Extremely fine grain
Saturated Color
Natural Skin Tone
Excellent contrast

None

There is a simple answer to huge differences in ratings by people on this site. The Lab printing your photos. Color negative film density and colors, regardless of brand, can be completely controlled and rely on who is operating the printing machine at the lab you are using. Ask any professional. Using a reputable professional lab, there are very few films that can touch Royal 100. Instead of switching films, try swithching to several labs until you find someone that "knows" colors and individually analyzes each frame before printing it. I guarantee that the poor reviews are by people who have their film processed at drug stores or Wal-Mart's and expect to get good results. It is absolutely essential to use a good lab when shooting color negative film, regardless of the brand or speed. Also, as with any film, exposure is critical to obtaining not only accurate color rendition, but also contrast. 100 Speed film should not be used in low light. Many people tend to underexpose 100 speed film by not using sufficient light. If anything, 100 speed color negative film should be overexposed by a third of a stop to increase contrast and color saturation.
View portraits I have shot exclusively on Kodak Royal Gold 100 at:
www.sandersonphoto.com
I will be happy to answer any questions.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Gold 100
Fuji Reala
Kodak Portra 160 NC
Portra 160VC

cheap, kodak (reliable+consistent)
buy it almost anywhere
finegrained

lower contrast
lower saturation

I am an amateur photographer and mostly use Gold100 or Superia 400- almost nothing else. Those are great print films. Occassionally I use Royal GOld 400 for important indoor/overcast events (an excellent 400 print film). Royal Gold 100 mystifies me a little. It is not as contrasty as Gold 100, neither is it as color saturated. For sure, it is more fine grained- skies no longer look patchy (Superia 400 is the patchiest of the bunch). Because of the lowered saturation, I don't recommend it for everyday use. I may try using an 81B filter on the lens for better saturation (maybe retaining the great fine grain, too). For some reason 4x6 prints don't look as good in Royal 100 versus Gold 100- it is not as color punchy. Intentionally blurred images look ultrasmooth, instead of blotchy like Gold 100. It does enlarge well with super details in the shadows. I may have to get used to it because I have a few rolls lying around.

Similar Products Used:

None

If one is looking for a film that is extremely fine grained, gives saturated but natural looking colors as well as good skin tones, and has moderate contrast, then this is the "only" film that will

I'd like to see a film with these charactertics at a higher speed rating.

Taking a photo is analogous to painting a picture but you use film instead of paint. Each film has it's own unique characteristics. In this case, Royal Gold 100, is ideal if you need to enlarge your photo beyond 8x10" (ideal for 20x30" picture posters), you desire moderate constrast and a high degree of color saturation (except for neutral tones) and seek decent skin tones. I know of no other film with all these fine qualities.

I'd compare this film to the print-film equivalent to Fuji's Provia slide film.

On the other end of the spectrum if one is looking for a film that can nail down accurate skin tones of any ethnicity, has low contrast, and natural but not saturated colors and fine grain try Fuji NPS 160 instead. I'd consider this another 5-star film, but it is used to achieve a different object than Royal Gold 100.

I've seen a few reviewers complain about muddy washed out colors using Royal Gold 100. For these people I'd suggest they switch to a photo lab that isn't using depleted photo chemicals.

That's it in a nutshell.

Customer Service

B&H has excellent prices and good service. Sometimes the sales people can be a little kurt but overall customer service is fine.

Similar Products Used:

Most all of Fuji's and Kodak's color print films (800 ASA and below).

see the description below

well its not perfect for portraits and high contrast scenes and countries., slightly more expensive for a consumer film, but if you get a deal on non expired one brab it.

probably the best print film in my opinion with optimum saturation of colors and grain. There aren't many print films with good colors for outdoor photography. fuji print films are good but not as good in saturation. The Supra, 'professoinal' version of this one is not much different to my eyes. Good thing about this film is that you won't regret using this one for some people pictures when you are taking some ladscape pics and cannot change film. You cannot do that with, say, ultra 50 or velvia as they are horrific on people skin. This is not perfect but the best out there.

Customer Service

never tried

Similar Products Used:

almost all iso 100ish print films from kodak and fuji

Great skin tones. Great on black hair.

Price compared to Fuji Superia Reala.

I like 2 ISO 100 films. Royal Gold and Fuji Reala. I find Reala to be sharper and more saturated. Royal Gold is the best in my opinion with tan skin and black hair. It has an oil painting quality look, skin is creamy. I shoot at an outdoor event 3 times a summer and use half Fuji and half Kodak. I want to use just one type. My photographic heart says Kodak, my pocket says Fuji. Kodak skin tones are natural and when using fill flash the colors are more saturated. While this may sound academic, this film looks better the more light you give your subject. If it is a bit lower contrast lighting it looks dull compared to Fuji. If I shot tan brunettes outdoors for the rest of my life I would only use this film. IN SHORT: My favorite picture that I took is on Kodak, and its the film my friends say to buy when they look through my pictures.

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Superia Reala ISO 100

None

None

I have been using Kodak Royal Gold 100 for last two weeks and find that it is a good film except it does not deliver true color. Red looks darker and blue looks saturated, and yellow looks more like orange. Many of the rides at park and cars look cleaner and newer than actually they are.

As for skin tone, I find that my camera’s auto-setting tends to darken skin (like some people said, ‘sunburn’) so I am compensating it by +1. Naturally I get slower shutter speed and it overexposes the brighter background areas, but the silky skin tone looks good as if it was oil painted.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

None

fine grain

lack of color saturation

bought 2 rolls for quick use because at the time I only had one camera. found the grain to be wonderful but also found that it was easy to lose much of the color I rembered to be present.

Similar Products Used:

most fugi films

Sharp, most places know how to develop it. Good with skin tones, generally.

No matter where I've had this film processed, from Kodalux to A & I (local pro lab), the colors are sedate and unsaturated - they almost look faded. The film has a decided shift to yellow which I haven't been able to succesfully correct with filtration.

Use it if you want your colors to look bland and washed out (some will say "realistic"). Otherwise, stick to Fuji.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

Fuji Reala, Superia 400, Kodak Gold Max 100, Velvia, Provia

sharp, smooth grain

a bit flat

I used it before at normal ISO, but lately have been using it at ISO 160- this makes a world of difference! Colors are a bit more saturated like Gold 100, but the grain much smoother. Colors are better to my eyes- this is the best consumer 100 for enlargments. I still like the saturated punchiness of regular Gold 100, but am finding myslef in need of one or two more stops with my slow zoom lens. I may try Gold 200 like I used to use, but it has a bit more graniness and seems to have a nice warm glow to everything. I wouldn't try ISO160 with Gold 100 because underexposure will cause blotchiness in the details.

Similar Products Used:

None

None

None

This will mirror the review I just put on the Reala site....

Trying to choose between Reala and Royal Gold, I tested them head-to-head shooting scenics and some portrait stuff from Alaska to Ohio and points in between. Same Nikon body, same Nikon lens, same Manfrotto tripod. I'd shoot 10 frames with the RG, rewind, load the Reala, and shoot 10 frames of the exact same subject. RG went to a Kodak lab, Reala to a Fuji lab. Consistently, these were my results:

Royal Gold: rich blue skies with almost 3-D white clouds, reds and yellows in wildflowers and berries that truly 'popped...', tack-sharp deep green blades of grass, macro patterns on butterfly wings and eyes (!) that were sharp and rich with color...and always accurate to what I saw.

Reala: dull, dark, lifeless landscapes with muddied colors...smudgy 'yellowed' greens, anemic skin tones...1-2 stops of overexposure didn't do a thing to correct this.

I have no vested interest in either product...this was my honest evaluation. Consistently this is what I found. And others looking at my prints make the same observations.

Similar Products Used:

None