Kodak Gold 200 is my go-to film. I run it through cameras I am testing, and I use it for my everyday shooting. It’s one of the most affordable films out there, but that’s not the only reason I love using it. It also is very versatile.
Dispite its low ISO speed of 200, I have found it holds up pretty well in low lighting, even indoors.
This film really shines in full sunlight. It has great color that isn’t too saturated like Kodak Ultramax, and the colors are well balanced. I don’t find that one color gets more saturation than another.
Kodak Gold 200 also works well for portraits. Now I have not shot with Portra yet as of the writing of this blog, so I can’t compare it to the champion of portraits, but I really like the results I have gotten with it.
My favorite shots have been taken with this film, and I will definitely continue to shoot with it. I recommend you do the same. Especially if you are new to photography, or still learning like me, this film is great because in the beginning you will burn through rolls of film like crazy and many of the pictures may not be too great. With that in mind, you don’t want to be spending a ton of money on film on top of the cost of development.
I know I’m gushing over this film, and most photographers will probably think I’m crazy, but it checks all my boxes. Don’t get me wrong, I will continue to try other films. It’s part of what I love about film photography, but I had to take a moment to give some props to this underated and in my opinion, underappreciated film.
Do you like Kodak Gold? What’s your favorite go-to film and why? Let me know in the comments.
For more of my photography taken with Kodak Gold 200 and other films, please visit my portfolio website and my Instagram.
11 thoughts on “Kodak Gold 200 – Reliable and Underated”
I have some cheap favourites and some expensive favourites (aka treats). For colour, ColorPlus 200 (cheap) and Portra 400 and Ektar 100 (expensive). For BnW, Ilford FP4 and HP5 (cheap) and Fuji Acros (expensive). I also love Rollei Retro 80S which is kind of in between.
I tried rollei retro once in my video I made about my Rolleiflex and the pictures came out almost black. What did I do wrong there? It was a high shadow area with trees so I metered for the shadows.
Hmm sounds like you metered right, not sure what happened! I can think of a few possibilities: the meter wasn’t accurate or was confused by stray light, inaccurate shutter (firing at a faster speed), developing error, scanning error… hard to say what it was really. To be fair, in my experience, Rollei Retro is a bit unforgiving, both with respect to highlights and shadows: overexposure blows the highlights and underexposure crushes the shadows… but it still shouldn’t be as dark as you describe. But when you get it right, I think it looks great. I took this photo of St Paul’s on Rollei Retro 80s.
I will have to try it again soon. I have another roll in my fridge.
I was shooting a lot of Fuji C200 and Kodak ColorPlus 200 last year, and unfortunately their prices are going up. Then there was a crazy clearance sale at Walgreen’s pharmacies on Gold 200 and I bought a bunch of it and fridged it. I used a roll last month and loved the results. It’s got a nice warm tone. Works really well for autumn foliage shots.
I took advantage of that sale as well. I’ve used it all since then. I read that portra and ColorPlus are going to go up 43% eek
Yikes. I knew they were going up “significantly” but didn’t realize it was that much.
I consider it pure snobbery anytime someone looks down on films like KG 200 (or Fujicolor 200). These are fine general-purpose films with good color. Fujicolor 200 is the one I lean on most and I’ve done some of my best work with it.
That’s also a good one. I like how my nature shots come out with the fujicolor. Especially greens.