Kodak Gold Vs. ColorPlus: a Side-by-Side Comparison

Рет қаралды 4,809

7 ай бұрын

Dmitri and I have a conspiracy theory. Is Kodak ColorPlus just Kodak Gold in cheaper packaging? Here's the scientific test we conducted to find out! Both Kodak Gold and ColorPlus films have a very similar look: grainy, warm-tinted with green shadows, the same color base, and are both 200-speed film stocks. The only difference on the surface is the color on the box and the fact that Kodak ColorPlus film doesn't have a technical data sheet that goes into the films sensitivity and other information to help users get the best results possible.
So we did a side-by-side test by loading the film into two Hasselblad camera backs and shooting the same image with the same camera, lens, and settings. Then they were developed in the same tank with the same chemicals and scanned using identical camera settings. That way we could make an ideal comparison between these two rolls of film.
Check out Erosion of Spectacle on Soft Grain Books:
softgrainbooks.com/shop/erosi...
Check out the companion article on Analog.Cafe:
www.analog.cafe/r/kodak-gold-...
Get your own 120mm hat and ride with the cool kids:
shop.analog.cafe/
Gift Learn Film Photography a Roll of Film:
ko-fi.com/learnfilmphotography
How Film Works Video:
• How Does Film ACTUALLY...
My film scanning setup:
www.learnfilm.photography/wha...
Perfect LED light panel for scanning film:
amzn.to/3SWMgYX
(note: you can find cheaper options of this panel, but they do not have the flat back. This is the best version for scanning film).
Best macro lens for scanning film (sharpest lens at the best price)
amzn.to/47msw5m
Kodak Gold Film:
amzn.to/3QiG1gE
Kodak ColorPlus Film:
amzn.to/49MeUC8
Kodak Film Case:
amzn.to/3DHiH4F
Adapter to use 35mm film in medium format cameras:
amzn.to/40PdimY
Iflord HP5 Film:
amzn.to/4a1Jrfx
Kodak Reusable 35mm film camera:
amzn.to/3Yi4Z1Y
Ilford Sprite 35-II
amzn.to/3sN0tNw
Kodak Ektar Half Frame 35-II:
amzn.to/3Dzai3d

Пікірлер: 56

@braxus351W 5 ай бұрын

It's known Kodak Color Plus was previously named Kodak VR Plus until they changed the name. Kodak VR Plus, and hence Color Plus renamed, was based on the old Kodak VR from the 1980s. KODAK VR preceded Kodak VR-G in the 80s. VR-G was renamed Kodak Gold in the late 80s. Knowing all this, Color Plus is just an updated film based on the original Kodak VR.

@VariTimo 6 ай бұрын

I appreciate the thought that using a medium format back for consistency would have been useful but killing the orange mask really screwed up those scans. I’ve tested both these stocks with a color chart and a lab scanner and they definitely have different color reproduction. This is mainly visible when doing color correction that go against the warm hue the films have. You can correct it out of Gold and make it cool and still have good saturation. The moment you start correcting out the warm tones from Color Plus it becomes quite flat and it looses the appearance of saturation.

@stefanolugli1461 7 ай бұрын

Always great videos, very well researched. Great job!

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@EmilyGallagher 7 ай бұрын

The films are twins. That being said, I prefer the sharpness of the colour plus.

@kleanish 2 ай бұрын

Gold is sharper, less grain

@Sigalt 3 ай бұрын

I love your videos, very informative

@frankyperal1 7 ай бұрын

Awesome work! As always

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

Thank you!

@aiherzen Ай бұрын

My theory is that datasheets aren't published for budget stocks to allow manufacturers to put what they like in the box, so sometimes that might be premium brands that fall slightly out of spec in the qc process and may just be the start/end of the master roll. They obviously can't qc every roll so need to be cautious to protect their core brands.

@LearnFilmPhotography Ай бұрын

I think you hit the nail on the head, but with the caveat that Kodak may also not want them to publish the technical datasheet. That way Kodak can continue to claim they have a superior product, even if it's functionally the same.

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

After seeing this side-by-side comparison, do you think Kodak Gold and Kodak ColorPlus are different film emulsions? Which one do you like better?

@malypavel25 3 ай бұрын

I think they are different stocks. Gold was less sharp and colours were different for me before. Unless something has changed recently...

@erickovalacoustic 5 ай бұрын

Appreciate the work that was put behind this video, but I have to say that there were a few times mentioned that there isn't any difference but my eye is seeing the yellows more pronounced in Kodak Gold, especially at 10min 10sec when looking at the Open and Store Hours sign. I'm going to test for myself to see but I'm going to be using two Minolta Maxxum 7000 cameras. Did you hear the conspiracy theory that the drug store fuji film is just repackaged Kodak Gold?

@LearnFilmPhotography 5 ай бұрын

That image definitely did show some bigger differences than the others. But the differences are still so minor that it's more likely to be caused by age or a difference in handling than by being a different emulsion, since it costs a lot of money to run different skus. As for the Fuji deal, yeah, I have heard it. And unfortunately I think it's true. We saw that last year with the sensitivity curves in the updated technical data sheets published by Fuji - which were identical to Kodak's film stocks.

@erickovalacoustic 5 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography I just received rolls of Gold, Ultramax, Ektar, Color Plus, Portra, and Pro Image. So I now have a lot of testing to do myself. Thanks for the inspiration, but my bank account is VERY upset with you lol. Will be digging through your videos to see what other goodies you have for us :)

@MrChrodo 7 ай бұрын

Using my current scanning method with a 90s film scanner, the shots taken on ColorPlus 200 also often look sharper and less "warm" than on Gold 200. Every portrait taken with the CP200 looks overall nicer than on Gold. Pictures look a bit more neutral.Like, grass tends to be rendered brighter on Gold, while on CP200, it feels more "true to life".

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

That's interesting! What are you using the convert the images?

@MrChrodo 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography Actually just the tool Nikon provides, the scan tool from the 90s. Honestly, i don't think that it is perfect, but isn't too bad, either.

@Der_Marc 3 ай бұрын

Interessting. I thought the same. They are very close, but not the same. Sadly its not clear if the Gold is really that less sharper then the color plus.

@LearnFilmPhotography 3 ай бұрын

That's the one downside of this experiment! I really wish I could have solved that. But I do suspect they're the same film and should have the same sharpness.

@xander1052 6 ай бұрын

The main thing I had heard is the Colorplus is supposed to be Kodacolor Gold from the 80s, so it would make sense that they aren't super different but they do look way closer than I'd have imagined.

@LearnFilmPhotography 6 ай бұрын

That is a possibility that I hadn't examined - it could have been a different film emulsion in the past that was discontinued.

@pd1jdw630 7 ай бұрын

Took me a while and I had to go back and forward through the images. I watched it on the phone again on the iMac. Then even through Apple TV on the TV. And yet again through the TV’s KZfaq app itself. I lowered and upped the brightness on all the appliances. So I took me time. I’m not accounting the sharpness, cause like you said. That might have been the film ever so slightly out of place. The only real difference which you really have to look for. Is that the Gold film has a slight higher color saturation. Maybe do this again with something the film could be held better in place.

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

The only problem is that something that holds the film in place better would be a 35mm camera. But then you need two different cameras which can introduce differences from the lenses, or from the shutters if there's slightly different timing. I think I will try the Hasselblad again, but focus more on keeping the back tight. Or maybe rent an RB67 with multiple backs to try that.

@pd1jdw630 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography That might help. But again. Other then others saying Gold being a bit sharper. And a bit more color saturation. I wouldn’t hold it against you if you didn’t tried it.

@afndcasd1288 4 ай бұрын

why are your film roll holses in the middle of the picture?....

@LearnFilmPhotography 4 ай бұрын

That's happening because I loaded 35mm rolls into a medium format back so that I could test them side by side like this.

@robertclack5030 2 ай бұрын

Gold in my eyes comes out slightly more blue

@LearnFilmPhotography 2 ай бұрын

That could be! I think it says it all when you have to look that closely to find a difference. I'm working on another one like this now that'll also show a known different film stock for comparison.

@matsfagerberg6499 7 ай бұрын

Seems more likely that the lower sharpness on gold has something to do with the adapter used imo. Otherwise interesting test. In my own scans I feel that there is a slight difference in color between the two. But that might just be my imagination. I guess it's also possible that colorplus used to be something different, back when Kodak was huge, but now is simply gold

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

That's possible, for sure! I think labs also often have presets for film stocks, which is why Lomo films may always be more saturated than the Kodak films they use for the 100, 400, and 800 film stocks.

@matsfagerberg6499 7 ай бұрын

So what are your thoughts on the Lomo films? Is it Pro-image, Ultramax and the Max 800 stuff that's in the fun saver cameras? It's also interesting that the new Kodak produced Fuji 400 has a different data sheet than Ultramax, and Fuji 200 initially had the same data sheet as Gold 200 but supposedly that has changed as well (I haven't personally checked if that is a fact). So Kodak is apparently able to produce several different emulsions. @@LearnFilmPhotography

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

I believe so. I think the 800 is actually Portra 800, though, which should also be the same as the 800-speed film in the funsaver cameras. It's for the same reason, that Kodak would not make a separate 800-speed film just for Lomography and the funsaver cameras where it has a much lower profit margin than if they sold it through Kodak Alaris. It just doesn't make sense for them. And also Portra 800 did not receive the same update that Portra 400 and 160 did - the emulsions are quite different despite having the same name. The big difference I see between Portra 800 and Lomo 800 is in 120 format, Lomo 800 has a thinner base, which makes it curl a lot more, leading me to believe they're using the 35mm film cut to 120 size to cut costs. It's a big accusation, and I will make a video on that claim coming up soon.

@Leandro_Montibeler Ай бұрын

At 2:48 , calling photography "lens-based art" is... Well, I'd avoid that in the future. Other than that, I really like this test, it's very thorough in excluding variables. I kinda have say: no difference seems significant by the end. Great video.

@LearnFilmPhotography Ай бұрын

Where I'm from this term is becoming more common. I'm interested in hearing your point on why it should be avoided?

@Leandro_Montibeler Ай бұрын

I think it sounds a little pretentious, and that can distract from the point you’re trying to make. I don’t mean to be rude. I do like the video and the testing.

@LearnFilmPhotography Ай бұрын

@Leandro_Montibeler fair enough! The intent was to be actually more inclusive, but I get that doesn't always happen. It's good to have this feedback, I absolutely appreciate it!

@mebel_PRO_Kiev 4 ай бұрын

Colorplus 👍

@sebastianweinert2408 7 ай бұрын

Meh, I'll just wait for David Hancock to do an All About Film on ColorPlus. Until his in-depth look reveals that Gold and CP are actually the same, I'll assume they're two separate stocks.

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

I'd love to see his results. I doubt we'll have a different conclusion, though, if he's able to do the same side-by-side comparison as this. Without a comparison of the same image in the same light using the same camera and lens, it'll be really tough to see the similarity. I'm also making the images available online so you'll be able to download the raws and judge them for yourself. Should be available in the next couple of days here.

@nathanpiperphoto 7 ай бұрын

Dave's stock video's are great, but I've never seen him do what these guys did. These guys did it right, they controlled for variables as much as possible

@nathanpiperphoto 7 ай бұрын

Compelling conspiracy. If you guys included color charts and could replicate this same process 5-10 more times then I would say you're 100% onto something. I think the most likely truth is they are "different", albeit without much distinction, in that both stocks probably share 95-99% the same manufacturing process and materials used to make the emulsions. We all know how hard film manufacturing is, especially these days, it would be understandable for Kodak to piggy-back on processes/materials used across stocks that have similar ISO ratings/consumer use. Especially for two stocks that are so very similar (200 ISO rating/consumer grade stocks)

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

That would be the next step for sure, along with making darkroom prints with the negatives as well as scanning. But for a basic test, I think the results are pretty compelling.

@nathanpiperphoto 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography For sure, I agree!

@bojkof 7 ай бұрын

"scientific test"... "scanned" with a digi and converted with NLP?!? I don't think so. NLP makes them look similar. The only way to properly compare is using an enlarger.

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

You're right, NLP does do that. But NLP still reacts to whats captured on the film. The grains were the same (which you can see much clearer with a DSLR scan), the reciprocity failure rates were the same, and when zooming in, there's no visible difference in color sensitivity - we should have seen some colors are changes in gradients from dark to light if they were different films even though I'm using NLP. NLP doesn't just magically make colors there that weren't there before.

@danieljimenez1989 7 ай бұрын

It's easy to manually adjust one of the negatives and then use those settings to make a preset and then just apply the same preset to the other negative. This way you don't use negative lab pro and can eliminate this caveat from the analysis. This would be more difficult with different film base colors, but that doesn't seem to be the case as you've pointed out.

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

Yes, so I actually did do that in one of my tests. I had actually converted one of the negatives, and then used the 'previous' settings in Lightroom Classic, and got nearly identical results with the two images. This is something I should have explained further in the video, but for the sake of time, I omitted it. But I am happy to provide the negatives to anyone who asks to conduct your own tests.

@danieljimenez1989 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography That's nice that you did that, even nicer that you've now let us know about it. I think at some point the differences may have been there, but now they're segmenting the market with two brands of the more advanced product (or extremely similar ones) to benefit from economies of scale at a greater factor.

@rasmusbaudtler8773 23 күн бұрын

@LearnFilmPhotography Im not sure what happens in the background of NLP. Maybe the copy paste setting thing is waterproof. But wouldn't it be an interesting test to make a scan using both negatives side by side in the same scanned image. Edit way the borders and then do the conversion? I know you have to take the white balance reading and then you have two different borders to choose from. But if the film stocks are the same, the white balance should be very similar I suppose. Just and idea. Really enjoyed the video, I would not be able to tell them apart for sure.

@thedrunkweddingphotographer 7 ай бұрын

I've been saying it for decades and no one in the wedding film community ever listened to me. I never bought into the hype of Portra or 400H because in my early days of working for Ritz Camera in 2005, I was told by handful of Kodak and Fuji reps that 'pro' film was simply repackaged aged consumer film. And to this day, I continue to photograph my weddings with what ever consumer 3 roll packs I find at Walmart. That don't mean I don't use 'pro' stocks however. If I find a deal on any color 35mm, I'll buy it up. On top of that, if you have a good lab tech, they can pretty much get you any look you want from any film. Exposing for that desired look helps too of course.

@LearnFilmPhotography 7 ай бұрын

That's incredible that you were able to build your business using these films! You must have saved so much money over the years. And it's true - you can definitely get any look out of any film when you know how to shoot and work with it. ... But Portra being repackaged consumer films? That's something I'm going to need to test here.

@thedrunkweddingphotographer 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography *Palpatine* Do it!

@thedrunkweddingphotographer 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography take you some Ultramax, age it pass its exp. date and run a test.

@thedrunkweddingphotographer 7 ай бұрын

@@LearnFilmPhotography and not some much 'repackaged' but simply aged stock that would other wise be sold as Ultramax.