Gold vs Portra
p.1 #1Gold vs Portra
Fun comparison. Personally I don’t think the exposures look the same. It looks like most of the time the Portra received more light.
https://youtu.be/8kRvqlkSUps
https://youtu.be/8kRvqlkSUps
Apr 23, 2026 at 05:24 PM
p.1 #2Gold vs Portra
Yeah a couple of the Gold frames look obviously underexposed, maybe his compensation was off?
Cool processor
Cool processor
Apr 24, 2026 at 12:02 AM
p.1 #3Gold vs Portra
Thanks for posting.
The trouble with these comparisons is everyone has a different work flow and will get slightly different results. Film is also really an intermediate step, with some post processing involved.
I think what is universally true is Gold tends to be warmer, slightly more saturated and more grainy, with the grain perhaps not as nice as portra. In the end, it's really just a case of picking the right film for the right subject.
The trouble with these comparisons is everyone has a different work flow and will get slightly different results. Film is also really an intermediate step, with some post processing involved.
I think what is universally true is Gold tends to be warmer, slightly more saturated and more grainy, with the grain perhaps not as nice as portra. In the end, it's really just a case of picking the right film for the right subject.
Apr 29, 2026 at 05:54 PM
p.1 #4Gold vs Portra
As much as I tried to like Gold I always found it too warm, almost brown, and too grainy.
Apr 30, 2026 at 02:42 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #5Gold vs Portra
Brown isn't even a color that would enter my mind thinking about my library of Gold shots. Warm, yes. Beige highlights, yes. Never, EVER, brown.
If I have to shoot Portra, I've always prefered 800 over 400 color wise, it always seems less pastel-y to me.
If I have to shoot Portra, I've always prefered 800 over 400 color wise, it always seems less pastel-y to me.
Apr 30, 2026 at 03:20 PM
p.1 #6Gold vs Portra
panos.v wrote:
As much as I tried to like Gold I always found it too warm, almost brown, and too grainy.
Gold (like most C41 film) loves abundant light. Brown to me means muddy, which means not enough light.
As much as I tried to like Gold I always found it too warm, almost brown, and too grainy.
Gold (like most C41 film) loves abundant light. Brown to me means muddy, which means not enough light.
Apr 30, 2026 at 08:10 PM
p.1 #7Gold vs Portra
IMO, if you're converting film to digital, comparing general color differences between stocks is a fool's errand. Other things like grain, exposure latitude, reciprocity characteristics, etc. can still make a difference though.
I think Gold is great for the price, especially in 120. Never seen much benefit from Portra 160 and 400, but I love the 800 for it's speed and how it renders greens.
I think Gold is great for the price, especially in 120. Never seen much benefit from Portra 160 and 400, but I love the 800 for it's speed and how it renders greens.
Apr 30, 2026 at 08:30 PM
p.1 #8Gold vs Portra
Thank you for posting this. I’m still very new to film photography, so it’s really nice to see videos like this and hear what people think about different film stocks. It’s helping me learn a lot, and honestly making me even more excited to explore film photography more deeply!
May 21, 2026 at 01:52 AM
p.1 #9Gold vs Portra
I tend to use Ektar when I want more punch and when I shoot subjects that are covered in this video, but I do find it easier to tweak Portra to look more like Ektar than the other way around. So, if I were to limit myself to one film it would be Portra.. probably 400 shot at ISO 200.
Pretty easy to make Portra Pop:
Same roll, same processing, but with skin tones… I’ve hid this one from my wife:
Pretty easy to make Portra Pop:
 |
||
 0925Portra160-Bronica-RF645-45mm-f-4.0-9 by gary, on Flickr |
||
|
Same roll, same processing, but with skin tones… I’ve hid this one from my wife:
|
||
 0925Portra160-Bronica-RF645-45mm-f-4.0-10 by gary, on Flickr |
||
|
May 21, 2026 at 05:05 AM
p.1 #10Gold vs Portra
omyo52 wrote:
Thank you for posting this. I’m still very new to film photography, so it’s really nice to see videos like this and hear what people think about different film stocks. It’s helping me learn a lot, and honestly making me even more excited to explore film photography more deeply!
My advice is to shoot the cheapest decent color film i.e. Fuji 200/400 and Kodak 200/400.
They are excellent - I use them all the time for everything - and as they are a lot cheaper than stuff like Portra you get to shoot more.
This was taken with Fuji 200:
Thank you for posting this. I’m still very new to film photography, so it’s really nice to see videos like this and hear what people think about different film stocks. It’s helping me learn a lot, and honestly making me even more excited to explore film photography more deeply!
My advice is to shoot the cheapest decent color film i.e. Fuji 200/400 and Kodak 200/400.
They are excellent - I use them all the time for everything - and as they are a lot cheaper than stuff like Portra you get to shoot more.
This was taken with Fuji 200:
May 21, 2026 at 09:14 AM
|
p.1 #11Gold vs Portra
bwcolor wrote:
if I were to limit myself to one film it would be Portra.. probably 400 shot at ISO 200
same here
if I were to limit myself to one film it would be Portra.. probably 400 shot at ISO 200
same here
May 21, 2026 at 09:30 AM
p.1 #12Gold vs Portra
OregonSun wrote:
I think Gold is great for the price, especially in 120
..absolutely - I don't know what it is with Gold and medium format, but it just looks very good in my opinion (colors / tones are a bit "different", and to my eyes just "better" than in 35mm, where it sometimes is just a bit "funky", for lack of a better word).
I think Gold is great for the price, especially in 120
..absolutely - I don't know what it is with Gold and medium format, but it just looks very good in my opinion (colors / tones are a bit "different", and to my eyes just "better" than in 35mm, where it sometimes is just a bit "funky", for lack of a better word).
May 21, 2026 at 09:33 AM
p.1 #13Gold vs Portra
Desmolicious wrote:
My advice is to shoot the cheapest decent color film i.e. Fuji 200/400 and Kodak 200/400.
They are excellent - I use them all the time for everything - and as they are a lot cheaper than stuff like Portra you get to shoot more.
This was taken with Fuji 200:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55228580035_651b65cb42_o.jpg
WOW, this photo is so beautiful! I love the colors!! I guess a good craftsman never blames his tools.. It's encouraging to hear that I do not need to invest too much to get great photos. Thank you!
omyo52 wrote
Thank you for posting this. I’m still very new to film photography, so it’s really nice to see videos like this and hear what people think about different film stocks. It’s helping me learn a lot, and honestly making me even more excited to explore film photography more deeply!They are excellent - I use them all the time for everything - and as they are a lot cheaper than stuff like Portra you get to shoot more.
This was taken with Fuji 200:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/55228580035_651b65cb42_o.jpg
WOW, this photo is so beautiful! I love the colors!! I guess a good craftsman never blames his tools.. It's encouraging to hear that I do not need to invest too much to get great photos. Thank you!
May 21, 2026 at 05:10 PM
p.1 #14Gold vs Portra
imo Gold 200 and Ultramax 400 look great when you nail exposure, but they fall apart even more quickly than Portra 400 when underexposed.
And contrary to popular opinion I don’t think film looks great when it’s overexposed a lot. About +2 is probably the limit for me. Again Portra may be a little more flexible here, but it can also develop nasty color shifts in the highlights that are difficult to correct..
Gold in 120 also seems to be a different emulsion than Gold in 35mm. It seems much more similar to Portra.
And contrary to popular opinion I don’t think film looks great when it’s overexposed a lot. About +2 is probably the limit for me. Again Portra may be a little more flexible here, but it can also develop nasty color shifts in the highlights that are difficult to correct..
Gold in 120 also seems to be a different emulsion than Gold in 35mm. It seems much more similar to Portra.
May 23, 2026 at 10:55 PM
p.1 #15Gold vs Portra
i've been wondering about gold in 120 for a while, but haven't gotten a medium format camera in a long time too
May 24, 2026 at 05:07 PM
p.1 #16Gold vs Portra
Gold is 120 is quite nice. I shoot it in 6x7 at box speed. The grain is minimized so it looks much smoother then in 35mm. It’s still warm with the gold 200 color but I think a bit less so in 120. It still does not have as much latitude as portra, but it’s nice film to use especially due to price. The film base it itself does feel thinner then portra and it’s also a bit curly like portra.
May 24, 2026 at 05:18 PM
p.1 #17Gold vs Portra
I also like Gold in 120. I like to shoot it at box, up to +1 but no more. It goes sour if underexposed -2.
I like the colors out of Gold, warm bias and all. I think the tones can be a bit smoother on 120 than on 35mm. The advantage of Portra is flexibility, which is why I prefer Portra if I want to fuss a bit less on getting exposure right.
I like the colors out of Gold, warm bias and all. I think the tones can be a bit smoother on 120 than on 35mm. The advantage of Portra is flexibility, which is why I prefer Portra if I want to fuss a bit less on getting exposure right.
May 25, 2026 at 11:05 AM
p.1 #18Gold vs Portra
Gold is nice for landscapes. Portra more for people/Skintones
May 26, 2026 at 12:01 AM
p.1 #19Gold vs Portra
RoamingScott wrote:
If I have to shoot Portra, I've always prefered 800 over 400 color wise, it always seems less pastel-y to me.
Wow, this actually looks really great. I've been avoiding shooting 800 ISO film in bright light, but your sample is giving me second thoughts. Generally speaking, do you find that Portra 800 performs well outdoors in bright light? Is the same true for other higher ISO grade films?
If I have to shoot Portra, I've always prefered 800 over 400 color wise, it always seems less pastel-y to me.
Wow, this actually looks really great. I've been avoiding shooting 800 ISO film in bright light, but your sample is giving me second thoughts. Generally speaking, do you find that Portra 800 performs well outdoors in bright light? Is the same true for other higher ISO grade films?
Jul 21, 2026 at 09:13 AM
p.1 #20Gold vs Portra
fjablo wrote:
imo Gold 200 and Ultramax 400 look great when you nail exposure, but they fall apart even more quickly than Portra 400 when underexposed.
I actually saw some gorgeous photos recently from a guy who went to Iceland with a few rolls of Gold 200 in 35mm and pushed them to 400 (and had the lab push one stop in development). I think I liked them better than Gold at box speed, and certainly more than Ultramax, so I'm going to try that with my next roll.
At my lab's prices, even with the extra charge for a 1-stop push Gold 200 at 400 is $9 Canadian cheaper per roll than Portra 400.
imo Gold 200 and Ultramax 400 look great when you nail exposure, but they fall apart even more quickly than Portra 400 when underexposed.
I actually saw some gorgeous photos recently from a guy who went to Iceland with a few rolls of Gold 200 in 35mm and pushed them to 400 (and had the lab push one stop in development). I think I liked them better than Gold at box speed, and certainly more than Ultramax, so I'm going to try that with my next roll.
At my lab's prices, even with the extra charge for a 1-stop push Gold 200 at 400 is $9 Canadian cheaper per roll than Portra 400.
Jul 21, 2026 at 09:29 AM