I just got my M5 back from Golden Touch(Sherry is really good) and was really itching to try it out and didn't have any "good film" so bought a roll of Kodak Gold 100 from my local Walgreens and popped it off at my lunch break. I shot a bunch of stuff in town particulary harvest/halloween decorations at an outdoor market and alot of fall colors. I didn't expect the result to be that great really just wanted to see how the camera worked. Well when I got the film back I was blown away with the colors! I couldn't beleive my eyes. They were just stunning. My lab guy says he uses gold because it is easier to filter when processing. I've seen his work and it is true it really looks good. I ave always used Portra and I must say the gold is nicer. I am confused. Is this due to the Leica glass or what? I never hear anyone recomend Kodak Gold but has anyone experienced this? Thanks to all who respond to this and past posts as I have been able to gleen a wealth of info and am really grateful.

-- Michael Pry (vila@techheadnet.com), November 14, 2001

Answers

Michael,

Kodak Gold is quite a saturated film in contrast to Portra. That is the reason why colors came out that way. You get similar effects on slide film when you are used to Provia and try a Velvia - the difference is really astonishing.

Portra is intended to be used for portraits and other kind of work where colors have to be more equalized while Gold is better for color work. Try to have a look at the different pictures at www.photo.net where film is listed for each photo submitted and you see that both films have reasons for being used. If you were shooting portraits with Gold you'd see that skin tones would become more reddish, this is where Portra shines.

I use a variety of films and take the film best suited for the pictures I intend to shoot - playing around with different color emulsions is really worth a try (try shooting different objects under the same lightning / exposure, ideally with 2 bodys with the same lens at the same time). You'd be astonished how different the pictures come out.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), November 14, 2001.

Kodak Gold is very good and I'm shooting the Max 800 in my Leicaflex right now, so basically Gold is exceptional in detail rendering and has a high color saturation. Rather nice although I guess that I'm a sucker for the Tri-X emulsion instead :)

Alfie

-- Albert Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 14, 2001.

Kodak Gold is a saturated film but doesn't have particularly tight grain. If you blow those negs up to 11x14 you'll see it. I prefer the Portra *VC* in general. I used to use Royal Gold 100 (I read that it is the same as Supra 100, but I haven't used it)but switched to Portra VC 160. I find that it enlarges nearly as well as Royal Gold but has better tonal gradation and a pleasing color palette. The Portra *NC* film is lower contrast and less saturated.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 14, 2001.

I agree with the others. The Gold films have a much more saturated palette and are aimed at general scenes, where higher contrast, punchy colors are required. Portra is lower contrast with lower saturation and much nicer for any kind of portraits (hence the name). Supra films are the kind of pro equivalent of the Gold films (but they are not the same). Royal Gold I am told is even more saturated.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 14, 2001.

I've been a big fan of Kodak Gold 100 for general C41 use. It's saturated (but not too much so), very consistent from roll to roll (& across continents), ubiquitous, & cheap.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), November 14, 2001.

I have shot Fujicolor for years (when I shoot color negative at all, which is rare), mostly out of some sort of brand loyalty. Two years ago, my wife, noticing that she couldn't get the flower closeup she wanted with her Olympus Stylus, picked up my Nikon 8008. When the film came back, she informed me that my camera wasn't very good because the color wasn't as nice as she gets with hers. Well, she shoots Kodak Gold 200. Looking over her 4x6's, I saw more saturation, punchier color, than I was used to. Some months later I shot a roll of their Max 800 stuff at a party. I thought the grain looked very acceptable, at least as far as you can tell these things in a 4x6. I think that at least for non-portrait applications, such as general travel, landscapes, etc. I'll try more Gold in the future.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 14, 2001.

I reckon many consumer films are first rate and often under-rated. The big difference is in processing labs.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), November 14, 2001.

...And I reckon many "consumer" films are identical to the "pro" emulsions, as it would cost too much for the companies to make all of these different films. They simply package and market them differently, and price them according to willingness to pay, which is higher among pros than among amateurs. The process is called "price discrimination," and it's pretty common in some markets. The real quality differences, with print films at least, come about through processing.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), November 15, 2001.