Customer Reviews

Kodak Gold 200 Film (4 Pack)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

200 doesn't offer the clarity of 100, but it's far superior to 400, and it's extremely versatile. This film can be used in the widest variety of situations, and produces very nice results for enlargements. Camera & skill, of course, play a LARGE part in the end result, but I highly recommend using Kodak's Gold 200 for "everyday" use. Yes, it costs a little more..., but as the old saying goes, which is so true with film:you pay peanuts - you get monkeys.

Convenient package, excellent price. remarkable color photo definition. Great for indoor and outdour shots. No need to buy higher ASA grades unless shooting fast moving objects or unusual light conditions

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.

The Kodak film is the best there is for developing high quality pictures! The sharpness of the colors can not be beat, however, the price is what may prevent buyers. Amazon's price is the best I've seen for Kodak film but I have had more luck with other brands. I am a beginner and don't have a huge budget for film and have diverted to other products after spending so much on Kodak. I say that if you MUST have quality photographs go with Kodak but if you don't have a large budget look around!

I have used the Kodak Gold 200 but only if I can't find the Kodak Gold 100. Both do reproduce excelent color but for outdoor work and thats what I shoot 85% of the time my choice is the Gold 100. Don't get me wrong they are both a very good film to buy. I would choose Kodak over Fuji any day of the week. My experience with Fuji film was everything was on the blue side. And with my years of experience being a heatset web-press operator, printing magazines and adjusting ink, a person has to be able to look at a photo and tell if the color is right or not.
I just wish I could find it in 36 exposure!

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.

This film is so much more realistic than Fuji regarding color saturation. Kodak films provide an accurate color balance where Fuji film is over saturated to please their home market preferences. This is true for all speeds.

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.

When the film arrived, the boxes had been cut open and the expiration date removed. I was told by the vendor that they had removed Target coupons to redeem to keep the price low. They did not adequately explain the missing expiration dates. The film was a gift for my father. I hope it works out.