Kodak Gold 200 Revisited

Ever since I wrote the December 20^th (2012) post on this film (Kodak Gold 200) I’ve had a nagging thought in the back of my mind that maybe I was not being fair in my evaluation of it. The truth is I have never really used this film for anything other than quick family snapshots, often taken with an inexpensive point & shoot camera. So how could I really be objective about its suitability for anything else? With that question in mind I decided to do something about it. I put a roll into my “go to” (film) point & shoot, the Canon Snappy LX II, and another roll in my “state of the art” Pentax ZX-30.

From the start I wanted to shoot more than just family snapshots although I did some of those too.  The photo above was taken with the ZX-30 at f8, 1/250 and ISO @ 200 of course. The similar shot below was taken by my son Noah, using the Canon Snappy LX II.

As you can see the color is great in both and since these are high resolution scans the overall quality is better than the low res scans used for my last roll of Kodak Gold 200. This 20^th century film doesn’t seem to scan as well as the 21^st century Kodak Portra films which were specifically designed for scanning. The grain is of course much more noticeable but I think the colors are rendered more accurately (although I personally still prefer the Portra for most things) and would likely produce excellent “wet prints” if they were available anymore. I suppose the only way to get “wet prints” these days is to do them yourself.

In any case I still say Kodak Gold film is best used for snapshots where the accurate and “eye popping” color will “light up” your photo albums sufficiently to overcome any objections to added graininess and the low price (while supplies last) will allow you to take as many photos as you want.

Post Processing?

A question was recently asked about how much post processing people do with their photos. Being an old film guy I do very little post processing. The photo above is probably about the most I ever do to a picture. The “before” photo is below, taken with the Pentax K-01 at f3.5, 1/160, and ISO at 100. This is what I started out with.

And here (below) is the intermediate step before I magically changed it to black & white.

I guess the reason I don’t do much post processing is the same reason I never did much darkroom work.

Oh I had a darkroom back in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. I developed my own film and made my own prints. If you didn’t do your own darkroom work after all, you weren’t a “real photographer.” It didn’t take me too long to realize that I liked taking pictures a whole lot more than not messing around in the dark with foul smelling chemicals. Fortunately I was able to pay others to do my darkroom work and back then there were plenty of quality photo labs to choose from.

These days I consider photo post processing the 21^st century equivalent of darkroom work. I have heard photographers agree that post processing takes 30 to 60 minutes per photograph for the best results. Now I am no stranger to computers. In fact I spend a fair amount of my day on a computer, every day. That, in and of itself, may be one reason why I don’t like post processing my photos. After spending most of my day at the computer the last thing I want to do is spend more hours there trying to make my photos look like they are supposed to look like. Besides, that just takes away more from time I could be out taking pictures.

I shoot a lot of film and when you shoot film most of the “post processing” decisions are made when you select which film you’re going to use. When I do shoot digital I don’t shoot RAW (because then I would have to do post processing). I shoot jpegs. This is likely why it is only recently that I have come to appreciate digital cameras. The early ones just were not capable of producing excellent pictures without a lot of post processing. The latest versions have amazing “in camera” capabilities including multiple exposure modes, filters and special effects that can produce beautiful jpegs right out of the camera. They even have HDR and panorama modes!

Now I know that for complete control over the finished product post processing is essential just as the darkroom is essential with film. But I also know that life is all about choices and I choose to sacrifice a little control for a lot more time to do other things – like take more pictures!

HD Pentax 560mm Lens

Here's the link for the latest press release I ran across on PentaxForums.Com announcing the new 560mm lens offering from Pentax.

Yes friends, for only $7000 you too can photograph close up's of the moon or the fleas on your neighbor's dog.

Check it out!


HD Pentax 560mm Lens Officially Available - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com


Seriously though, this is a great lens but I don't think to many non-pro's can justify spending that much for any lens. All the cameras, lenses & accessories in my house (and there are quite a few) aren't worth that much.