1. cheap 2. fine grain most of the time 3. Most labs know how to print it well 4. again, cheap

1. No good for portraits of orient people, have clusters of weird grains on skin. 2. Have a yellow tint with my setup

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 :)

Customer Service

never needed for films

Similar Products Used:

almost all Kodaks and Fujis, cosumer and prosumer grade

Ok for scenic shots

Peoples skin looks wierd.

I agree with the other poster about Gold 100 - the difference between this film and Fuji Reala is incredible. Fuji Reala is just much sharper, accurate and gread for pictures of family and friends (no funky skin tones). I''m not talking about the old Gold but the Gold sold as of 2002. I believe it will be replaced by Royal Gold 100, which is also a very good film.

Customer Service

never used

Similar Products Used:

Agfa 100, Fuji Reala 100, Fuji Superia 100, Konica 100 ...

Price - buy 4 roll pack at Target/Wal-mart for $5.99 or less. Fine grain and all-purpose film.

Not noticed yet.

This is one of my favorite film for random use - I used several brands in 100 speed and Kodak Gold is my best pick. I shoot mostly people in outdoor - so, this film meets both the quality and budget. Even I have taken photos indoor with 1.4 f lens opening and came out nice and correctly exposed. I took my Nikon and spend couple rolls of Kodak Gold 100 in the Mall and turned out properly exposed. I was experimenting night-time photography and took several shoots of same scene with different shuuter speed - even at 20 seconds shot came out good enough and was not over-exposed. (I used a Polarizer and Sepia filter to reduce the light almost 5 fold) Comparing with Fuji SuperHQ 100 - I think Kodak is more tolerant to perfect exposure. I trust mostly on the built-in camera meter in my Nikon - but some situations - it felt like the picture might turned out under or over exposed - but, when I got my photos back - they came out Ok. The 4 roll pack at Target is about $5.99 - this is the cheapest you can get for 100 speed film. If you are casual photographer - you cannot go wrong with this film.

Customer Service

Not needed.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji SuperHQ, Konica Centuria 100.

fine grain,cheap,reliable,SCAN,SCAN,SCAN!!!

negative film is fragile and easy to scratch-be careful

Great film for general purpose use that is very cheap and provides great results.Colors are saturated and warm/rich in reds and yellows. Similar Fuji film does not have that warm glow (cool). Grain is fine and suitable for enlargement/scanning. Negative film is fantastic. People say that slide film is better because you get to see every nuance of the exposure. Well, since I began printing my own prints directly from negatives with traditional chemistry and with digital methods, I find that negative film holds an incredible amount of shadow details and DOES show exposure errors (underexposure, mostly). Right now, I ALWAYS develop my film ONLY, with no prints because the quality I saw on my film did not AT ALL match what I saw on my prints. I have found that in contrast to what everyone complains about, my Nikkor lenses are all great- even the mega zooms! Image quality is superb, but I really didn''t know until I saw my enlarged prints or maximum scans. Store prints cannot reveal the detail at both the highlights and shadows in a negative. Store prints seem to go for an average middling exposure no matter what you have on film. You lose so much information that way- my night photography never came out at all. This is why prints always don''t look like what you saw in life. It is actually all still on the film! Thank god I was able to get a film scanner for cheap- now, I print only the images i want and am able to get incredible detail throughout my images. About film, the finer the grain, the better- for enlargements. Colors can be ''modified'' somewhat in Photoshop, so saturation is not as critical, but grain is always an issue. Still, Kodak film is very consistent and cheap. It also has a matte emulsion side which helps in scanning because the emulsion side does not cause reflections inside scanners like the smooth, base side. Good film, but concentrate on the composition

Customer Service

None-scan, scan,scan-your lenses are better than you think- better than any reviews, for sure.

Similar Products Used:

fuji equivalent is good, too

warm color (red and yellow) and fine grain

see review

This is a beautiful film especially for photographing people. It is warm with rich and saturated red and yellow. It does an excellent job in bringing out skin tone. Unlike, Fuji consumer films (Superia), which I find way too contrasty. Kodak Gold, by contrast, is much better in bringing out scenes of many levels of shade, a big plus when shooting in very contrasty scene (those shot under bright sun). The Kodak gold family of films are also better in grain than the Fuji counterparts. The weakness of the film is the rendering of the green colors. The green is slightly warm with a hint of yellow. If you are interested in landscape, a different film may do a better job. However, if people will be in your pictures, this will be a great film for you. Each film is designed for a certain type of photographic needs and thus it is always a good idea to try them all and then learn to work around their strength and weakness. Also keep in mind, before you write a review trashing this film, that the poor results may be due to your developing lab. I cannot believe that someone think this film deserves only one star.

Similar Products Used:

Reala, Supra, Royal Gold

Vivid colors Good resolution and contrast

More sensitive to red than to other colors. (See review summary.) The saturation is quite great. Bit expensive ($2.20 - $3.50 per 1 roll x 36 exp. in stores) for middle Bulgarian.

Any blemish could be turn advantage - Sensitivity to red has two good sides (may be more): - Excellent for sunrises, sunsets and autumn pictures; - Warm skin tones in portraits (without "color" filters). I prefer Fuji color rendition but if I go to shoot sunrises and sunsets, I would take Kodak Gold 100.

Customer Service

---

Similar Products Used:

ORWO Color 21/100, AGFA CRX 100, AGFA SPV Plus 100 Fuji HGV 100, Fuji Superia 100 & 200, Konica VX 100 Kodak Gold 200

Cheap! Reasonably sharp, good saturation.

Green(ish) cast and grain visible in low light.

I don't like using this film in a cheap P&S camera - I go for faster film (400 speed).

I mainly take outdoor pictures (under full sun), and don't use a flash. Using an SLR camera with a 50mm f1.7 lens, pictures come out sharp and with good colour saturation.

Sure, Royal Gold and Fuji Reala *are* better films. In the merry old land of Oz, both of these films are generally 3 - 4 times the price of standard Gold 100 (or Fuji Superia 100).

As jj says - "Use the RG, and pay the extra buck." If you can get RG for an extra buck, buy it - it's a superior film. For the rest of us, where prices for the Kodak Select Series films are insanely high..... well, you get my point.

Similar Products Used:

Most major consumer films, plus some of the cheaper pro films.

Rich Colors, nice for outdoor skin tones

none really

Good film for outdoors in bright light. I like using it on hiking and backpacking trips because of its saturation of colors. The problem lies in the fact that it can't do low light too well - gets pretty flat.

Similar Products Used:

None

Every lab can print this film with no problems, which means consistent prints.
Pretty good grain and color.

Skin tones come out weird. Greens are weak and muddy sometimes, but maybe its just me.

This film is an okay film but I would much rather use Reala or Royal Gold 100. Gold 100 simply can't compare to the color and grain of them. Under flash, Gold 100 doesn't look as good. I'll stick with RG 100 and Reala.

Similar Products Used:

You name it..

Average film, works well for bright outdoor shooting

No real weaknesses, but superior films are available for the same or less money.

Decent film, but I prefer superia 100 overall, & reale 100 for portraits. Colors are average compared to the aforementioned. This is a very sharp film, but I prefer fuji color rendition.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

superia 100, reale 100