Gold 200 vs portra 160 in 120

N

Nebular89

Messages
235
Edit My Images
No
I can get both rolls for the same price so is it an obvious choice to just get portra 160 over gold 200? I’m going away at the end of October and want to take some colour film. I’m going to the new Forrest for a day on the way down to Cornwall so I’ll get 1 roll of lomo 800 to use but I’m not sure which colour to get to use down there. Portra 400 and 800 are out, way to expensive so it’s between 160 and gold. Gold has the slightly better iso but it doesn’t seem enough to make a difference
 
Gold has a "look". Portra, not so much. As you say, the ISO difference is neither here nor there. Used to be that 160 was far more expensive than Gold so it ended up being a financial decision. If that's gone, then I'm a bit stumped.

I would probably go 160 if they were the same price. Gold has a nice look, but it's not for every photo. 160 is just lovely as is. So trade more flexibility unless you really like the look of Gold.

I'm just surprised they're the same price!
 
Harlequin565 said:
Gold has a "look". Portra, not so much. As you say, the ISO difference is neither here nor there. Used to be that 160 was far more expensive than Gold so it ended up being a financial decision. If that's gone, then I'm a bit stumped.

I would probably go 160 if they were the same price. Gold has a nice look, but it's not for every photo. 160 is just lovely as is. So trade more flexibility unless you really like the look of Gold.

I'm just surprised they're the same price!
Click to expand...
Me too. There’s a seller on eBay, £10 a roll free postage
 
Harlequin565 said:
Gold has a "look". Portra, not so much. As you say, the ISO difference is neither here nor there. Used to be that 160 was far more expensive than Gold so it ended up being a financial decision. If that's gone, then I'm a bit stumped.

I would probably go 160 if they were the same price. Gold has a nice look, but it's not for every photo. 160 is just lovely as is. So trade more flexibility unless you really like the look of Gold.

I'm just surprised they're the same price!
Click to expand...
Oh I should say it’s expired but expired only July this year.
 
If it was Portra 160VC I would vote for that, if it is standard then not much to choose between the two.
 
I love both of these films in 120 but for me, I would be choosing the Portra 160 for the same price. I find the grain finer (marginally) and like the tones of Portra. Although the warmth of Gold is lovely. In fact I have just re-read and seen you're going to Cornwall. I really enjoyed it there and can't remember if I shot some Portra. I think it was mostly Ektar.
 
Downhill Specialist said:
I love both of these films in 120 but for me, I would be choosing the Portra 160 for the same price. I find the grain finer (marginally) and like the tones of Portra. Although the warmth of Gold is lovely. In fact I have just re-read and seen you're going to Cornwall. I really enjoyed it there and can't remember if I shot some Portra. I think it was mostly Ektar.
Click to expand...
I went with Portra, got 3 rolls.
I love Cornwall, especially where we’re going, Holywell Bay, right next to Newquay. Went there for the last 5 years.
I didn’t mind ektar but it brought out a bit too much red in peoples skin the last time I used it. I did find a roll of provia 100 in the fridge. It’s expired but I’m sure ive had it since new In the fridge. Wish it wasn’t as expensive as it is, provia and velvia and my favourite colour films
 
I think it's been said already but Portra is the goto for people photography.
I believe Kodak designed it to reproduce skin tones naturally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top