Gold 100 and 200 In 120 Format

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by 25asa, Oct 23, 2021.

  1. 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?
     
  2. 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?
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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:
    Lab-Guides.jpg

    In regard to the initial plea for a revival of Kodak color negative film, well, I was never a big fan of them, anyhow.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. m42dave

    m42dave Dave E.

    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2021
    ] likes this.
  11. 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.
     

Share This Page