Kodak Gold 200 Film (4-Pack)

One thing I've noticed about Kodak Gold is that in general the "gold" tone the film tries to produce acts more like a yellow hue so that skin tones are distorted and subjects look jaundiced. Try Fuji, it's both cheaper and has better color.


Comparing Fuji and Kodak   December 15, 2002
 4 out of 4 found this review helpful

This film's main advantage is the more realistic colors than the Fuji Superia. It also seems to do a good job rendering skin tones, although I have read that the 200 ASA is better than the 400 for this, but I'm not that sharp-eyed myself on skin tones. But I can clearly see the difference between this, for example, and the Fuji Superia, in terms of the color rendition.

The Fuji is better if you want more saturated colors. It has the extra 4th emulsion layer that gives more intense reds, purples, and blues. It also has good black response and contrast, and good overall exposure latitude. The review I read of the Fuji said it also has good responese with polarizers and specifically recommended a circular polarizing filter for use with it. I'm a little puzzled by that since polarizing filters are regarded normally as intensifying color, since they help elmininate some chromatic desaturation that occurs with distance as a result of the blue-scattering effect. But anyway, I pass that advice on for what it's worth.

The only real problem to watch out for with the Fuji is underexposure, which will cause washed out colors and graininess.

Despite all the above advantages of the Fuji, the super-saturated colors aren't to everyone's liking, and in that case, the Kodak may be best for you. If you want the most bilious colors you've ever seen, choose the Fuji.