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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
