Kodak Announces Gold 200 in 120 – an Affordable Medium Format Color Film!

Kodak Announces Gold 200 in 120 – an Affordable Medium Format Color Film!

2000 1125 James Tocchio

Kodak has just announced that Kodak Gold 200 will now be produced in 120 medium format! The film, which is available to order for retailers and dealers in 5-roll Pro Packs starting today, is priced lower than Kodak’s current medium format color films – approximately 25% less than Ektar and Portra.

This is huge news. Medium format photographers will finally have an affordable and easy-to-use color film to shoot through their favorite 120 cameras!

We’ve got some further exposition from the Kodak press release, and my opinion on this announcement just below.

“One main reason for [ medium format film’s ] popularity is that the larger film negative can be enlarged significantly without losing image quality. This is a great opportunity for aspiring photographers looking to make the jump from 35mm to medium format photography,” said Thomas Mooney, Manager Film Capture Products, Kodak Moments Division.

The new 120 format Kodak Professional Gold 200 is an affordable, entry-level color film featuring an ideal combination of warm saturated color, fine grain, and high sharpness. It is designed for photographers shooting at any level for daylight and flash capture.

My Take

This is really exciting news. In the last couple of years we film photographers have seen nothing but price increases across the board. Literally every manufacturer has increased prices. So it is such a breath of fresh air to see Kodak not only releasing a new film for medium format, but doing so in a way that provides a truly excellent product at a sustainable price point for photographers.

I traveled to the Kodak factory in Rochester, New York a few years ago and was treated to a tour of the production facility and greater campus. My takeaway observation, generally, was that every person at Kodak really cares about the product. It’s not acceptable to release a sub-standard film or to have compromised quality in a single roll. Everything is done to an incredible standard, and I’m just really happy to see Kodak giving us more options and ways to shoot their film.

Kodak Gold is also, pretty simply, a beautiful film. It performs incredibly well, with gorgeous warm tones and excellent saturation. It is the perfect film for the upcoming Spring and Summer (for us in the Northern Hemisphere).

I do have one pricing concern, though it has nothing to do with Kodak. The film is supposed to sell at 25% less than Portra and Ektar, which is amazing. Kodak is clearly hearing film shooters who have been squeezed by the price hikes on film, and they’re giving us an option to hopefully keep this film thing going long into the future. The problem, however, is that during the last year or so, wholesalers and retailers have been increasing their pricing due to the supply problem, squeezing every nickel and dime from the end user. I will know later today if shops like mine can get this film at a price lower than other 120 films when I call my distributor. I (for one) will not be price gouging to make a quick profit in my shop. Whatever Kodak’s recommended MSRP is, I’ll sell it at that price. I just don’t know that other shops will be doing the same.

Either way, I can’t wait to get some in my shop. I’ll certainly be stashing a few rolls away in my camera bag. Expect a full review as soon as the film arrives.

For more information on Kodak Gold 200 (in 35mm format) you can see our Guide to Kodak Film here.

All of our film reviews can be seen here.

Follow Casual Photophile on YoutubeTwitter, Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

James Tocchio

James Tocchio is a writer and photographer, and the founder of Casual Photophile. He’s spent years researching, collecting, and shooting classic and collectible cameras. In addition to his work here, he’s also the founder of the online camera shop Fstopcameras.com.

All stories by:James Tocchio
  • It is amazing news. I suspect Silberra’s color films to be in fact Kodak Aerocolor emulsions, but that’s as far as our Kodak color options went in 120 next to the usual Ektar and Portra twins, and it’s not like I’m going to order anything from Russia anytime soon.

    Well done to Kodak, and I can’t wait to shoot some of this with my 6×6 and 6×9 machines.

  • I feel like this news is such a breath of fresh air in the world of film.

    It seems in recent years, we’ve heard nothing but bad news when it comes to film. Be it discontinued stocks (RIP Fuji 400H and 160NS) or significant price hikes (looking at you Portra). Add to that the gouging by certain retailers and people gobbling up local stock and flipping it for a markup and it seemed like film was becoming more and more a luxury item and, in turn, more and more out of reach for those of us without unlimited hobby budgets.

    That Kodak found a time-tested, well-liked, affordable stock and made the move to create a larger format with it gives me hope that perhaps other films will follow suit (Kodak Gold 400 in 120, anyone?).

    Looking forward to the future of film, if this is what it looks like.

  • “Medium format photographers will finally have an affordable and easy-to-use color film to shoot through their favorite 120 cameras!”

    I mean, Lomo 100/400/800 have been around for a while, and are pretty clearly white-label consumer-grade Kodak color negative films, so shooters have had options. And at least until the price hike a couple weeks ago, they cost about the same per roll as what Gold in 120 is expected to cost at MSRP.

    And I’m sure Lomo’s price hike has *nothing at all* to do with Kodak raising the wholesale price to Lomography to clear a market niche for Gold 120.

    Still, I 100% agree that this is welcome news. Now there are consumer-level stocks available in 120 for 100, 200, 400, and 800. And Kodak has better manufacturing quality control than Lomography – I’ve never had “fat roll” problems with a Kodak roll, but it occasionally happens with Lomo, despite my best efforts.

    • The biggest issue I’ve had with Lomo is consistency of availability. I’ve always thought perhaps it was due to the fact that Kodak was “throttling” the availability for Lomo in order to be able to create their own stocks. Like… Let’s say it costs Kodak $1 to make a roll of Gold 400 and they sell it to Lomo for $4 and Lomo sells it to us for $8, netting Kodak and Lomo each a 400% markup (or thereabouts). Alternatively, Kodak can make that same roll of Gold 400 for $1 and sell it to us for $7, giving them a 700% markup and us a discount. They’d be stupid to sell all their stock to Lomo for half the markup.

      I get this is flawed economics and my numbers aren’t even close to the truth, but I’m hoping that Kodak has just decided it’s best to keep this stuff in-house and sell it to us direct which will, hopefully, give it to us at a more palatable price. I’ve seen three-packs of Lomo 800 120 on Ebay for like $50 when it’s sold-out at Lomo’s own website (gougers, for sure, but still).

      Hoping this will correct some of that… And yeah, I’ve had one or two “fat roll” problems with Lomo over the years.

  • I hope in a review you can compare it to the 35mm version. Perhaps identical side-by-side shots with extreme enlargement comparisons. And maybe (I hope you are writing all of this down) side-by-side comparisons with Ektar and Portra 120.

  • Stores listing this new film are already price gouging, according to their listed price for it. Portra 160 sells for $50 US in many stores. Freestyle also has Portra for that price. Yet their price for Gold 200 in 120 is exactly the same as Portra, with no discount of 25 percent. So clearly the distributors are part of the problem. I emailed Freestyle asking for a response as to why this is.

    • Will you post their response here? I’m seeing they have 5-packs of Portra 400 in 120 for $54.19 and they have Kodak Gold 200 5-packs in 120 listed for $49.99, which is only like a 7.5% discount, not the estimated 20% discount… I’d love to find someone selling Gold in 120 for $42 (or thereabouts) which would be closer to that discount we were hoping to see.

      I am also curious to know if the initial frenzy is causing some hikes as vendors know people are hyped about it. Honestly, I like Gold 200, but if I can just get Portra 400 for a few dollars more, I’m going to go that route. Kodak needs to get ahold of this pricing thing or their distributors and individual vendors are going to mess things up for them.

  • With film shooters hungry for more available film stocks in more available formats the cynic in me is doubtful that this Gold 200 in 120 is going to make any positive impact. Merely for the reason that Gold 200 has not been available in medium format for quite some time, you can’t convince me that whatever volume of this film is released, at whatever price, isn’t going to be snatched up immediately by hungry medium format shooters who just want to try something different. If distributors and retailers of the new 120 Gold 200 are price gouging, but still able to quickly sell this film, where is there incentive to ever reduce the price so photographers can realize the 20-25% savings Kodak has advertised. And I have to wonder what impact, if any, will the new 120 Gold 200 have on the availability of the same film in 35mm format. It’s not like supply chain issues have all gone away. Please convince me that my cynicism is misplaced.

  • Currently on B&H Photo, a 5-pack of 120 Portra 400 costs $59.95 ($11.99/roll). If this new 120 Gold 200 were to sell for 20% less, that would be a price of $47.96 per 5-pack ($9.50/roll). Currently a 5-pack of 120 Portra 160 costs $49.95 ($9.99/roll). If this new 120 Gold 200 were to sell for 20% less, that would be a price of $39.96 ($7.99/roll).

    Normally a 5-pack of 120 film costs less than a 5-pack of the same film in 35mm format. Portra 400 costs $64.67 ($12.93/roll) and Portra 160 costs $59.58 ($11.96/roll) for a 5-pack of 35mm 36exp rolls. Buying 35mm Portra 400 costs 8% more and buying 35mm Portra 160 costs a whopping 20% more than buying either film in 120 format. An average of 14% savings when buying these films in 120 format vs. 35mm.

    Gold 200 in 35mm is only available as individual rolls or in packs of 3 (24exp or 36exp). A single 36exp roll costs $10.99 while a 3-pack of 36exp rolls costs $29.95 ($9.98/roll). If we were to extrapolate the pricing of the new 120 Gold 200 from the 35mm pricing (5 rolls x $9.98/roll) x (0.86 – for 14% savings for 120 film) = $42.91 per 5-pack. If you went based on the individual roll price (5 rolls x $10.99/roll) x (0.86 – for 14% savings for 120 film) = $47.26 per 5-pack. This extrapolation would seem to make sense.

    Now, if anyone can find the new 120 Gold 200 for between $42.91 – $47.26, I’d be interested to know.

  • I have seen the first tests on video and it seems that this Kodak Gold 200 is better than Portra. If by the way it is cheaper it is a good investment.
    The test was made with a Mamiya 7 and the famous 80mm which is well known to be better than anything from Leica or Zeiss.

    • Haha! I just watched both videos from Vuhlandes and Verbeeck and it does look very good, especially in sunny conditions. Warm, saturated, nostalgic… Hopefully the distributors don’t price it above Portra 160, which is where it seems to be headed at least for now… :\

      • Yesss the images of the Motel and the Colorado mountains sun rising: whaouuuuu. I am not sure Ektachrome or Velvia can give better, maybe more brightness?
        I am thinking to find an Agfa super Isolette to pair with my M3 and have light medium format like that in my bag to have this 120 quality.

        • I love those images! There’s a place not far from me that has a lot of neon so I’ll be headed that way when my rolls come in that I preordered yesterday. The Super Isolette would be a really fun little camera to have with you at all times! I had one a long time ago and loved it. And… none of the YouTubers have talked about them yet so they’re still affordable. LOL

          • 😉
            The club of film lovers here 😉
            There are so many great films, so many great cameras, some very old, Leica III, foldable medium format, Minolta Hi-Matic 7Sii, … to have fun and keep physical memories of our images. There is a video about Kodak factory, … whaouuuu MAGIC. We can understand the cost.
            The best way it’s to slow down, and make a great image for each shoot, … like the video to test the Kodak Gold 120, this great man with is Mamiya 7 takes time, each image is fantastic. Love them too 😉
            There is a website which analyses best lens for Leica film : 3 modern Leica lens when we know there are plenty, some not expensive. You see what I mean, some website have many articles every day, but for a weak content. Mainly no comment 😉
            3 new Leica lens best for film 😉 😉 the joke …
            When I read here, when I read comments here, when I watch the video about the Gold 120, it’s deep, there is passion, it’s serious, far from this social medias where quantity is the goal, but empty.

  • and I dont speak also about the comment of K.R about this film …

Leave a Reply

James Tocchio

James Tocchio is a writer and photographer, and the founder of Casual Photophile. He’s spent years researching, collecting, and shooting classic and collectible cameras. In addition to his work here, he’s also the founder of the online camera shop Fstopcameras.com.

All stories by:James Tocchio