p.1 #2 · Has anyone here used the new 120mm Kodak Gold 200?
It has some grain. Not objectionable if you used film before digital, but it is there. I’ve alsp used Ektar 100 which is much better than Gold 200 grain wise.
Haven’t used any Portra because I haven’t liked the muted colors.
p.1 #5 · Has anyone here used the new 120mm Kodak Gold 200?
I like Gold 200 in 120. It's my go-to for color negative in 120. Late afternoon and golden hour shots pop gorgeously on this film. It's also affordable, if film could be described as affordable...
Compared to Portra 400, Gold 200 grain is larger, color has a warm (gold) bias, and to my eye does not retain as much shadow detail. Regarding saturation, I know Portra 400 saturation changes with under/over exposure. I don't know how Gold responds to this treatment, because I always shot Gold at box. I've never pushed/pulled it either.
I don't know if that helps, but have fun! Shoot your first roll at box and meter the way you always do, and see what comes out. If it comes out with something undesirable, I'd bet it can be easily fixed during scanning.
p.1 #6 · Has anyone here used the new 120mm Kodak Gold 200?
From the late 1990' until 2005 I owned a couple of Horseman's with the 6X9 back and a Hasselblad 503CX. It was a transition period for Kodak. The older Vericolor Professional films (VP-S and VP-L) were being replaced by the newer Portra films that were available as Portra NC (Natural Color) and VC (Vivid Color). Portrait NC 160 was close to VP-S, good skin tones but muted colors. In 2011, Kodak standardized Portra and discontinued the NC and VC lines.
I just recently returned to using 120 again and haven't tried any color films. When I do. it'll be Gold 200.
