This film is good for bright pictures. still, bright, plain pictures. it is not good for action or low light. if you are buying this just because it is cheaper, i would suggest to get the 400 speed. the 400 is the best film for the money. | https://sfdryrot.com

None so far.

None

This sort of film that makes film look bad, and costs a lot to, I wouldn't use film anymore either if this was all I knew.

This film is bad in every way
Costs more than I can get Portra 800 for and looks just as grainy

Similar Products Used:

Superia 100
Decent films

-Reasonably fine grain -Generally good sharpness -Well-balanced colours

-Not as sharp as comparable Fuji films

I tried Kodak 100 to compare with Fujicolor Superia 100. The results weren't better, but they weren't too bad either. The colours were warmer and better balanced than Fuji 100, but the grain wasn't as fine and details weren't quite as sharp. However, Fuji 100 sets the bar quite high among 100-speed films, and the Kodak 100 results are still better than most higher-speed consumer films. I haven't yet found a 100-speed film that takes good photos in low lighting, and I would be surprised if Kodak 100 would do so. However, that's not the intended purpose of 100-speed film, and for outdoor shots, Kodak 100 is a good choice. (If willing to pay a little extra and if it can be found, check out Fujicolor Reala 100 first)

Customer Service

Not needed

Similar Products Used:

Fujicolor Superia 100, 200, 400 Fujicolor Reala 100 Fujichrome Sensia 100 Kodak 200, 400, H-D 400

Gets the job done Price Availability

Well, I don't really know. Compared to the FUJI REALA 100, it is not quite the same quality. But otherwise, it is a great 100 Film !

I bought this film as a back up film, in case I ran out of others and needed to shoot more pictures. I also took it because I could purchase more item fr the same overall shipping price :)

Similar Products Used:

Kodak ROYAL GOLD 200,400 Kodak MAX 400 Kodak HD 400 Fuji REALA 100

Colors, saturation, people, pictures all come out looking great. No problems using it in P&S cameras and SLRs. Reliable film, does what it should. Simply load it up, take a picture, have it printed and out comes a nice, colorful, saturated picture. Warmth in all photos helps even on cloudy days - people still look lively, not lifeless. Really can't find any faults with it.

Other than being a 100 speed film (ie. slow for some P&S zooms), none other than it is priced higher than Fuji 100 speeds - which really isn't saying much negative since Kodak 100 is 'the' film to buy of the bunch in the 100 speed range, IMO.

The standard in 100 speed films marches along as a reliable, basic film to use. Vs. FujiFilm which tends to make things a bit 'too' neutralizing/flat -- ie. takes even the color casts out of mixed and fluorescent lighted scenes, Kodak 100 records things as they are, and adds a nice color punch to the saturation. If you see a yellow cast in real life, you'll get it in the photos -- identical, in other words and keeps the 'feeling' of the scene intact. (Remember to have it processed on a Kodak lab! eg. Noritsu processor to Kodak paper with Kodak chemicals. Often, if you process Kodak in Fuji & print to Fuji and vice versa, you won't get optimal prints...) I really like the images coming out of this film, more so than their 400 speed film, and it's a keeper for me after trying various Kodak & Fuji films.

Similar Products Used:

FujiFilm 100, 200, 400, etc. Kodak 100, 200, 400, etc.

Fine grain Great tonal range under sunlight Excellent for scanning

Oversaturates easily with bright colors (this has more to do with the process of making prints than the film itself, though). If you want to shoot bright colors without "crushing" them, use Velvia.

Great print film, and my standard when shooting architecture and outdoor travel photos. Excellent for use with film scanners, with grain that's considerably finer than Gold 200. When looking at prints, however, there is hardly any grain difference between this film and 200. This has truer colors under daylight than 200, though. 200 is contrasty, which is good for flash photography of people and macro shots of plants, but 100 is more subtle and displays a broader range of tones. Just don't use a brightly-colored object as your subject with this film or your prints will be grossly oversaturated.

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Gold 200 Fuji Super HQ 200

Sharp if you need, smooth if you need. Fantastic colours! High resolution.

None.

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.

Customer Service

I developed the Gold, and REALA at the same FUJI (!) lab!!!! Gold performs better in the Fuji lab! 8)

Similar Products Used:

All ISO 100 film in that prince range.

Impressive clarity Perfect, life-like contrast Beautiful deep blue skies Terrific Colors Fine Grainn

Kodak's attempts to lead you to the dark side with the Max 800 propaganda.S

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!

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Max 200l

beautiful, true colors, sharp, low grain, print film scans with better detail, cheaper that dirt. ALWAYS fresh wherever you buy.

not labelled "pro", hard to buy in 4 in a 4 pack (you get 3Gold100 + 1Max800yuck roll)

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.

Customer Service

never had a bum roll

Similar Products Used:

everything consumer

- good all around colour - decent skin tones

- very contrasty - not as sharp as most other 100 ISO films

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 d*** 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.