Summary: Hi! I tested the Kodak GOLD 100 vs Fuji REALA 100.
I shhot with the same camera, same lens, same time.
6 sec night-picture with no flash :)
Fuji: No real reflections.
Not sharp as Gold 100.
No real colors, especially for reflections on water, + no real yellow lamps. + TOO TOO TOO MUCH REDS.
Gold: Sharp for bulidings, smooth for reflectiuons.
Real life colours.
Fantastic.
So my friends, if you hestitate about Gold, and REALA, choose gold.
I like Fuji as a company, but this is
unbelieveble that Gold kicks ass REALA. :)
Realla is a pro film, gold is a amateur.
But Gold is better.
I promise.
Strengths: Sharp if you need, smooth if you need.
Fantastic colours!
High resolution.
Weaknesses: None.
Similar Products Used: All ISO 100 film in that prince range.
Customer Service: I developed the Gold, and REALA at the same FUJI (!) lab!!!! Gold performs better in the Fuji lab! 8)
Summary: I LOVE THIS FILM. You can get it at any grocery store in a 4-pack for twelve bucks (just don't fall for the horsesh** on the back about Max800). The clarity this film lends to outdoor scenes is impeccable (provided it's not an ugly day!). It looks like you could just leap through the pictures in some cases. A simple shot of two tall pine trees on a rock at Bass Lake is now one of my favorite pictures, thanks to the beautiful clear blues this film lent to the water and sky. USE THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS WHEN OUTDOORS!!! Great for vacations!
Strengths: Impressive clarity
Perfect, life-like contrast
Beautiful deep blue skies
Terrific Colors
Fine Grainn
Weaknesses: Kodak's attempts to lead you to the dark side with the Max 800 propaganda.S
Summary: May I be bold? Okay, damm*t- This is the best d*mn film out there for amateurs!- especially for scanning and general use. I have tried most every normal thing out there, even Supra, which is supposed to be better for scanning. I even tried the cheapo Fuji and other sub brands to no end. Kodak Gold 100 is so refined and the colors/ contrast are so tuned that every piece of camera equipment from camera to processing to printing has been calibrated for it. I mainly use it for scanning on my Coolscan and for sure its quality beats anything under a 4MP with a good lens(I'm waitingn for the D100- this may be the film endall for me). But until then, Gold 100 is king. Supra is a bit finer, but has lowered contrast (not percieved as sharp) and has wierd funky colors- skin is pasty and low contrast shots look fluorescent, even in sunlight. Fuji film scans very grainy on my Super Coolscan- at any speed, but holds detail well (maybe only on Nikon scanners?) Fuji does green with excellence, but mostly contrast is very high on consumer stuff- black is ultrablack. Only Gold 100 has been true in colors and with its tight grain. I tend to like the somewhat med./high contrast- my shots look sharper. And of course, I use a Nikon body with Matrix meter to get the best exposure for my type of shooting: street/grabshots/shooting whilest doing something else:travelling, biking, hiking, driving- I can't set up for more than a minute. Gold colors are saturated and true in tone. The film itself has very good clarity for scanning and is always fresh wherever I buy it. I will NOT use any faster film- I'd rather bring out my SB flash than use anything grainer, even though I like Royal Gold 200 for its tight grain. Cheap- I can buy film and process (no prints) for under $4. A hundred (hey, I'm an amateur) rolls of this would only cost $400- for 2400 shots of 8MP printable quality (300ppi+ at 8x10/A4 size)- that looks good to me. Great, beautiful film - Gold 100. You know it- just use it.
Strengths: beautiful, true colors, sharp, low grain, print film scans with better detail, cheaper that dirt. ALWAYS fresh wherever you buy.
Weaknesses: not labelled "pro", hard to buy in 4 in a 4 pack (you get 3Gold100 + 1Max800yuck roll)
Summary: This film excels when it comes to certain conditions that the Fuji Superia 100 falters in.
The Kodak Gold is more color-balanced, whereas the Superia heavily saturates those damn reds. K-Gold also produces decent and consistent skin tones.
However, the Fuji film is slightly sharper, and if you neglect to notice the blood-thick reds, the color saturation overall is still stronger.
The grain is hardly noticeable on this film, I think. Only the pro photographers, and I''''ll openly admit that I''''m not, can really pick the subtle differences among 100 films.
I usually don''''t use 100 speed film, mostly because I despise the strong contrast.
But if you have to choose between the two mainstream consumer films--Fuji Superia 100 or Kodak Gold 100, go with this if your looking for all-around use.
It''''s all a matter of preference, you gotta be a little experienced to really decide. Other then that, if your a casual shooter and you like taking pics with your friends (I know I do), your better off with this.
Strengths: - good all around colour
- decent skin tones
Weaknesses: - very contrasty
- not as sharp as most other 100 ISO films
Summary: This is a strange film for me despite I use it most frequently. For low light photography such as night scenes, it beats others (not inferior to Reala either). No grain found and very good details in the shadows, PROVIDED A HEAVY TRIPOD IS USED. In daylight when I shoot people handheld, the skin tone, when printed onto Kodak papers and observed carefully, appears as aggregates of grains of green, red and orange! For nature such as flowers it is again great even handheld. So my conclusion is that this film is great except for portraits (at least for oriental people). Also, I used to put up an 81A for Reala but I found that Kodak gold 100 somehow has an "in built" 81A and therefore saves a filter :)
Strengths: 1. cheap
2. fine grain most of the time
3. Most labs know how to print it well
4. again, cheap
Weaknesses: 1. No good for portraits of orient people, have clusters of weird grains on skin.
2. Have a yellow tint with my setup
Similar Products Used: almost all Kodaks and Fujis, cosumer and prosumer grade
Link to this page
5 of 5
3 of 5
4 of 5
