I’ve seen Kodak Gold 200 on the shelves of my favourite film shop in Hong Kong every time I go in there (almost weekly) but for some reason have never had the urge to try it. Last week I just bought a couple of rolls on impulse, shot them over the weekend and got the negatives back today. The look of this film is sa-weet. realistic colours, very little grain and pleasing skin tones. I shot Kodak Gold 200 with my Leica MP and a lens I don’t use that much, the Zeiss 50mm Sonnar 1.5 ZM.
Before showing some samples of Kodak Gold 200, I want to have a bit of a rant. It’s not really the film that makes the photo, it’s the photo itself. Sure, the film can make a difference, but when you’ve got any of the consumer grade colour negative films, whether it’s Fuji’s Superia X-Tra or Fuji Industrial or Kodak Gold 400 or UltraMax, you’re not going to convince me that any of them made a photo. It’s the same for camera’s. Honestly, I don’t think there’s any chance I’d be able to tell you if a photo was taken with my former Leica M6 + 35 Summicron V3, versus my Leica MP + 35 Summicron V4.
My point is, I wouldn’t get too worried about what film you’re using. I’m not really reviewing films, more like just showing a few samples so you can hopefully have some idea of what each one looks like. As I’ve said before, it’s almost, no, it’s definitely almost pointless even giving samples because a lot depends on how the film was scanned, and more importantly, it’s film, it’s not supposed to be displayed on a computer screen. You need to see the prints, touch the prints.
So with that said, here’s some samples of Kodak Gold 200, bearing in mind I’ve only shot 2 rolls.
Send us any questions or comments you have about Kodak Gold 200 35mm film via email or ask us on twitter.
