder if they could also do that for 120? Even still Gold 200 looks different then their other Pro films, so I think it would sell and have a place in the lineup. Millenials have been wanting a cheap option for 120.

For a store near me, black and white, and most C-41 film, the 120 price is a little less, or equal, to the 135-36 price.

 

It seems that in 120, Portra 800 is more than the 35mm version.

 

In slide film, some of the 120 are a lot less than the 135-36 form,

especially Provia 100F and Velvia 50.

 

But yes, I don't know at all how they decide which ones to make, or what price to give them.

When Gold 200 and Pro Image 100 are basically going for $6 a roll in 35mm, and then the Pro films for $12, I can see why penny pinching Millenials want to save a dollar for their hobby. You get soaked on developing and scanning costs anyway.

Is it true Lomography Color Negative Film (in 35mm and 120) is a special roll of Kodak Gold made for Lomo? Some claim this Lomo film is indeed Kodak Gold (whether the 100 is Gold 100 or 200 I don't know). The saturation of colors suggests it might be, though the colors seems a little over the top. Not sure if thats because of the scans done or not. Anyone know exactly what this Lomo 100 film actually is? I purchased 6 rolls in 120 just to see if this is indeed Gold or not.

The local photographic education facilities are not doing well, we've lost all the camera stores and even some of the big box stores that sold some photographic gear and film. There is no local processing of any kind -- those that still take film in, all send it out.

 

I loved some films and my old film cameras, but it's simply so haaard to shoot film anymore.

 

They are even starting to rename the "analogous" methods in graphics programs to names that no longer ape the names of things we used to do in a film darkroom.

 

Much as it always sounded like it could be fun, our darkrooms had too many people wandering around for anything really interesting to "develop".

 

Once de rigueur:

 

In regard to the initial plea for a revival of Kodak color negative film, well, I was never a big fan of them, anyhow.

Beggars can't be choosers. Use what Kodak graciously makes for us now, Ektachrome E100 and whatever negative films they still make. If we don't buy and use those, we might lose them too.

There are still two C-41 and E-6 labs in Seattle, and a big camera store.

 

The darkroom section of the camera store does keep getting smaller, but so far is still there.

 

The lab I used last year told me that business was up last year.

 

This is a photography school in Seattle, which seems to be still open.

I suspect last year was hard on them, as it was for many schools.

In my city (pop. 550,000) there is still a photo lab, a camera store, and a camera repair shop. The repair shop also rents and sells used equipment.

 

Film selection is very limited in discount stores, but I buy mine online anyways. Prices have gone up some, but I use Amazon or eBay points or gift cards to buy film, so it's not a big deal.

 

Stores like Walmart and Walgreens haven't done in-house film processing for some time, though I think they still send film out. There are still plenty of mail-order film labs. Dwayne's Photo is actually expanding and has recently hired nearly 50 new employees:

 

Parsons business expanding after being reopened by late owner’s family | KSNF/KODE - FourStatesHomepage.com

Edited October 25, 2021 by m42dave

Im expecting color shifts, massive grain, loss of speed, and some fogging. Im wondering if I should rate this at 25 ISO to be safe? Im shooting it in my Fuji GW690, so Im only wasting 8 shots if it doesn't turn out. Any recommendations?

Rate it normally.

There'll likely be some grain increase and a colour shift that'll probably be easily correctable in scanning or printing.

The most obvious effect will be an increase in fog level.

None of those changes will be offset or reversed by overexposing by two stops.

 

If you feel happier 'playing it safe' then rate it at 80 or 50 ISO, but I suspect all that that'll get you is overexposed, as well as foggy and grainy negatives.

 

However, Ektar 100 and Portra 160 are still both available in 120. IMO they're both better films than Gold 100 ever was. As for Gold 200 - it had terrible grain for its rated speed and you might as well shoot Portra 400 and benefit from the extra stop in speed.

 

Any difference in contrast, saturation or colour rendering is totally irrelevant anyway, if you're only going to scan the film and not make wet prints.

35mm and 120 usually have a different base, so they can't come off the same master roll.

 

Film pricing is sometimes strange, so I am not so sure that it would be cheaper than the pro films.

 

Years ago, 40 or 50 years, 120 film was not so rare for non-pro use, with cameras like Diana

and Holga, before they got popular for their artistic use.

 

So Fuji doesn't make any of their films like that, either?

 

In most discussions on film production, ie Ilford and a few Kodak,, they show one master roll being split into sheet film, then roll film, then 135 theninto 110

Well today Kodak announced Gold 200 in 120 format. Seems like our voices were heard this time. Now if they'd only reintroduce Plus X and Panatomic X, I'd be over the moon. I plan on getting some rolls of the Gold 200 when its released. Be warned- Most places are not giving the 25 percent discount on the 5 pak, as Kodak stated they should. So there is some gouging happening on the market at the moment.

(snip)

 

Be warned- Most places are not giving the 25 percent discount on the 5 pak, as Kodak stated they should. So there is some gouging happening on the market at the moment.

 

Store near me sells separate rolls from the 5 packs for 1/5 the price, though if you like the box,

they usually also sell them that way.

 

Gold 200 is $45.95 for the 5 pack, and $9.19 for single rolls.

 

That is less than $12.99 for Portra 400.

 

I haven't bought new 120 film for a while, but those prices look higher than I remember.

Unique Photo in the US has the cheapest price I've seen so far for the 5 pak. They have it for $45. But these places should be charging $38 for it, according to Kodak.

places should be charging $38 for it, according to Kodak

 

I didn't see that mentioned. Is there a link?

It is supposed to be 25% less than Portra 160. With Portra at $12.99, that isn't so hard to do.

 

Did they do it by raising the price of Portra, instead of lowering the price of GB120?

I hope they are not selling refurbished batches they had sitting in their cellar collecting dust...

In most discussions on film production, ie Ilford and a few Kodak,, they show one master roll being split into sheet film, then roll film, then 135 theninto 110

Sheet film that I'm familiar with (both Fuji and Kodak) has always been on a heavier base than 35 or 120 so I'm not sure that this is accurate. For that matter, 35 mm has always been on a heavier base than 120 in my experience. Maybe things have changed in recent years (I haven't bought any 4x5 in quite a while).

Tradition is that non-professional films are aged, such that they keep their desired characteristics, within reasonable tolerance, for a longer time.

 

Professional films are not aged, kept cold, and are expected to keep tighter tolerances.

 

As well as I remember, when the E6 films came out, the professional films (with a P in the code) came out earlier for that reason.

In most discussions on film production, ie Ilford and a few Kodak,, they show one master roll being split into sheet film, then roll film, then 135 theninto 110

 

From the Delta 100 data sheet, sheet film is on a 0.180mm polyester base,

35mm is on a 0.125mm acetate base with a neutral tint,

and roll film on a 0.110mm clear acetate base.

 

I didn't look up all the other data sheets, but at least for Delta 100, it doesn't seem that

they come off the same master roll.

 

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/3/product/679/

Edited March 22, 2022 by glen_h

Tradition is that non-professional films are aged, such that they keep their desired characteristics, within reasonable tolerance, for a longer time.

 

Professional films are not aged, kept cold, and are expected to keep tighter tolerances.

 

As well as I remember, when the E6 films came out, the professional films (with a P in the code) came out earlier for that reason.

 

 

See other thread: it's the other way round re ripening and moment the film is sold.

I am pretty sure it is non-professional that are aged, but I don't know more

details about aging and ripeness.

I am pretty sure it is non-professional that are aged, but I don't know more details about aging and ripeness.

 

Actually that's not been true, at least with Kodak, for a very long time, if it ever actually was. I also used to believe this until I was in a position to do sensitometric monitoring of Kodak professional portrait/wedding films. I'll explain one aspect, below.

 

I'm from an outfit that used to go through several miles of these films every day. In my department we screened every new emulsion # that came in. Our warehouse would pull a couple of 100-foot rolls, and we'd run sensi wedges on them before allowing that emulsion to be used in our studios. We also repeated such screening when "unknown status" flm was returned from studios. Typically a studio might have a new manager, who finds 5, or 10, or 20 such rolls in a back room, or whatever. Or someone would take over a company car with 10 or 20 rolls in the trunk, in our traveling operation. The rule was, if you don't know, for certain, that the film is good, then send it back to the home office for screening. We'd pull a couple feet from each roll, and run some sensi wedges.

 

Here's an interesting thing I observed, which was a side effect of our screening program. Since we saw samples of EVERY emulsion number when new, and many of the returned (unused) rolls were still in sealed boxes, meaning that we knew their emulsion numbers, we were able to observe the effect of aging on each of these emulsions. Up until then I "knew" the same things that have been bandied about by pro photographers since "forever," that these films would gradually change during their usable lifespan, etc. In reality, what we found was that they NEVER changed (sensitometrically). However an emulsion looked when it was new, it continued to look the same, even past the expiration date. So this whole thing about gradually shifting throughout the film's lifespan has been a fiction, at least for these pro Kodak films, the low speed portrait/wedding films. Fwiw our field storage was mostly under "office conditions" although we had probably several dozen shooters in a traveling operation, mostly in the western US (including the southwest). So this film likely spent considerable time in car trunks, although noone knew the conditions, for sure.

 

There's more to this than I'm saying, but there's little doubt in my mind that this "holding" of film to pre-age it is a fiction. At least for Kodak color neg.

Actually that's not been true, at least with Kodak, for a very long time, if it ever actually was. I also used to believe this until I was in a position to do sensitometric monitoring of Kodak professional portrait/wedding films. I'll explain one aspect, below.

 

 

(snip)

 

There's more to this than I'm saying, but there's little doubt in my mind that this "holding" of film to pre-age it is a fiction. At least for Kodak color neg.

 

OK, I only claim to know this about E6.

 

It was explained, I suspect in magazines like Popular Photography, that was the reason

that the professional films were available first. (But yes, I never did any sensitometry

of the films that I used.)

 

When I was young, I developed my own black and white film, as that is what I could afford.

 

My dad always used slide film when I was young, and when I got to college, decided that I could

finally afford slide film myself. But also when I was young, my father had the book:

"Anscochrome and Ektachrome Home Processing". (That is, E2 days.)

 

While I was in college, E6 arrived, and also Unicolor E6 processing kits. So I decided to do

my own E6 processing in the student darkroom. I used two kits, for 16 rolls, over about

two years. And I had a subscription to Popular Photography, so followed stories about

film and processing.

 

But also at that time, I believe the box, that professional films must be kept cold,

and should be used quickly and processed.

 

But then about 10 years later, I needed to make some copies of color prints. I asked

at a nearby store, and they told me about VPS, and especially that I didn't need to keep

it cold, even if it takes a few months to use up a roll. After not so long, I decided that

I liked the look of VPS, naturally colored, not over colored. And the price was only a

little more than Kodacolor. I would keep it refrigerated before use, though.

 

So, yes, I don't know about aging for negative films.

 

For black and white films, at least some of them, professional means a surface

designed for retouching. Though I have some rolls of FX120 and FXP120,

Panatomic-X, regular and professional that I don't know are different.

(And I don't believe FXP says to keep it below 50F.)

 

Some I read today seem to say that aging was used in the early days

of Kodachrome.

 

So, E6 was about 45 years ago by now. Maybe it hasn't been done since.

 

But most films now say professional. Why would anyone want to use

an unprofessional film?