Out of all the gold videos I have seen today, this one was my favorite. It also seems that the medium format Gold does have a little less of the Yellow tint I find with the 35mm version. Of course, everything looks good in that California light :)
Thanks tons Marc. We're planning to do a bit more of an actual review and talk through the differences in another video. But we really apprciate the compliments. Look at the blues as well....you can see the differences there for sure.
So now Kodak is selling us a non-professional 200 speed film for the price they used to sell us a 400 speed professional film, and we're supposed to be excited and grateful for it. Clearly Portra is never going to be anywhere near affordable again, and that's a huge shame.
The price increases are definite bummers. Supply chain issues are real and a lot of other things. It's painful. Like thinking back to when gas was a dollar but now it's $6 per gallon. Totally sucks. On the other hand, they also could have not released a new film, but they did, which we think is great progress in the film community and offering it lower than the pro-level films, which is great. So we're stoked to have it as an option vs another film being discontinued....
I think you really do see that the Portra 400 is a professional film with great colors etc. That said, in some of the harsh light shots I actually preferred the Kodak Gold because of the more pinkish tones compared to the sometimes greenish ones of the Portra. Great comparison and video! Thanks!
Glad it was helpful. I think we overexposed the front-lit photos a bit too much on the Gold where the Portra could handle the exposure a bit better. A little lesson was learned there.
I hope film gets more popular because I am going to put my good old Rollei back on the shelf. Roll of 120 film, processing , S&H cost me now over $30 for 12 pics. DSLR is it for me
I love Gold 200 as my walk around film, especially when shooting during the summer in Manhattan. I can't wait to get my hands on a pro pack or two and spend a warm day in the city!
So excited. I stocked up on Portra 400/800 and chucked it in the freezer before the price hike and now it looks like I'll have to pick up a brick of this when it comes out.
I will certainly be adding this stock to the fridge. I like Portra 400, particularly when over exposed for those pastel tones. For a more saturated and contrasty look I use Lomography CN400. So good to have options as a 120 shooter.
Great video: how it was filmed but also a nice comparison between the two films. For most of the shots I preferred the Gold, but the first pictures on the beach - those where you see a lot of sand and rocks - Portra looks more pleasing to me. Actually I looks warmer than Gold, somehow. Oh and may one in these times still say that the model is wonderful?
Thanks for the comment. In regards to how it was filmed, it was shot on a Red camera by a great videographer. Way better than when Braedon shoots his own videos. Thought we'd pull out the stops for this one. And we thought the model was wonderful as well. Definitely an ok comment!
Seems like - at least based on the second set of images, that the portra does a much better job at preserving color accuracy in the shadows, while the gold has a warm cast to it.
That seems accurate. The Portra should have more latitude - therefore more detail in the shadows while the Gold does have more built in contrast and saturation. Good observations.
Love everything about the video, how you explained the difference of the 2 films, perfect location,i am so happy that we all have another choice in the huge comeback of film, and of course lots of kudos to your lovely model. Thanks CANADA
1. Absolutely fantastic video comparing Portra and Gold at 120. Really valuable video for anyone who wants to know what Gold offers. 2. Great explanations of what you're metering for and why. I didn't understand just how much of a variable metering could be during a shoot outdoors. Got a new sub out of me
To my eye the main difference is that with Portra you get a bit more of highlight retention and a bit more teal in the shadows, which i do like. Sligtly deeper blues. More natural skintone when the face is shaded. But in some cases results are very similar.
This will kill some Portra 120 sales for sure. In some shots it was hard to spot a difference. In the ones I was able to spot a difference I preferred the Kodak Gold. I sense a new hype coming 😃
Definitely don't disagree with you. I think this will become the non-pro film of choice. It's gorgeous.....200 can be limiting though if you don't always have sunny, bright days.
@@FilmSupplyClub Agree completely on its limitations. It’s also not so great with flash. It does do well as shown in this video as a natural light portrait film.
Great comparison. I'm pumped to check it out in 120. When you were talking about shutter speed, was wondering if you could maybe do a video talking about using ND filters when the camera doesn't have those higher speeds and the pro/cons.
That would be a great video topic. I think the most important thing to know with your ND filter is how much each setting on the filter affects your exposure. So you know at this turn of the filter, it is one-stop darker so if you were at 1/1000, now you'd be at 1/500th. Or 2 stops darker at this setting. Then it's just being consistent and using a light meter with those settings in mind. Would be a great video topic though.
I can't complain when more options are available. I can't really whine about price when my camera of choice is an 8-shot-per-roll Fuji 690. I do wonder why these comparisons are all with Porta 400. Isn't it closer to Portra 160? Sorry if that is a dumb question... I shoot B&W almost exclusively.
Didn't think I would prefer the 200 Gold in the wilderness shots, but dang, both stocks look great for the 2nd set at the beach! Loving these stock comparisons.
Why? Portra is already low saturation, low contrast. Why do folks extend those handicaps for general photography by shooting it at half box speed? In most cases, the answer is that they do not know how to use a light meter, properly, so they over expose film to compensate for their personal limitations..
@@randallstewart175 It’s less grainy, and you protect the dark parts of the images. Rating a stock differently is pretty common, and has been pretty common for decades, not only now. When we only had film. And right now it’s even more important, because you don’t have a lightmeter all the time, or only an incident and limited lightmeter. No two DP’s rated Vision 500 at the same speed. Or any other stock for that matter, you use a stock for the way it renders color, and rate it to control the contrast, it’s pretty basic in cinematography, where you would even print a step wedge and chose how you rated the film. And you did that for every batch of film you had, if it wasn’t only one batch. You’re not going to do that with still film, so you can just rated lower because of past experiences or at box speed, depending on what you like. And there’s nothing wrong with that. I learned photography and cinematography using film stocks, I only used positive film so I could learn how to expose and how to light correctly. Now I don’t use it, I use negatives, because I like the look, and always rate them lower than the box speed. And Portra is Neutral, it’s not low saturation. The box speed is just a suggestion, it’s not gospel.
Definitely would have been good to do several more tests and comparisons but we were only given 5 rolls so we were sort of limited with what we could do. But a little note, if we rated Portra 400 at 200, the Portra 400 would be 1 stop overexposed while the Gold would be rated correctly at 200....so the results for that test would be slightly skewed.
@@randallstewart175 That's a totally unnecessary comment. There are a lot of people learning to shoot film up there so no need to criticize anyone. At least not on this channel.
Been shooting for 20 years and for 8 of them used medium format but after going digital I would never go back for wedding photography to film, film has a nice look but speed and seeing the image immediately I could never go back...
Looking around 7:1`5 on, and using the b-roll video as a color reference, Gold is clearly more neutral than the Portra. Not surprising, since Portra is specifically designed to enhance skin tones. Generally, comparing these shots, it looks like Gold is a bit faster at its rated speed (200) than Portra (400), which causes its lighter tones to appear brighter and wash out a bit. Maybe Gold should be shot at 250+. .The higher contrast of Gold is also apparent, if that's what you need for a given subject.
Man how the heck do you get everything in focus? Your glasses must be giving you super focus power or something... In my opinion Kodak Gold for portraits looks the best on cloudy overcast days.. I think it looks horrible in the sun.
If you are looking for more professional looking shots, accurate colors (depends), go for Portra400. But if you're looking for nostalgic look, warmer tones, go for Gold200
Thanks tons Wesley! Was just about to take a look at your newsletter to see your thoughts on the film. It's nice to get more options for film stocks regardless. Hope you're doing well.
Viewing the images on a computer isn’t the most fair way to judge these two films but it seemed as if with the backlit subjects there wasn’t that much difference. In the front lit subjects that is where the warmth of Gold was more obvious. I also like Ektar 100 and think it is way more punchy but not sure if it has the same latitude as Portra.
Totally agree. And if we had this film scanned at 5 different labs, I'm guessing we'd have 5 different results. It's hard to a fair 100% comparison. We did our best by shooting with the same cameras, in the same settings and the same lab but your point defintiely stands. Ektar is one of our favorite films. 100 speed vs 200 speed for the Gold. We're just happy to have more film options that each give a different look. Some choice is better than no choice!
i think its not the best comparison to overexpose everything, also the skintones with a stop and don't have any shadows in the face..because this is where I expect the issues with gold..i would like to know what gold is doing with normal exposure and harder shadows especially in the face/skintones..also whats happening with darker skin color and so on ;) I mean for everyone who like to shoot like the typical film weeding shots this is a good thing, but for what is happening in the real world of shooting film there's a lot missing here ;) And also with everyone else doing gold200 reviews right now.
looks great, looks better than portra in your edits , so well down with those examples ... looks a little cleaner and lighter in the shadows are not so dark and their is a touch more luminosity /brightness about it , very surprised to be honest at how great it looks ... for sure a good move for the people/customers by Kodak, am sure they know this already but it will take a large chunk out of the portra sales I am sure ... VIVA la KODAK , VIVA la FILM ..... love and mother fucking peace y'all....
Prefer the 200 !! Your not overexposing enough for me ! Half box speed and it comes to life! Do a Jon Canlas special cook its nuts off! Then a one stop push in the soup for added definition and contrast. I'd also cut out all but F2. Really expensive pistols hanging around your neck shoot em with the correct intent and that's wide open. :-):-)
based on your photo samples I see this as a positive. you can't tell the difference. its like comparing new mirrorless cameras to one another. they do the job and they do it nicely . inflation is part of life.
Out of all the gold videos I have seen today, this one was my favorite. It also seems that the medium format Gold does have a little less of the Yellow tint I find with the 35mm version. Of course, everything looks good in that California light :)
Thanks tons Marc. We're planning to do a bit more of an actual review and talk through the differences in another video. But we really apprciate the compliments. Look at the blues as well....you can see the differences there for sure.
So now Kodak is selling us a non-professional 200 speed film for the price they used to sell us a 400 speed professional film, and we're supposed to be excited and grateful for it. Clearly Portra is never going to be anywhere near affordable again, and that's a huge shame.
Actually a good point.
The price increases are definite bummers. Supply chain issues are real and a lot of other things. It's painful. Like thinking back to when gas was a dollar but now it's $6 per gallon. Totally sucks. On the other hand, they also could have not released a new film, but they did, which we think is great progress in the film community and offering it lower than the pro-level films, which is great. So we're stoked to have it as an option vs another film being discontinued....
Everything gets more expensive. Diesel is now also sold at a price at which ones premium petrol was.
Brent, YES be DAMN grateful. How old are you? Cut down on your Starbucks.
@@linjicakonikon7666 And avocado toast as well, right?
I think you really do see that the Portra 400 is a professional film with great colors etc. That said, in some of the harsh light shots I actually preferred the Kodak Gold because of the more pinkish tones compared to the sometimes greenish ones of the Portra.
Great comparison and video! Thanks!
Glad it was helpful. I think we overexposed the front-lit photos a bit too much on the Gold where the Portra could handle the exposure a bit better. A little lesson was learned there.
Thank you so much! This is exactly what I was looking for. Portraits of people and comparing Gold 200 vs Porta. You're the real MVP!!!
The colors of Kodak Gold are amazing ! I love that film stock. Please to see Kodak making new rolls!
Dear film supply club, please update more film video, this one about Kodak Gold 120 is my favorite video on RUclips, looking forward your update !
I hope film gets more popular because I am going to put my good old Rollei back on the shelf. Roll of 120 film, processing , S&H cost me now over $30 for 12 pics. DSLR is it for me
I love Gold 200 as my walk around film, especially when shooting during the summer in Manhattan. I can't wait to get my hands on a pro pack or two and spend a warm day in the city!
So excited. I stocked up on Portra 400/800 and chucked it in the freezer before the price hike and now it looks like I'll have to pick up a brick of this when it comes out.
Just shot my first 2 rolls of gold and can't wait to see the results!
I will certainly be adding this stock to the fridge. I like Portra 400, particularly when over exposed for those pastel tones. For a more saturated and contrasty look I use Lomography CN400. So good to have options as a 120 shooter.
Great video: how it was filmed but also a nice comparison between the two films. For most of the shots I preferred the Gold, but the first pictures on the beach - those where you see a lot of sand and rocks - Portra looks more pleasing to me. Actually I looks warmer than Gold, somehow.
Oh and may one in these times still say that the model is wonderful?
Thanks for the comment. In regards to how it was filmed, it was shot on a Red camera by a great videographer. Way better than when Braedon shoots his own videos. Thought we'd pull out the stops for this one. And we thought the model was wonderful as well. Definitely an ok comment!
Seems like - at least based on the second set of images, that the portra does a much better job at preserving color accuracy in the shadows, while the gold has a warm cast to it.
That seems accurate. The Portra should have more latitude - therefore more detail in the shadows while the Gold does have more built in contrast and saturation. Good observations.
Love everything about the video, how you explained the difference of the 2 films, perfect location,i am so happy that we all have another choice in the huge comeback of film, and of course lots of kudos to your lovely model. Thanks CANADA
1. Absolutely fantastic video comparing Portra and Gold at 120. Really valuable video for anyone who wants to know what Gold offers.
2. Great explanations of what you're metering for and why. I didn't understand just how much of a variable metering could be during a shoot outdoors.
Got a new sub out of me
Gold looks so much better at golden hour! It makes Portra look cooler in comparison. Great video!
To my eye the main difference is that with Portra you get a bit more of highlight retention and a bit more teal in the shadows, which i do like. Sligtly deeper blues. More natural skintone when the face is shaded. But in some cases results are very similar.
Thank you! Very nice to see the comparisons.
Excellent video! Stoked to pick up some gold in 120. Thanks for the great side by sides!
Wow, really cool, in general you can pull chemically iso to 400, it works really well and increase grain. Great video!
It's definitely fun to play with different processes of development!
I like Kodak Gold and it's great to see it finally in 120 format.
Can't wait to try out my new roll of gold 120! Loved the video
This will kill some Portra 120 sales for sure. In some shots it was hard to spot a difference. In the ones I was able to spot a difference I preferred the Kodak Gold. I sense a new hype coming 😃
Definitely don't disagree with you. I think this will become the non-pro film of choice. It's gorgeous.....200 can be limiting though if you don't always have sunny, bright days.
@@FilmSupplyClub Agree completely on its limitations. It’s also not so great with flash. It does do well as shown in this video as a natural light portrait film.
great video! on medium format it seems like it's very close to Portra 400 outside of a little different in the sky
Great comparison. I'm pumped to check it out in 120.
When you were talking about shutter speed, was wondering if you could maybe do a video talking about using ND filters when the camera doesn't have those higher speeds and the pro/cons.
I do it all the time with my Mamiya 645 and the 80 f/1.9. The viewfinder just gets VERY dark and hard to use.
That would be a great video topic. I think the most important thing to know with your ND filter is how much each setting on the filter affects your exposure. So you know at this turn of the filter, it is one-stop darker so if you were at 1/1000, now you'd be at 1/500th. Or 2 stops darker at this setting. Then it's just being consistent and using a light meter with those settings in mind. Would be a great video topic though.
Great video well done what this video has proven to me is that there is a use for the GOLD side of my reflector when I use Portra :)
Is this new Gold made from the 'Vision' base tech like Portra and Ektar?
Really loved this video! What time do the day did you shoot with the gold in both locations?
Love this! Do you prefer metering bulb in or bulb out?
I believe his meter is broken 😞 hence he meter with the bulb in. ( love his style, unintentionally)
Thanks a lot for your effort! To me comparing Kodak 200 to Portra 160 would have done a bit more justice to both fim stocks.
The gold wa rated at 125? Looks so great and yeah so excited
beautiful shots! Where did you get these scanned?
Loving the warmth!
Awesome video. Would love to know how you rated the film! Box speed?
What a great day and great video!
I can't complain when more options are available. I can't really whine about price when my camera of choice is an 8-shot-per-roll Fuji 690. I do wonder why these comparisons are all with Porta 400. Isn't it closer to Portra 160? Sorry if that is a dumb question... I shoot B&W almost exclusively.
Didn't think I would prefer the 200 Gold in the wilderness shots, but dang, both stocks look great for the 2nd set at the beach! Loving these stock comparisons.
Are you sure you didn't swap the photos at 10:30? The greens of the portra are more like the greens of the gold as seen at 8:14 and 8:57.
Portra 400 is hard to beat and a price that’s hard to swallow. Great vid
So, you rated both at box speed? It would be nice to compare Portra 400 rated at 200, the same as the Gold.
Why? Portra is already low saturation, low contrast. Why do folks extend those handicaps for general photography by shooting it at half box speed? In most cases, the answer is that they do not know how to use a light meter, properly, so they over expose film to compensate for their personal limitations..
@@randallstewart175 It’s less grainy, and you protect the dark parts of the images. Rating a stock differently is pretty common, and has been pretty common for decades, not only now. When we only had film. And right now it’s even more important, because you don’t have a lightmeter all the time, or only an incident and limited lightmeter. No two DP’s rated Vision 500 at the same speed. Or any other stock for that matter, you use a stock for the way it renders color, and rate it to control the contrast, it’s pretty basic in cinematography, where you would even print a step wedge and chose how you rated the film. And you did that for every batch of film you had, if it wasn’t only one batch. You’re not going to do that with still film, so you can just rated lower because of past experiences or at box speed, depending on what you like. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
I learned photography and cinematography using film stocks, I only used positive film so I could learn how to expose and how to light correctly. Now I don’t use it, I use negatives, because I like the look, and always rate them lower than the box speed.
And Portra is Neutral, it’s not low saturation. The box speed is just a suggestion, it’s not gospel.
Definitely would have been good to do several more tests and comparisons but we were only given 5 rolls so we were sort of limited with what we could do. But a little note, if we rated Portra 400 at 200, the Portra 400 would be 1 stop overexposed while the Gold would be rated correctly at 200....so the results for that test would be slightly skewed.
@@FilmSupplyClub Thanks for answering. Yeah I know. That’s the point. Many people shoot Portra 400 at 200 or less.
@@randallstewart175 That's a totally unnecessary comment. There are a lot of people learning to shoot film up there so no need to criticize anyone. At least not on this channel.
It's really good to have options! I prefer more saturated films than this new one is given!
Been shooting for 20 years and for 8 of them used medium format but after going digital I would never go back for wedding photography to film, film has a nice look but speed and seeing the image immediately I could never go back...
Looking around 7:1`5 on, and using the b-roll video as a color reference, Gold is clearly more neutral than the Portra. Not surprising, since Portra is specifically designed to enhance skin tones. Generally, comparing these shots, it looks like Gold is a bit faster at its rated speed (200) than Portra (400), which causes its lighter tones to appear brighter and wash out a bit. Maybe Gold should be shot at 250+. .The higher contrast of Gold is also apparent, if that's what you need for a given subject.
Are these straight scans or was there a look applied? They are so similar I am having a hard time seeing a difference.
Stoked to order some when it’s available!
Such a fun film!! Can't wait to get it in.
So excited to shoot this!
I’m so pumped for this, hopefully it won’t be much more expensive than gold in 35mm.
Man how the heck do you get everything in focus? Your glasses must be giving you super focus power or something... In my opinion Kodak Gold for portraits looks the best on cloudy overcast days.. I think it looks horrible in the sun.
If you are looking for more professional looking shots, accurate colors (depends), go for Portra400. But if you're looking for nostalgic look, warmer tones, go for Gold200
Wait but the label says it's Kodak Professional? So the 35mm is budget grade, but presented in 120 as professional???
Outstanding assessment! Kudos.
It's the gold the new portra?
lovely shots brother!
Thanks tons Wesley! Was just about to take a look at your newsletter to see your thoughts on the film. It's nice to get more options for film stocks regardless. Hope you're doing well.
thank you soo much for this kind of content.
Now wouldn't it be awesome if ColorPlus came out in 120! In your side by side I actually preferred the look of the Gold, especially the skin tones.
Where is your t shirt from?
Anyone else feel like the Portra 400 images were warmer in the beach images up to the 8:55 mark? Then the Gold images were warmer after?
hold up... You own TWO Contax 645s?
It’s quite similar i thought it would be more warm on the gold. The only good difference is at the golden hour so it seems pretty accurate at least
So psyched for this
Great video ~
Kodak Gold in sheet film would be awesome.
That would be incredible!! Grateful to get the 120 though.
nice video and comparison. For the price I think Portra is still the way to go, the gold is not cheap enough in my opinion.
No IG info on the model?
Viewing the images on a computer isn’t the most fair way to judge these two films but it seemed as if with the backlit subjects there wasn’t that much difference. In the front lit subjects that is where the warmth of Gold was more obvious. I also like Ektar 100 and think it is way more punchy but not sure if it has the same latitude as Portra.
Totally agree. And if we had this film scanned at 5 different labs, I'm guessing we'd have 5 different results. It's hard to a fair 100% comparison. We did our best by shooting with the same cameras, in the same settings and the same lab but your point defintiely stands.
Ektar is one of our favorite films. 100 speed vs 200 speed for the Gold. We're just happy to have more film options that each give a different look. Some choice is better than no choice!
6:25 Sometimes the portra looks warner than the gold, even significantly so.
i think its not the best comparison to overexpose everything, also the skintones with a stop and don't have any shadows in the face..because this is where I expect the issues with gold..i would like to know what gold is doing with normal exposure and harder shadows especially in the face/skintones..also whats happening with darker skin color and so on ;) I mean for everyone who like to shoot like the typical film weeding shots this is a good thing, but for what is happening in the real world of shooting film there's a lot missing here ;) And also with everyone else doing gold200 reviews right now.
looks great, looks better than portra in your edits , so well down with those examples ... looks a little cleaner and lighter in the shadows are not so dark and their is a touch more luminosity /brightness about it , very surprised to be honest at how great it looks ... for sure a good move for the people/customers by Kodak, am sure they know this already but it will take a large chunk out of the portra sales I am sure ... VIVA la KODAK , VIVA la FILM ..... love and mother fucking peace y'all....
I love Gooold
Forget about film, who's the beautiful model?
Casually dual-wielding Contax 645s is quite the flex
ha! 💪
It's not too hard I shoot with two Pentax 67's or two Pentax 645n at the same time!
If Kodak now would consider producing 220 also, so we professionl photographers would not spend time reloading. Thanks CANADA
Prefer the 200 !! Your not overexposing enough for me ! Half box speed and it comes to life! Do a Jon Canlas special cook its nuts off! Then a one stop push in the soup for added definition and contrast. I'd also cut out all but F2. Really expensive pistols hanging around your neck shoot em with the correct intent and that's wide open. :-):-)
based on your photo samples I see this as a positive. you can't tell the difference. its like comparing new mirrorless cameras to one another. they do the job and they do it nicely . inflation is part of life.
Holy
Contrary to what you say in the video, I see no evidence of Kodak Gold in 120 on your Web site.
crystal coveeeee
hello how do i take pictur of girl help
Ifound some one steal your video on a Chinese app
Screw gold, I want the NEW CineStill 400Dynamic
Why not both!! So glad to have more choices vs no choices and only one film stock.
Already sold out
Push gold 200 + 400ASA
😥 քʀօʍօֆʍ
Bonjour à la dame !
Gold>>>portra
The music is totally unnecessary and makes what would be an interesting film impossible to watch.