These tests are invaluable to me, Kyle. I have directly applied the results of each to my own analog process. I use a small 35mm rangefinder most often. I've noticed that its auto-metering has a tendency to underexpose and the retrofitted batteries also result in about a 3/4 stop of additional underexposure. Knowing that Gold 200 is usable up to +3, I would confidently rate it at 25-50 ISO to ensure I always have a usable exposure rather than setting it at 100 and battling the meter. Thank you for the money and more significantly, time, you invest in these tests.
I think it's easier for you to buy a camera with an accurate enough meter instead of shooting at iso 25/50 for g200... Unless you like wide-open aperture or extremely dense negative.
@@dinglezhang391 If the meter heavily underexposes, it gives you too fast shutter speeds at 200. Rating it at 50, the meter would give you shutter speeds actually suitable for 200. You don't get actual ISO 50 shutter speeds in such a case so it should not be a problem at all
i just found your channel a few days ago and i must say that you are one of the best film channels i have encountered so far. thank you for these well-made and super informative videos!
Very informative video! I fell in love with Gold 200 from the first moment I shot with it past summer. I usually shoot one stop overexposed. It’s nice to see that I could go up to 3 over.
Thanks a lot. Very useful. I saw my suspicions about underexposing confirmed and feel more easy about somewhat overexposing. You saved me a lot of money, now that I don't hav e to try it out by myself. Film and processing cost a fortune here in Switzerland 😊.
Very cool testing. I am looking at dusting off grandma's old DuaFlex (basically a brownie that looks like a TLR) and seeing how it works. So these kind of tests are very pertinent. It appears to be about f16@1/30 so by sweet 16 100ASA would be about 2 over in bright sun, 1 over in overcast, spot on in light shade, 1 under in deep shade. So I am considering Ektar 125, Portra 160, Ilford Ortho 80 (possibly pushed 1 stop), HP4 100, and possibly Tri-X pulled for outdoor and pushed for indoor. Of course I could try to rig up some way to use ND filters to allow more flexibility.
well done again amigo - very informative. The fog on the sides I believe is coming from the camera scanning, I think I know because it happens to me too
Hey Kyle I've homescanned quite a bit before with my custom setup, and the reason why the thinner negatives looked fogged on the edges is either because of lens flare, or an uneven lightsource, that's shifting the exposure and color on the edge of the film, and the denser the negative the less aparent this issue will be, but as soon as you get thinner the issue becomes very obivious, so I highly recommend you trouble shooting either your flares or light source evenness, since you can see on the under tests that the center's blacklevel is solid but the edges turn purple and is thinner.
@@KyleMcDougall Hey Kyle, I was very surprised to see you selling the Nikon Coolscan. I had the same problem while camera scanning and wasn't able to correct them in a year of trial and error, so I went back to film scanners. I know camera scan seems like the holy grail in sharpness, resolution and speed, but it offers opticals problems that are sometimes unsolveable. 35mm in black and white are no problem at all, but the bigger the format gets in combination with color negative which has an uneven density in the negative or is just underexposed, you will run into trouble. Maybe you have any chance to digitize these underexposed frames again on a scanner.
I just recently pushed a couple of rolls of Gold (120 of course); one to 400 and the other to 800. I was far from methodical in my metering, and they all still turned out better than expected. Also, great tests as usual.
thank you for the test. 💪 I use gold in 35mm as my main film and have already shot a big bunch of it. The only thing I can add is that gold has a pretty hard falloff when underexposed. I like to call it black sand because the grain just doesn't have a normal gradient, it just turns black even when there is a relatively bright grain around it. I always found that to be a clear difference from other films. I think in 120 this is no longer a problem.
@@KyleMcDougall Almost all family pictures here were shot on Gold towards the end of the original film period because it was THE film you could buy in every drug store. ... Well, additionally, Germans don't like to experiment. So if you used it once and it didn't explode, you're gonna use it forever.
I think it would be really helpful to know what the bright highlights you analyze at 9.58 are metering at, reflected-wise. It's one thing to confidently overexpose the film in a situation with medium or low contrast, but shooting (for example) a landscape at sunset could mean overexposure (to the extent of no information) in the highlights. It's incredible to have these tests, but ultimately it doesn't give me even a rough idea of a high end (I know this varies with scanning) if I'm trying to have some level of density in the highlights of a high contrast scenario.
As somebody who just bought a medium format camera as I miss the process, this is fantastic to see. I wonder if scanning with a camera though introduces a bigger shift than the film stock? Will “scanning” with a Sony vs Canon for example have a big impact?
Hi Kyle, curious to know if you could share which film simulation you use while scanning with the GFX? Keep up the good work, very meaningful content as always!
"4 Stops is a lot! I don't know how you'd ever end up this far unless you wanted to." These old film cameras have some shiesty light meters. I am using the Sekonic L-308-U because I don't trust the light meters are still accurate after all these decades.
Kyle, I've enjoyed watching these film tests as I get back into film again after many years... I have a question on your proces for scanning the negatives, because I don't think I have seen a video where you explicitly stated how you did this. Did you make an exposure for the "normal" negative and then use that same exposure for all the rest or did you let the camera determine the exposure off each negative? Also, did you work with the camera exposures to understand what the resultant RAW file information is with regard to endpoints and how the films fail into overexposure/underexposure? Obviously, a certain amount of what you are testing is the film, but some of it may be how the camera you are using handles the negative density as well, so I'm just trying to understand your procedure so I can take that into account. I use a GFX 50R, so different sensor, but I worked carefully with the RAW files to make sure that I was not clipping the highlights when setting my exposures for chrome, but when it comes to negative film, I think you have to be careful with respect to dynamic range and where you place the exposure because the film can exceed the exposure DR of the sensor, and at that point you are either clipping shadows (which would be preferrable probably) or the highlights, but the highlights in the RAW file are actualy the shadows (obviously), so you may benefit from a shift in approach towards actually clipping the highlights in favor of retaining more information in the shadows so that when inverted, they might have a bit better contrast and detail with lower noise.
I think I understand what you're asking. For the exposures, I let the camera determine them. My method is to keep the camera in an aperture priority mode, with 2/3 overexposure. This is the way that I've found works best for my scanning / conversion process, for both B&W and colour. I find that most of the time, the information is falling largely in the midtone area, with some obviously in the shadows / highlights, but nothing coming close to clipping, according to the histogram. Hope that answers your question. Like I mentioned in this video, the results will likely be a bit different for everyone, as we all have our own processes, tools, etc.
@@KyleMcDougall Yes, Ok, thanks. I just finished setting up a copy stand arrangement for doing this with larger negatives (4x5 and 120; I've been doing it for old 35mm chromes for a few years for my father) and so it's time to do a full calibration/test of all the lens options and exposure approaches that I could use to produce the best possuble results. Thanks for the understanding of your process.
I’m not surprised by the clean overexposure results. The question is why would someone do this? I can only speak for myself: I shoot lots of neon signage at night. When the light source is in the frame you’ll have those massive overexposed areas. Color negative handles it brilliant;y.
Cheers, Tim. Yeah, it's funny, whenever I shoot night scenes with colour neg, I find myself constantly stressing about the neon/bright lights, even though every single time when I scan/convert it holds up. It's impressive.
@@KyleMcDougall yeah that makes a lot of sense! I just found mega cheap Gold 200 35-36 shots rolls(€4,30/£3,60) per roll(!!!) so got 9 rolls to try it out now!
Yes and no. in terms of characteristics absolutely but the loss in detail and sharpness will be much more noticeable also the change in grain. (coming from someone that shoots both 6×7 120 and 35 mm film)
You should do yourself a favour Kyle & look into the Essential Film Holder from over there in England. It has dedicated masks for all medium format sizes, which will save you from light leaks, which may be your issue there on the underexposed shots. It's surprisingly affordable too, compared to what you're using, and it keeps the negative very flat, which other brands claim, but don't really deliver on. Even just check the story of the creator out on the website. It's so cool how the tiny operation runs. p.s. Could your next film exposure test be on one of the all time goats, Ilford's FP4? It's a very special film to many of us b&w shooters.
Thanks, Michael. I'll look into it! And yeah, I was using a mask for this, so I'd be surprised, but some other people are mentioned the same thing as well. As for FP4, I actually am just about to shoot my first roll of it ever. I'll definitely keep in mind an exposure test for it!
But in the real world, we are always fighting for light, so finding a film that you can underexpose really is more useful than the opposite. Can you test color films that hold up well with underexposing?
Whenever I watch these I always wonder what the images look like un-corrected. Seems you could get some creative/aesthetic differences you can use intentionally, but these videos don't really show that.
As someone who printed color photographs from negatives in the darkroom professionally for many years, there is no such thing as uncorrected images from color negatives.
@@jeffmpvd7689 Yes, but I'm curious how much under/overposure affects the overall image. Kyle states that he always tries to 'save' the over/underexposed images by making them look like the normal images. I want to know what they looked like before he did that.
The differences aren't as drastic as you may think, because the conversion software is automatically trying to provide a 'pleasing' image. My adjustments are just brightness and colour balance, but they're nothing crazy. As soon as the negative is being inverted by the software, it's being 'corrected'.
@@KyleMcDougall That's kinda what I figured. I wonder if the differences would be more drastic with a lab scanner that isn't doing those sort of calculations.
Im sorry but this is a little unserious. How can you "scan" and judge your film using a digital camera when you are throwing a lot of the information away? A digital camera can not "scan" every single color in fully dynamic range because of the Bayern filter in front of the sensor. A scanner, scan every line 3 time, each for red, green and blue. That means that you will transfer every color in full resolution instead of splitting the resolution up with the camera. Everybody who know just a little about how digital photography works, know that the red color on digital sucks because of the Bayern sensor. There is no contrast in the red color. So if you scan your film with etc. a Hasselblad scanner, then you will get all the information and also a better DMAX than if you shoot the film with your camera. So why not do it right? You are making so great videos in a very pro way but I really think that the analog images really deserve to be digitized the best way as well and not just shot with a camera there can't deliver the real deal 🙂 Ive been shooting analog and digital for almost 2 decades now and love both world. Mostly the analog world 🙂 I shoot with analog and digital Hasselblad and the same with Leica. I also have my own darkroom there really can do magic with black and white that even the best scanner can't transfer. But thank you for doing this. But can you at least put up your digital captured negatives from your camera with a real hasselblad scan from the X1 or the X5?
These tests are invaluable to me, Kyle. I have directly applied the results of each to my own analog process. I use a small 35mm rangefinder most often. I've noticed that its auto-metering has a tendency to underexpose and the retrofitted batteries also result in about a 3/4 stop of additional underexposure. Knowing that Gold 200 is usable up to +3, I would confidently rate it at 25-50 ISO to ensure I always have a usable exposure rather than setting it at 100 and battling the meter. Thank you for the money and more significantly, time, you invest in these tests.
I think it's easier for you to buy a camera with an accurate enough meter instead of shooting at iso 25/50 for g200... Unless you like wide-open aperture or extremely dense negative.
Cheers, Max! Glad you found this helpful!
Question.. I’m new to film. If the film is ISO 200, why wouldn’t you shoot at 200 ISO and just adjust exposure time?
@@vitaliyburlaka691 some cameras, like the camera I’m referring to above, automatically meter the scene and don’t have manual shutter adjustments
@@dinglezhang391 If the meter heavily underexposes, it gives you too fast shutter speeds at 200. Rating it at 50, the meter would give you shutter speeds actually suitable for 200. You don't get actual ISO 50 shutter speeds in such a case so it should not be a problem at all
What an incredible gift of time to the film community. The information is very helpful. Thank you Kyle.
You're welcome, Greg. Cheers.
i just found your channel a few days ago and i must say that you are one of the best film channels i have encountered so far. thank you for these well-made and super informative videos!
I appreciate that, Paul. Thanks for watching!
i actually love the underexposed look of that film at 4:55
Very informative video! I fell in love with Gold 200 from the first moment I shot with it past summer.
I usually shoot one stop overexposed. It’s nice to see that I could go up to 3 over.
Excellent work Kyle! These are so valuable to us film shooters. Thank you! Tony
You're welcome, Tony. Cheers.
Cheers for this Kyle, about to try Gold out so it's nice to know what to expect 👍
No problem 👍
Thanks a lot. Very useful. I saw my suspicions about underexposing confirmed and feel more easy about somewhat overexposing. You saved me a lot of money, now that I don't hav e to try it out by myself. Film and processing cost a fortune here in Switzerland 😊.
You're welcome. Cheers!
Definitely impressed with this stock, thanks for making these exposure tests man :)
You bet, cheers!
was waiting for this for so long
👍
Very cool testing. I am looking at dusting off grandma's old DuaFlex (basically a brownie that looks like a TLR) and seeing how it works. So these kind of tests are very pertinent.
It appears to be about f16@1/30 so by sweet 16 100ASA would be about 2 over in bright sun, 1 over in overcast, spot on in light shade, 1 under in deep shade. So I am considering Ektar 125, Portra 160, Ilford Ortho 80 (possibly pushed 1 stop), HP4 100, and possibly Tri-X pulled for outdoor and pushed for indoor.
Of course I could try to rig up some way to use ND filters to allow more flexibility.
well done again amigo - very informative. The fog on the sides I believe is coming from the camera scanning, I think I know because it happens to me too
Cheers. Yeah, mentioned by someone else as well. Going to look into it!
I can’t wait to try out this film stock! I still have a ton of Portra to get through tho :)
Hey Kyle I've homescanned quite a bit before with my custom setup, and the reason why the thinner negatives looked fogged on the edges is either because of lens flare, or an uneven lightsource, that's shifting the exposure and color on the edge of the film, and the denser the negative the less aparent this issue will be, but as soon as you get thinner the issue becomes very obivious, so I highly recommend you trouble shooting either your flares or light source evenness, since you can see on the under tests that the center's blacklevel is solid but the edges turn purple and is thinner.
Interesting. Thanks for letting me know that. It's not something that I've noticed before. I do use a mask for 645, but I'll have to run some tests!
@@KyleMcDougall Hey Kyle, I was very surprised to see you selling the Nikon Coolscan. I had the same problem while camera scanning and wasn't able to correct them in a year of trial and error, so I went back to film scanners. I know camera scan seems like the holy grail in sharpness, resolution and speed, but it offers opticals problems that are sometimes unsolveable. 35mm in black and white are no problem at all, but the bigger the format gets in combination with color negative which has an uneven density in the negative or is just underexposed, you will run into trouble. Maybe you have any chance to digitize these underexposed frames again on a scanner.
I just recently pushed a couple of rolls of Gold (120 of course); one to 400 and the other to 800. I was far from methodical in my metering, and they all still turned out better than expected.
Also, great tests as usual.
Interesting to hear. Haven't pushed any, and not sure if I will, but cool to know it worked for ya.
thank you for the test. 💪
I use gold in 35mm as my main film and have already shot a big bunch of it. The only thing I can add is that gold has a pretty hard falloff when underexposed. I like to call it black sand because the grain just doesn't have a normal gradient, it just turns black even when there is a relatively bright grain around it.
I always found that to be a clear difference from other films. I think in 120 this is no longer a problem.
Interesting to hear! I've only ever shot a couple rolls of Gold in 35mm, but have been impressed with it in 120.
@@KyleMcDougall Almost all family pictures here were shot on Gold towards the end of the original film period because it was THE film you could buy in every drug store.
...
Well, additionally, Germans don't like to experiment. So if you used it once and it didn't explode, you're gonna use it forever.
I think it would be really helpful to know what the bright highlights you analyze at 9.58 are metering at, reflected-wise. It's one thing to confidently overexpose the film in a situation with medium or low contrast, but shooting (for example) a landscape at sunset could mean overexposure (to the extent of no information) in the highlights. It's incredible to have these tests, but ultimately it doesn't give me even a rough idea of a high end (I know this varies with scanning) if I'm trying to have some level of density in the highlights of a high contrast scenario.
Thank you Kyle. I just got some off the black market ;-). I’ll run it through a Bronica SQ and see if I get about the same. This was helpful!
Cheers, Jack. Enjoy!
Thnx a lot for this test... Could be a nice negative film for ling exposures... Keeping the exposures at longer side
That was great! :)
Thanks!
Cheers.
Now that Lomo 100/400 prices are also up, this is a great option! I wasn't a fan of Gold in 135 but 120 looks very pleasant!
I'll be shooting a lot of it!
Nice video as always Kyle. When did you get the 67? Is it replacing the 67ii?
Cheers, Nathan. Bounced back and forth between the 67 and the 67ii, but ultimately ended up with this 67.
As somebody who just bought a medium format camera as I miss the process, this is fantastic to see. I wonder if scanning with a camera though introduces a bigger shift than the film stock? Will “scanning” with a Sony vs Canon for example have a big impact?
I overexposed Kodak Gold to Jesus while taking backlit portraits and it hold so well ❤️ thanks for this test!
You're welcome. :)
Hi Kyle, curious to know if you could share which film simulation you use while scanning with the GFX? Keep up the good work, very meaningful content as always!
ngl I kinda like the 3 stops underexposed look
"4 Stops is a lot! I don't know how you'd ever end up this far unless you wanted to." These old film cameras have some shiesty light meters. I am using the Sekonic L-308-U because I don't trust the light meters are still accurate after all these decades.
Kyle, I've enjoyed watching these film tests as I get back into film again after many years...
I have a question on your proces for scanning the negatives, because I don't think I have seen a video where you explicitly stated how you did this. Did you make an exposure for the "normal" negative and then use that same exposure for all the rest or did you let the camera determine the exposure off each negative? Also, did you work with the camera exposures to understand what the resultant RAW file information is with regard to endpoints and how the films fail into overexposure/underexposure?
Obviously, a certain amount of what you are testing is the film, but some of it may be how the camera you are using handles the negative density as well, so I'm just trying to understand your procedure so I can take that into account. I use a GFX 50R, so different sensor, but I worked carefully with the RAW files to make sure that I was not clipping the highlights when setting my exposures for chrome, but when it comes to negative film, I think you have to be careful with respect to dynamic range and where you place the exposure because the film can exceed the exposure DR of the sensor, and at that point you are either clipping shadows (which would be preferrable probably) or the highlights, but the highlights in the RAW file are actualy the shadows (obviously), so you may benefit from a shift in approach towards actually clipping the highlights in favor of retaining more information in the shadows so that when inverted, they might have a bit better contrast and detail with lower noise.
I think I understand what you're asking. For the exposures, I let the camera determine them. My method is to keep the camera in an aperture priority mode, with 2/3 overexposure. This is the way that I've found works best for my scanning / conversion process, for both B&W and colour. I find that most of the time, the information is falling largely in the midtone area, with some obviously in the shadows / highlights, but nothing coming close to clipping, according to the histogram. Hope that answers your question. Like I mentioned in this video, the results will likely be a bit different for everyone, as we all have our own processes, tools, etc.
@@KyleMcDougall Yes, Ok, thanks. I just finished setting up a copy stand arrangement for doing this with larger negatives (4x5 and 120; I've been doing it for old 35mm chromes for a few years for my father) and so it's time to do a full calibration/test of all the lens options and exposure approaches that I could use to produce the best possuble results. Thanks for the understanding of your process.
I’m not surprised by the clean overexposure results. The question is why would someone do this? I can only speak for myself: I shoot lots of neon signage at night. When the light source is in the frame you’ll have those massive overexposed areas. Color negative handles it brilliant;y.
Cheers, Tim. Yeah, it's funny, whenever I shoot night scenes with colour neg, I find myself constantly stressing about the neon/bright lights, even though every single time when I scan/convert it holds up. It's impressive.
I over exposed gold 200 on my Yashica Mat124 and shot it at iso 400 1/500 and f16, came out ok
Well you’re lucky to be able to get gold, It’s still unavailable for me in Canada and I still can’t get my hands on them online…
Praying for a Kodak Gold 4x5 release in the near future
That would be amazing!
The one time I overexposed by at least 6 stops over when I was shooting with a lens that didn't stop down when it should have been..
I've shot a entire roll and forgot that my camera was in manual mode and not aperture priority. About 6 stops over on TMAX. 😅
Just got a box of these, so thanks for this test. Would you say the outcome of this is valid for 35mm too?
Cheers. Can't comment on 35mm as I really haven't shot much of it. I'd personally test 35mm on it's own, rather than assume the same.
@@KyleMcDougall yeah that makes a lot of sense! I just found mega cheap Gold 200 35-36 shots rolls(€4,30/£3,60) per roll(!!!) so got 9 rolls to try it out now!
Nice! Good deal. Enjoy!
Would these results be the same on 35mm Kodak Gold?
Yes and no. in terms of characteristics absolutely but the loss in detail and sharpness will be much more noticeable also the change in grain.
(coming from someone that shoots both 6×7 120 and 35 mm film)
You should do yourself a favour Kyle & look into the Essential Film Holder from over there in England. It has dedicated masks for all medium format sizes, which will save you from light leaks, which may be your issue there on the underexposed shots.
It's surprisingly affordable too, compared to what you're using, and it keeps the negative very flat, which other brands claim, but don't really deliver on. Even just check the story of the creator out on the website. It's so cool how the tiny operation runs.
p.s. Could your next film exposure test be on one of the all time goats, Ilford's FP4? It's a very special film to many of us b&w shooters.
Thanks, Michael. I'll look into it! And yeah, I was using a mask for this, so I'd be surprised, but some other people are mentioned the same thing as well. As for FP4, I actually am just about to shoot my first roll of it ever. I'll definitely keep in mind an exposure test for it!
@@KyleMcDougall As they say in NZ: Sweet as, bro!
Goats? Silly term! B.E.S.T. is the best term. GOAT refers to a smelly barnyard animal.
Did you stop scanning with the nikon scanner?
Yep. Sold it after getting the GFX, as to me, the results are almost identical. I did a video comparing the two a while back.
@@KyleMcDougall I will try to find the video. Thanks.
why did you correct it? We want to see the raw comparison...
Let’s gooo
the pentax on the edge of the table is giving me cold sweats 😓
😅
Gold is gold
Indeed.
But in the real world, we are always fighting for light, so finding a film that you can underexpose really is more useful than the opposite. Can you test color films that hold up well with underexposing?
Unfortunately, from all of my testing, I've come across no colour-negative films that respond well to underexposing.
Significantly cheaper than it’s Kodak siblings too!
You should mirror one of the images.
Whenever I watch these I always wonder what the images look like un-corrected. Seems you could get some creative/aesthetic differences you can use intentionally, but these videos don't really show that.
As someone who printed color photographs from negatives in the darkroom professionally for many years, there is no such thing as uncorrected images from color negatives.
@@jeffmpvd7689 Yes, but I'm curious how much under/overposure affects the overall image. Kyle states that he always tries to 'save' the over/underexposed images by making them look like the normal images. I want to know what they looked like before he did that.
The differences aren't as drastic as you may think, because the conversion software is automatically trying to provide a 'pleasing' image. My adjustments are just brightness and colour balance, but they're nothing crazy. As soon as the negative is being inverted by the software, it's being 'corrected'.
@@KyleMcDougall That's kinda what I figured. I wonder if the differences would be more drastic with a lab scanner that isn't doing those sort of calculations.
Im sorry but this is a little unserious. How can you "scan" and judge your film using a digital camera when you are throwing a lot of the information away? A digital camera can not "scan" every single color in fully dynamic range because of the Bayern filter in front of the sensor. A scanner, scan every line 3 time, each for red, green and blue. That means that you will transfer every color in full resolution instead of splitting the resolution up with the camera. Everybody who know just a little about how digital photography works, know that the red color on digital sucks because of the Bayern sensor. There is no contrast in the red color. So if you scan your film with etc. a Hasselblad scanner, then you will get all the information and also a better DMAX than if you shoot the film with your camera.
So why not do it right?
You are making so great videos in a very pro way but I really think that the analog images really deserve to be digitized the best way as well and not just shot with a camera there can't deliver the real deal 🙂
Ive been shooting analog and digital for almost 2 decades now and love both world. Mostly the analog world 🙂 I shoot with analog and digital Hasselblad and the same with Leica. I also have my own darkroom there really can do magic with black and white that even the best scanner can't transfer.
But thank you for doing this. But can you at least put up your digital captured negatives from your camera with a real hasselblad scan from the X1 or the X5?
I test what happens when you over and under expose all the time! Don’t need to do it on purpose tho 😅