Kodak Gold is a cheap color print film, and it shows.
This is a horrible film for nature photography. Greens are dull, usually faded or washed out. Yellow off-color is common.
To me, the film comes off as contrasty and lacking saturation (two things you don't want together). Color is anything but vivid.
As a plus, skin color is usually acceptable in sunlight. Indoors, color drifts. Grain is usually acceptable, better some. Other than that, it's cheap. Those are the only positives I've seen with this film.
I've had much better results shooting Fuji Superia. It's a better film in effectively every regard -- better color, better contrast, and is also cheap. Superia tends to favor cool colors, so may drift blue rather than yellow..
I am an amateur photographer, so I'm likely more critical about what I use than most. Here's my flickr: flickr.com/photos/thtroyer/ Almost all of my photos are labeled with what camera/lens/film they were shot with.
I got this film as a free special with the camera I purchased.
How can I complain??? :o)
I have tried this film in my brother's camera (Canon EOS 500N) many times and I've found that the results are always good, better than the other brands. Even some of my pictures are extra ordinary although I used only a standard camera and its standard lenses (28mm - 80mm and 75mm - 300mm) without any additional flash. The closeups are so clear and sharp, the landscape pictures are wonderful, and the portrait pictures are perfect. I also tried to take the picture of the sun with my custom-made filter and it is good enough. Even, I've tried it for a night scene and surprisingly, it works well! (of course, I have to use tripod or a steady structure). If there is anybody thinking that this film is not good enough, maybe it's your camera (or even you!). Anyway, it is cheaper than other brands (esp. Fuji) here in Indonesia.
I work in a photo processing lab, and print around 100 rolls of film each day.
One thing I've noticed about Kodak Gold is that in general the "gold" tone the film tries to produce acts more like a yellow hue so that skin tones are distorted and subjects look jaundiced. Try Fuji, it's both cheaper and has better color.
This film's main advantage is the more realistic colors than the Fuji Superia. It also seems to do a good job rendering skin tones, although I have read that the 200 ASA is better than the 400 for this, but I'm not that sharp-eyed myself on skin tones. But I can clearly see the difference between this, for example, and the Fuji Superia, in terms of the color rendition.
The Fuji is better if you want more saturated colors. It has the extra 4th emulsion layer that gives more intense reds, purples, and blues. It also has good black response and contrast, and good overall exposure latitude. The review I read of the Fuji said it also has good responese with polarizers and specifically recommended a circular polarizing filter for use with it. I'm a little puzzled by that since polarizing filters are regarded normally as intensifying color, since they help elmininate some chromatic desaturation that occurs with distance as a result of the blue-scattering effect. But anyway, I pass that advice on for what it's worth.
The only real problem to watch out for with the Fuji is underexposure, which will cause washed out colors and graininess.
Despite all the above advantages of the Fuji, the super-saturated colors aren't to everyone's liking, and in that case, the Kodak may be best for you. If you want the most bilious colors you've ever seen, choose the Fuji.
Avoid2008-09-20
Great for free film2003-05-07
My Cart
Larger image or other views
Accessories
