Myer

Kodak Gold 200 and Royal Gold 200? <BR>I'm really interested in the difference between the two types of film. <BR> <BR>

Marc David Miller

For an (overall) educated discussion on specific film choices, you can look at <BR> <BR>http://www.photo.net/photo/film <BR> <BR>Many photographers (including myself as an amateur) think that 200 is a wasted speed, not that much faster than 100 and not much less grainy than 400.

Myer

I went to Photo.Net and all I got was a bunch (many) of people talking up the virtues of this pro film and that pro film. Anything consumer quality is garbage. <BR>I'm interested in what ordinary (better amateurs who probably use regular cameras and not point and shoot) travellers find.

kim

100, 200 & 400 are the speeds of the film, how quickly the emulsion reacts to light. The lower the number the less the light will affect the film. 400 is always your better bet, unless you are somewhere where the sun shines at 12 24/7. with a faster speed you will also get better actions pictures, i.e. less blur of a person's legs when they are running.

lisa

Kim pretty much nailed the differences. Personally, I mainly use 400 and 800, depending on where I am and what I'm shooting. For example, went to a carnival and got some great shots of my daughter on rides with the 800 film. 400 is best all-around. 100 if you are taking beach shots and it's sunny. I almost never buy 200 film for the reasons Kim gave you. Royal Gold is probably better. You want extra quality photo, go to a camera store and there are more options, yet at higher prices.

curious

Is the difference in graininess between 100 and 400 all that noticeable if you only get smaller prints made?

Robin

I'm still curious about Myer's question: Gold vs ROYAL gold, even if the ISO is the same. I assume that it is an issue of the color sensitivity (better reds or greens or whatever) Does anyone know?

kodak joe

I have been using 800 only for last few months and have been quite happy with results. Seems to be a good film for all conditions.

Linda

LOL, this is hilarious. Yesterday, a similar post that asked just about the same question, only about ASA 400 film types, received responses that pretty much stated not to use 400--that 200 was better. Today it is the opposite. What is the non-professional supposed to do? 200 is better, no 400, no 800. 200 gives you a less grainy picture. 400 gives you better pictures in all light conditions. 800 is good for all conditions. I just want to come home with decent pictures of my travels. Not something that will win a photography contest, but something I will be able to look at in 20 years and remember the time I saw that adorable little girl feeding the pictures in St. Marks Square, or the wonderful light on the water in Venice. Surely there is one film that is really the best to use. Not one that is good in all circumstances, but one that will give you decent (only decent, not fantastic) pictures in MOST circumstances, when used by a mediocre photographer. Please help me out here! I beg all of you really good photographers.

Myer

Since I started both posts let me jump back in here. <BR> <BR>For those who are slightly more advanced we know the following: <BR>We want properly exposed photos, under varying lighting conditions (sunny day, cloudy day, evening etc), we want to be able to enlarge the really good ones (possibly 8 x 10 or even larger) and want reasonably true colors. <BR> <BR>The problem is getting a film that will give the best compromise or combination of the above. <BR> <BR>Usually the higher the number the better the chances of getting proper exposure under dim lighting conditions. Also in getting cleare photos with a moving target (sports events). Also, the higher the number the more grain. <BR>Also, different brands or even different types of film within a brand (eg Kodak Gold vs Royal Gold) give different results for any or all of the above. <BR>Back to why I posted in the first place. <BR>I am a reasonably advance amateur (in age and photographic experience). I just went from an old Canon AE-1 to a new Canon elan7e (no point and shoot here). The problem is my old lense was a 50mm f1.8 and my new lense is a zoom 28mm-105mm f3.5/4.5. For those who know, the lense is a bit (2 stops) slower. This requires 2 stops more in the film to result in the exact same settings to give the exact same exposure. A stop is a doubling in the film speed. That is 100 to 200 is 1 stop. 200 to 400 is 1 stop. <BR>Back to my question. I was much less concerned with the exposre (I know about that). I was interested in the color rendition and graininess (for enlargements this is important. <BR>Now I think the question is a bit clearer. <BR>Since most of us here are amateurs of different levels we probably use concumer quality film. I was interested in the results with faster films than I've used in the past. <BR>

Jeannette

I was one of the people who cautioned you against using the Kodak 400 Max. I just hated the poor quality of the photos compared with the Kodak 100. So, I was also amazed at the responses to your question on 200 film. I just bought a new camera and I'm shooting test rolls of film before I leave on my trip. I suggest you do the same. Shoot in shade and sun, with and without flash, portrait and landscape. Use both kinds of film and compare the results. Try to shoot the same subjects at the same light and time of day.

elaine

I am not a photographer, I just take pictures on my trips. I have a small Olympus camera that is basically point-and-shoot, with an automatic zoom feature, a built-in flash, and a couple of minor options regarding <BR>backlight compensation and night shots. <BR>I've always been happy with the quality of my photos, indoors and out. Sometimes the shots are boring, but that's my fault, not the film's. <BR>I use Kodak Gold 200 consistently. <BR>One day I may try 400 just for comparison. <BR>

dan woodlief

I have used Royal Gold quite a bit and Gold a little. Personally, I have never done any kind of side-by-side comparison, but it is widely said that Royal Gold has lower grain. You might expect that from the usual price difference. Both are good films with quite a bit of contrast. Gold and Royal will provide vibrant color. If you take a look at my Web site at www.oneeyed.homestead.com, I used Royal Gold for many of the Mexico photos. I don't know that you would notice much of a difference unless you enlarge past 8x10, but like I said, I haven't compared. I do have several 8x10s with Royal that show very little grain.

Bill

I often use 400 film -- Royal Gold or Fuji Superia. The pictures aren't quite as clear as with 100 film, but they're close enough, and the faster speed is a big help in getting the right exposure. (I often use a manual exposure camera.) For whatever reason, I practically never use 200. <BR> <BR>With 800 film, you really start to see the graininess. It's great to be able to take no-flash pictures indoors, but you are paying a price.

Myer

Bill, I didn't think Royal Gold came in 400. <BR>Dan, You mentioned you use both Gold and Royal but not the speed. <BR>On my recent travels I've been using Gold 200. It's consumer film, easy to find and inexpensive. Not that many places carry Royal Gold. I've been pleased with the results. My only reason for thinking of switching is due to the fact my new lens is not quite as fast as the olf one (50mm f1.8 vs a new 28-105mm f3.5/4.5). <BR>I took a few rolls of Max 400 when I first received my new elan7e. While I didn't notice any gain (4 x 6) I did get the feeling the color lacked some oomph (or is if oomff or uumph). Also they appeared to be a bit pinkish. It is quite possible that these negatives (ha) were the result of the printing and not the film. <BR>I guess that's the problem with print film. The lab doesn't make them any better (usually) but can give varying results. This not only happens with colow but amazingly also with clarity (focus). <BR>Many amateurs accept the results and think their photos are just not clear when that may or may not be the case. <BR>Ask for a contact print and use a good magnifying glass. A contact print has the negative (here we go again with the play) of being small and not corrected for each photo but does not involve focusing. Check them for clarity. <BR>

lisa

While the film you choose is important, the best thing to do is learn about light, exposure, your camera and film. A great site for this,(previously mentioned) is photo.net. The direct link to a (somewhat) beginner's tutorial is http://www.photo.net/photo/tutorial/ <BR> <BR>You then click on each link - light, exposure, camera, etc. - to learn about that subject. Take a little time to check it out. <BR> <BR>One thing that I always try to remember is that the worst time to take a photo is usually mid day when the sun is shining. The best time is morning, near dusk, and on overcast days.

Myer

Let me try again. <BR>I am interested in what people think about the difference between Kodak Gold and Royal Gold 200 film. I am not interested in the effect film speed has on exposure. We can all read about that. <BR> <BR>I am interested in what people have found regarding pleasing color and grain (enlargements up to 8 x 10). <BR>

duh

Myer, you're a schmuck! We've got more important things on our minds today than your crappy concerns!

Myer

Duh. <BR>I think someone mentioned on one of the other posts about those who are too cowardly to use their correct names. <BR>Our hearts are with those who need them. <BR>At this point those who are physically removed are in shock and trying to occupy themselves. <BR>You obviously are going around to all posts leaving your idiotic mark. <BR>Don't YOU have anything else on your mind? <BR>

Leslie

I just checked the Kodak website (www.kodak.com). <BR> <BR>Kodak says that Royal Gold 200 has received the honor for the "Best Color Negative Film". It also states that Royal Gold 200 provides "fine detail in outdoor daylight and indoor flash". Further remarks about Royal Gold "These color print films capture the full range of details that keen photographers are looking for. The patented advanced T-Grain® technology of these films provides a superb balance between clarity, detail, and color for outstanding enlargements." <BR> <BR>Gold 200 film (which I use) is a general purpose film. The site further states that Gold films are "easy-to-use films for superior color pictures." <BR> <BR>If you are going to make 8 X 10 enlargements, it is recommended that you use Kodak Royal Gold film. <BR> <BR>Kodak has a very thorough website. You can review Kodak's publications on-line regarding further differences and suggestions for use between the two types of films by going to this URL: <BR> <BR>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/servi...ry/index.shtml <BR> <BR>Leslie