Film review: Kodak Gold 200 vs Fujicolor C200 comparison – by Dan Marinelli

Written by and published on

I was a Kodak Gold 200 user forever. I’m not really sure why. I think it might have been taking those purple and yellow 3-packs out of my mom’s camera bag from a young age.

Nostalgia can be powerful, but I digress…


This little test is really about discovering which readily available consumer-grade 200 ISO C-41 film best fits my needs. Your needs may well differ from mine, so this test isn’t for everyone and shouldn’t be considered “definitive”. I’m sharing my results as I believe they have some value for other people in the community and well, it’s fun.

So, I had used Kodak Gold 200 since the dawn of time and I’ve never tried Fujicolor C200. As often is the case, one day I was sitting around wondering what using C200 would be like, so I did what any person would do… I went on Amazon, bought a couple of rolls and proceeded to try it out.

The only way to really tell is to take images with the same camera and the same settings at the exact same time with the same lens, so I loaded up two Pentax MX cameras with a pair of SMC 50mm f/1.7 lenses. If I am shooting an SLR, I am shooting a Pentax and the Pentax-M SMC 50mm f/1.7 is one of my go-to lenses. I have 2 of them just to perform little tests like this. It’s lightweight, contrasty, sharp and has neutral color rendition so it’s perfect to compare film stocks.

I went on a little walk around the block, put on my headphones and burned through both rolls in about 35 minutes. The cameras were both freshly CLA’d and the meters were exactly the same after a few test shots.

Pentax MX vs Pentax MX
Pentax MX vs Pentax MX

I almost never expose film at box speed, so to be fair when comparing these films, I metered with one camera to determine exposure, say 125 @ f8, then I manually bracketed two stops in either direction by adjusting only the shutter speed. You never know, Gold overexposed one stop could be much better than the Fuji 200 shot at box speed or vice versa.

So here the shots, 16 pairs, 32 in total. None of them are epic, but you can definitely see the difference in film stocks. See if you can guess which one is Fuji C200 and which one is Kodak Gold 200.


Scene 01: Flowers overexposed 2-stops (EI 50)

Scene 01: Flowers overexposed 1-stop (EI 100)

Scene 01: Flowers metered at EI 200

Scene 01: Flowers underexposed 1-stop (EI 400)

Scene 01: Flowers underexposed 2-stops (EI 800)

Scene 02: Beach overexposed 2-stops (EI 50)

Scene 02: Beach overexposed 1-stop (EI 100)

Scene 02: Beach metered at EI 200

Scene 02: Beach underexposed 1-stop (EI 400)

Scene 02: Beach underexposed 2-stops (EI 800)

Scene 03: Bench metered at EI 200

Scene 04: Car #1 metered at EI 200

Scene 04: Car #2 metered at EI 200

Scene 05: Daughter metered at EI 200

Scene 06: House metered at EI 200

Scene 07: Window metered at EI 200

The bracketing made a difference, but not as much as you would think, box speed looked the best IMHO and in case you’re still curious, the Fuji frames are on the left and the Kodak frames on the right.

I noticed a few differences. The three main ones: first, I believe Fujicolor C200 has a little bit of a finer grain to it. Second, I also believe it has a more greenish bluish cast. Third, I believe it has a bit more contrast overall.

Which stock do like better? Does one shine for you under certain conditions and for certain subjects? Which of these two film stocks do you normally shoot? Finally, does anything you see here make you want to switch? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for reading my little comparison and please do let me know what you think in the comments section below.

~ Dan

Postscript

After this test, I went all-in on Fuji C200. For my style of photography and typical San Diego lighting conditions, I find it vastly superior. Whenever I test or review a half-frame camera for halfframeclub.com, I load Fuji C200, set the film speed to 100 and shoot. I’ve noticed that it has significantly finer grain than Kodak Gold 200, which is a benefit when you are shooting half-frame negatives.

I have blown up some prints to 18×24 and they look great. I like the film so much I have included it in promos for camera rentals and zine releases as well. I will always have a soft spot for Gold 200 but these days, Fuji C200 is my film of choice for 200 ASA C41 film. Check out more examples at the Half Frame Club IG or the link in my author profile below!

Share your knowledge, story or project

At the heart of EMULSIVE is the concept of helping promote the transfer of knowledge across the film photography community. You can support this goal by contributing your thoughts, work, experiences and ideas to inspire the hundreds of thousands of people who read these pages each month. Check out the submission guide here.


If you like what you're reading you can also help this personal passion project by heading on over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and giving as little as a dollar a month. There's also print and apparel over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique photographs available for purchase.


More related reading

Previous

5 Frames… With ILFORD Delta 3200 Professional (EI 1600 / 35mm format / Nikkormat EL) – by Alex Wilden

5 Frames… With Fujicolor C200 (EI 800 / 35mm format / Nikon F3) – by Kevin Tan

Next

10 thoughts on “Film review: Kodak Gold 200 vs Fujicolor C200 comparison – by Dan Marinelli”

  1. I shot Kodak Gold 200 exclusive, because its available in drogstores here in Germany at 8€ for 3 Rolls. Its cheap and at iso 200 its a good allrounder for old cameras with less shutterspeeds. But sometimes i was disappointed about the fading colors in some conditions. Now as i know that fuji is that great i have to get some. Thank you,especially for the relalife yet comparable test conditions with the same camera-lens combination.

    Reply
  2. At 2,38 EUR (2,60 USD / 2,12 GBP) for 36 exposures, Kodak Gold is the cheapest film that I’m aware of here in Germany. I guess 1 euro more or less per roll isn’t going to influence your choice too much, but for my uses Gold fits the bill.

    Reply
  3. I’ve shot lately the C200 more & more and I must say it really is a great stock for very little money. The colours, the contrast, the balcks & whites: everything is on it’s place. Before that I’ve shot a lot of Agfa Vista 400, since it was discontinued I needed another cheap film to test my new-to-me gear. I found something even better than the Vista was!

    Reply
    • I did the same think when bought film camera. Nostalgy buy kodak gold200 and add fujicolor c200 to the basket to. First i put Kodak and shoot the rool then bought polarizator and shoot another rool of kodak. The rezoults were much better but when i put fuji in i was amezed i prefer more contrast in pic so i use fuji a lot.
      But if you love old look on pic then the kodak is better choise

      Reply
  4. When I was still shooting film seven-eight years ago, I used both Kodak and Fujicolor. What is available here in my country the Philippines from Kodak was C100 and C200, ProPhoto100 (the one that comes in 5-pack boxes) and Kodak Gold 400. Sometimes the rare E100 Ektachrome pops up. For black and white it’s just TMax 400.
    For Fujicolor, what we have here is just the regular Fujicolor 100, 200 and 400. There was a time that a flood of FujiProPlus 100 and 200 swamp the market. I splurge and bought–I think–50 rolls of those. As per film, supply is never regular here. What you see is what you can get.
    Coming to which one I use depends on the intent. If I’m aiming for the nostalgic look, I load Kodak because of its strong yellow tinge. If I am for vibrance and contrast and strong saturation (especially the reds and blue) I load up the Fuji.
    Fuji ProPlus II came out and I used that for festivals and street parades because of its screaming reds and blues and very fine grain even at ISO 400.
    I guess you’re right with your observations about contrast and colors between the two film stocks.

    Reply

Join the discussion