Kodak Gold 100/200

[hjoseph7]

<p>Out of all the films that I thought would disapear Kodak Gold was one of them. Kodak Gold has been in production since I can remember(meaning a very long time !). They use to sell rolls of 36 exp and 24 exp at the corner drugstore, but I haven't seen many on any shelves lately.<br>

<br />This film was often shunned as a consumer brand when more fancy color professional films such as Kodak Portra came out, but if I remember corectly this was a great print film. Very sharp and the colors were nicely saturated and very bright, but not to the point of looking garish.<br>

<br />On my P/T weekend job we used Kodak Gold 100 for all of our work. My supervisor use to go around and hand out a brick(20 roll packs) to every photographer. Later we switched to Kodak Gold 200 because it was a little cheaper.<br>

<br />With that said, B&H still sells Kodak Gold 100 and you can get a roll of 36 exp for less than $5 ! I picked up about 5 rolls and can wait to try them out. The thing about this film is that it doesn't have to be refrigerated. It can sit on the shelf for ever or until the experiation date, but regardless I allways throw my film in the refrigerator.<br>

<br />Does anybody know why this film has not gone the way of the DODO bird ?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Like all things if people still buy enough for the company to make money then it will be made. This film has been updated and improved more times than I can remember.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Kodak Gold 200 in 4-packs is at almost every corner drug store in my area. Fuji 800 in 4-packs is at a lot of them. All in 24 exp. rolls. Prices vary from list to heavily discounted... with no apparent rhyme or reason.</p>

<p>Sometimes I see 400, but never 100.</p>

<p>For portraits I swear by Portra, but for landscapes and virtually all other general-purpose shooting I like Kodak Gold.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Brian: Why do you like Gold over Portra. I just started using film again (120 medium format) and I was wondering which would be the best film to use for landscapes.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Gold is not made in 120. Porta was an extension and improvement on Gold and Royal.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

Allan, As Larry said. I use Portra in 120. Don't like Ektar too much.

 

For 35mm like Gold for affordability. Gives good results.

 

I have different expectations for portraits and prefer Portra 160 NC. Hope new 160 will make me happy!

[psul_aul]

<p>I like Gold 200. Its cheap enough ... Target was selling 3 packs for $6... <br>

Prints look nice processed on the Noritsu machine at my Costco ... </p>

[nicholas_rapak]

<p>Gold 100 is discontinued in the US. It had the lowest sales volume by far in the consumer CN segment. It is still being made for sale in more equatorial countries, which is where B&H is probably sourcing it from. Gold 200 is still being distributed, but it is nowhere near the Gold 200 of 20 years ago. It has been improved 4-5 times, but whereas we photographers go nuts over an improvement, the consumers don't care at all. </p>

[plasma181]

<p>Kodak used to sell a consumer film they called "Royal Gold". That was some GOOD stuff. The last time I saw it was on a trip to the Caribbean.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Royal Gold was my favorite film for the Caribbean. It may have been a bit contrasty but it had deep saturated colors. I think it may have undergone a name change but i forget what. I switched to Fuji Reala around that time, I was getting tired of the Kodak name changes.<P>

<center>

<img src="http://jdainis.com/kodk_rg.jpg"><br>

<B>Kodak Royal Gold</B></center>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>Kodak Gold 200 in 4-packs is at almost every corner drug store in my area</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I found a 4-pack at Walgreens a few weeks ago on sale for $8.99 and bought it. Nice film, excellent quality. I remember shooting some Gold 800 in 1998 while on a vacation (and mostly shooting Fuji NPS 160) and I was impressed with it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kodak used to sell a consumer film they called "Royal Gold"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And before it was called Royal Gold, it was called Ektar, and they had Ektar 25 and Ektar 125. I shot some Ektar 25 and there was absolutely no grain at all, it was an amazing film. I made some color prints from it and sure enough, I could not see any grain through my loupe. I shot much more of the Ektar 125 and it was also gorgeous. This was in the late 1980s.</p>

[larrydressler]

Don't forget the Ektar 1000 that evolved into Porta 800

[User_276104]

<p>Although I've been mostly a slide film shooter since my 1997 entry into 35mm SLR photography, I did shoot a couple rolls of Kodak Gold 100. Back then I checked off "Kodak Processing" on the envelope at the drugstore and the prints I received were outstanding for US $6.99/36 exp.</p>

<p>I have a freezer full of slide film and a big stack of Fuji mailers to go through, but given the low price of Kodak Gold 100 at B&H (currently US $2.19/24 exp.) I'm tempted to find a good source for C-41 prints where I live (Las Vegas).</p>

<p> </p>

[silverscape]

I love Kodak Gold 200. It's my trusty fallback film for a lot of different reasons. For one thing, you can get it anywhere. I can can get it from almost any corner drug store, and I've even seen it in a few gas stations. It's also really cheap.

 

But that doesn't mean that it's just a cheap, bland consumer film. FAR from it. It definitely has its own unique look and characteristics. It's one of the most forgiving films I've ever used. So sometimes when I just want to go out and have a more casual day taking photos without having to worry too much about exposure, I'll take a roll of Kodak Gold 200. I'll load it in my Argus C3 and just go out and have fun. The colors are a bit more subdued than other films (like Ektar 100), but it has a really nice "warm" look to it. I especially like the way it captures people and earth tones in landscapes. During the late spring and summer, I'll often specifically shoot with Gold film because it really fits with the southern California landscape. It can capture fall colors nice too though.

 

I don't use Gold just because it's cheap and widely available...I often use it because it gives me the look I want. I took this picture a couple of years ago, but maybe you can see what I mean about how Kodak Gold 200 has a nice "warm" look to it:

 

[carter_martin]

<p>What Chris said. Very good every day print film and over all I have had pretty good experiences with Gold 200.</p>

<p>Taken at Road Atlanta.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/1873085</p>

<p> </p>

[nick_h5]

<p>I remember back in the late 90's most supermarkets and general stores in the UK carried Kodak Gold 100,200,Ultra 400 and another one called Kodak Zoom?. I used Ultra for years in a point and shoot camera for snapshots etc.</p>

[trevor_ware]

<p>Gold 100 in 36 exposure is gone from B&H, the last source I could find. Sorry I didn't order more when it was still in stock last month. Still available in 24 if you want to be cheated out of 1/3 roll of film. What a bummer, I'd had pretty good luck with it.</p>

<p>So the consensus is 200 is alright? Grain?</p>

[don_essedi]

I prefer Fujicolor 200 -- if it is still around, to Gold 200. I like Gold 100-7, 24 or 36 doesn't matter.