Kodak: New Gold 100 vs. Old Gold 100

[arjun_mehra]

Does anyone have any opinions regarding Kodak's recently updated formula for

Gold 100? It's gone from "GA-6" to "GA-7," and I hear that sharpness and

contrast, both, have taken notable blows in the upgrade (color saturation has

supposedly improved). Unfortunately, I don't have any GA-6 with which to run a

few comparison tests. Speaking of which, does anyone know where formula

information can be found? I'd like to know what I'm picking up before heading

over to the cashier, but packaging doesn't seem to indicate which "version" of

the film I'm about to purchase. Thanks.

 

(Of course, this thread is more for discussion and fun than to rant about how

film is being defeated by digital, so I hope the tone can stay reasonably

light -- :-D.)

[john_shriver]

Expiration date is probably the only hint on the box. Call Kodak's customer service, they can probably tell you what the earliest expiration date for GA-7 is.

[anthony johns]

I believe scott pickering has done a comparison on these.

[arjun_mehra]

Scott's done a marvellous job; thanks, guys. I think I like GA-6 ("old Gold") a bit more than the re-formulation, but the upgrade's not exactly bad, either. In my opinion, GA-7, in its colors, somewhat resembles Kodak's Portra 160VC film, though the latter has considerably finer grain (of course, Gold's much cheaper). GA-6 was punchier and sharper than the new stuff, and I suppose I'll miss its existence, though I can find all I loved about it, and much more (in terms of sharpness, grain, and color rendition), in Kodak's Ultra Color 100. Thanks again.

[25asa]

I got to this thread late. Yes you've summed up what I noticed. We have boxes of the new stuff at where I work. It says "Improved" in a banner on the front of the box. That's how you can tell its the new stuff. Same with Gold 200. By the way it might benefit to read my earlier post on both the old and new Gold 100, then the listing Les mentioned.

 

I ended up buying the last boxes of GA-6 we had after doing these tests. GA-6 was a film unlike any other. It's sharpness set it apart from current films made today. That's why I'm keeping stock. Again the color is better with the new version, but with 160VC out which has finer grain- I see no real reason to shoot the new Gold 100 today. That's not to say I wouldn't use it, it just doesn't do anything better then other current films. GA-6 was better for detail which came from being sharper. It's colors were muddier, but not so bad as to not use it. I got great skin tones and people shots with GA-6. And it's colors seemed to pop more.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Keyu

 

Above is the original thread I did.

[25asa]

Here's the new box look.

[25asa]

Oh to add 100UC us not as sharp as GA-6 was.

 

Here is some earlier threads I've done on previous versions of Gold 100.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009Mg6

 

And a VR-G/ Gold 100 timetable:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ChKt

 

Basically VR-G 100 was the first version of Gold 100. They renamed it to Gold 100 in version 2 and later. If you don't believe me check the neg strip numbers on VR-G 100 and Gold 100 GA-2. They both have the same neg number which was 5095.

 

Then in around 1992 it went to Gold 100-3, 1994 Gold 100-4, 1996 Gold 100-5. More searching and I have a roll of version 6 in 1999, so it seems they went from 5 to 6 between 96-99. If anyone is interested in ordering from Kodak Gold 100/ Bright Sun 100, the catalog number we used to place an order (which is now confirmed and in stock) is Cat #: 603-3922.

[arjun_mehra]

Thanks, Scott, and, again, you've done a great job with the comparisons. I liked GA-6 quite a lot, but, noting my newfound love for Ultra Color 100 -- and that I don't really fawn over 160VC (it's very good, but nothing spectacular) -- I think GA-7 will make its place in my heart, as well -- :-D.

[25asa]

Actually I quite like 160VC film, so much so I see no need to use Gold 100 anymore. I'll use my old rolls of GA-6 for special shoots, but for most shots 160VC would be my main choice. I found contrast on 100UC to be high which is not something I desire for many pics. 160VC is tamer in that respect.

[25asa]

Its a shame Gold 100 can't come back. Anyone do a comparison to see how close Kodak ProImage 100 is compared to Gold 100, probably version 6?

[Niels - NHSN]

2 hours ago, 25asa said:

Its a shame Gold 100 can't come back. Anyone do a comparison to see how close Kodak ProImage 100 is compared to Gold 100, probably version 6?

Can't do a comparison, but I do find Pro Image 100 balances fairly well with the current Gold 200 when displayed next to each other, although both are a little too warm for my taste. Purely speculations on my part; but Pro Image may well be a close relative to Gold 100 - possibly just modified to keep better un-refrigerated in the asian heat and supposedly a slightly modified to render asian skintones more natural.

I am glad rumours has it that Fuji has begun manufacturing C200 and Superia 400 again and hopefully stop selling relabelled Kodak stock for good. We can hope that includes Fujicolor 100 which is nicer than Pro Image. I see Japanese made Fujicolor 100 selling online in Japan, but I don't know for certain if it is new stock.

 

[c_watson1]

At C$17-18 for a 36exp roll of Fuji, it seems demand isn't exactly rampant where it's stocked in Toronto.

[chuck909]

Old Gold 100?   Isn't that a cigarette?

[25asa]

My understanding is ProImage 100 isn't as saturated as Gold 100 version 6 was. Or as sharp either. Its kind of an inbetween film. Gold 200 probably has more saturation than ProImage 100.