Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Kodak GOLD 100
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:38 pm    Post subject: Kodak GOLD 100 Reply with quote

How good ? I didn't use it before.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not a fan of this film. I don't like the colours.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it too saturated ?


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is quite saturated, generally 1 hour labs print it too vibrant. But the negs scan ok with a little reduction in contrast setting.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah I think that is fine to me, I like more saturated colors than Orio. Thanks!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it's too warm cast for me, I prefer Fuji's


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To me it looks "sticky" like to much honey Surprised


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

F16SUNSHINE wrote:
To me it looks "sticky" like to much honey Surprised

Yes...has kind of a brown-ish/yellow cast. Also seems to be noisy.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ryan s wrote:
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
To me it looks "sticky" like to much honey Surprised

Yes...has kind of a brown-ish/yellow cast. Also seems to be noisy.


Hey this is not good at all Sad


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It could only have that colour cast if it was badly printed or scanned. I've been using Gold since it launched and only ever seen that on cheap printing.

And film doesn't have noise, it has grain Wink


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ektar vs Gold http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/57486-ektar-100-vs-gold-100-a.html

Look at the pier/Ferris wheel pics...those determined it for me...


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ryan ! I like Gold!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How can you judge from that series, most pictures have been grossly photoshopped (see the skies).


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even better lol! I didn't recognize it.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't know if it's still available anywhere, but I always liked Kodak' s UltraColor


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Screamin Scott wrote:
Don't know if it's still available anywhere, but I always liked Kodak' s UltraColor


I'd forgotten that one, it was a great film. In the UK it's still available as UltraMax 400.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is UltraMax in the US as well at that speed, I like a lot


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the series on the Pentax forum I'd say there isn't much in it. I think it comes down to how the lab process and preference.

I've used Gold 200 & 400 and they seem really bright to me, more like the Ektar shots.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
How can you judge from that series, most pictures have been grossly photoshopped (see the skies).

Those are the only images I have "available" since I never use Gold and have yet to use Ektar. Of course...it's subjective and that's why film is fun (you can use anything!)

From the results I've seen up close from the same dev/scanner/printer, I personally prefer Fuji colors. I'm not trying to sound like an "expert" but from the thousands of still-warm prints, straight out of the printer I've handled, that's the conclusion I've come to Smile

My opinion is offered free of charge, so treat it as such Laughing

EDIT: Re-read the thread on PentaxForums...Javier posted more pics...they were untouched by him, just straight from the lab (badly done though)...


Last edited by ryan s on Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:19 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I want to test GOLD100 just for fun this weekend, so i promise few shot next week in gallery (if there will not be some time problems). GOLD100 costs in czechia right now ~3,2USD (btw, Fujicolor100 cost only ~1,3USD!).


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've used Gold many times in the past. It's a fine film, I truly dont see any issues with it.

The issue tend to stem from bad processing not the film


Kodak Gold 100 or 400, I didnt mark the speed.
A few street shots in the city.





Last edited by spiralcity on Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:21 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob van Sikorski wrote:
I want to test GOLD100 just for fun this weekend, so i promise few shot next week in gallery (if there will not be some time problems). GOLD100 costs in czechia right now ~3,2USD (btw, Fujicolor100 cost only ~1,3USD!).


I think price shows quality difference , cheap Fujicolor 100 not a good film at all.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Kodak Gold 100 when I can find it. I had good luck with even expired stuff off ebay.

@Spiralcity: cool shots!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are some shots with expired Gold 100:









I should look for this film again. Gives great colors.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes ! So excellent Bill!