The difference in the exposure between the shot may be explained also by the real shutter speed of the camera. The shutter of those old camera tend to loose speed over time depending how it was used and maintain, also it does not loose speed equally over the speed range of the shutter. An adjustment at 1/125 it can be close to the real speed but at 1/500 it can be way off. So maybe a 1/500 s speed shutter is not the same on both camera .... but it was nice to see the diffrence in the sharpness the 120 format and 35mm
You should check the light meters on your cameras. For a start compare the values to some other camera, possibly even digital one. Or use external light meter with same settings applied to both cameras. Now, not even that is the guarantee for proper exposure with such old cameras...
true. all the shots were actually metered on the f3 first, interestingly that f3 was “overexposing” most of the shots. i think it has to do with the film
How much of the difference is calibration of the camera? I know in my Nikon F3 if I use an LR44 verses an SR44 battery I can get a slightly different exposure because the batteries have slightly different voltages.
Seems like 120 gold could have been aimed at a more experienced market who can get their exposures right, because when you do its miles better than the 35 version, but the 35 is more forgiving of over or under exposures “mistakes” that someone new to photography might make. That being said! Id happily shoot gold 35 at 400 or even 800….. but the 120 at 800 looks horrible lol Great vid, thanks for sharing!
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that kodak did reformulate the gold emulsion for 120, instead of just recutting the same film from 35mm, which is really interesting! but also makes sense. it's visible here I think, but, for example, how 120 reallyyy doesn't like to be underexposed is probably because kodak knows that 120 is almost exclusively going to be used by professionals and thus there's probably some trade-off by formulating it this way to achieve better results in some other characteristic of the stock, compared to the 35mm equivalent which is ofc a consumer film which kodak knows will be used by amateurs (it is the cheapest color film, at least where I live, anyways) who will most definitely underexpose plenty. I also noticed 120 is way more saturated and has more contrast and 35mm has a much more neutral look. however, I do also find that even kodak portra doesn't like underexposure all that much in 120 as it can handle it in 35mm, in my experience. the difference in film stocks is so so cool to me. loved the video! keep it up!
you just summed it up perfectly! I agree with everything you said. I used to like the kodak gold in 35mm but now I LOVE the gold in 120! Hopefully by introducing a new “consumer market” medium format film, that will encourage more people shooting in 120. Film is definitely now dead now 🙌🙌
i suggest starting with fujifilm color 200, fuji color 400, superia 200, superia 400, Kodak gold 200, colorplus 200, ultramax 400. these films are not too expensive to try first. and as you invest more time in film photography, then use professional films like portra and cinestill
oh b&w would also be a good way to start, try ilford xp5, Kodak tmax, Fomapan. although b&w films are cheaper to buy, but the developments are usually more expensive. in that case, try ilford xp2, because this film uses color chemical to process in the lab, and hopefully that will save you a few bucks
The issuance of Gold 200 in 35mm and 120 roll formats has provided a unique opportunity, but it is not to compare film, as the film in each format is exactly the same. For this video, and the several dozen of the same sort which have preceded it, What is shown is the technical incompetence and willingness to post trash videos by "creators". What we learn is that this creator either doesn't have the knowledge to make such comparisons in a meaningful way, or she doesn't give a crap. So, why do the same subjects and exposures yield images which are at least 2 stops apart in apparent exposure between 35mm and 120? The cameras and lenses were not calibrated before the test. The Pentax 67 uses a highly accurate, electronically controlled shutter. The Nikon F3 shutter is similar, but one is clearly "off". The lenses: The Pentax 105mm was shot wide open. Lenses are allowed in the industry a measure of "fibbing" on maximum aperture. Most are less fast than rated, often by as much as a 1/4 stop. The Nikon lens was shot below its max, so is likely to be more accurate. However, there could be issues of slow aperture actuation or stop setting adjustment to throw off the Nikon exposure. The difference in color and saturation between the lenses was interesting. Neither lens represents the peak of technical performance compared to others in its line-up, but that's clearly a lens issue, not one of film. There are other possible issue to difference the film results. These are scanned image, so may have been rendered differently by that process. Also, they were probably developed separately, which should not make a difference, but often will. So, what is the objective lesson of this video? It is that the creator probably doesn't keep her cameras serviced, and she does't know any better. What do we learn about Gold 200 in either format? Nothing at all. In fairness to this creator, nearly all of her fellow "Gold 200 comparison" creators don't do any better, just a bunch of B-Roll and snapshots.
Thanks, this is very well presented! As per your results, I am thinking the 120 requires more light to gather in to expose well compare to the 35 small size film surface?? Usual in digital photography we get opposit results to your test done here.
We’re they scanned on the same scanner? Because sich a difference in look would be easiest explained by them having been scanned on two different scanning systems.
Thanks for the comparison, I imagine the 120 is better at resolving fine detail since the negative is larger. Also, one little thing I noticed. When shooting daylight film under tungsten light like in the shop, you need to use an 80a cooling filter on your lens to get the correct white balance. That’s why the colors in the indoor shots are so overly warm. Also I’m fairly certain your F3 needs a CLA so that all the shutter speeds are accurate.
It’s really helpful to compare like that and I love your photos. And it’s impressive that you keep thinking up new projects! I am looking forward it:) p.s. I love how you talk(with the little cute mic🎙) and your style..! Every season, you retain your own mood but it’s not boring, even new!! Your style is also inspiring. I hope to see you on youtube more~.~
As I'm hoping to be able to go to Venice this summer and planning to bring almost the exact same loadout as you are, this is pretty much convincing me to pack Gold200 as the default for the trip.
i just picked up some kodak gold 200 35mm and this video was SOOOOO helpful. coming from a digital background i am so used to underexposing, but i can already tell i will definitely be overexposing these rolls of film. THANK YOU SO MUCH
very excited to try 120 kodak gold! it was my go to stock when i shot mainly 35mm and have missed it dearly since shooting more 120. another great video, ive spent a lot of time in NYC and your videos always make me very nostalgic for it :)
Super cool comparison, I loved it! I came across your self portrait video a while ago and thought it was really good, I'm glad you're still making videos! I need to get on the medium format train, it is so beautiful. Film prices seem to be constantly rising though :(
omg thank you for sticking around! this year we will be making consistent uploads 🙌 yeah it’s a shame that the cost of film is going so high right now, but hopefully it means a resurgent of film photography, which I’m totally here for it 👏
I wanted to say, your video is something natural and classic at the same time. It feels different to other photography reviews. I enjoyed watching this one as well. Thank you always.
What would be interesting is doing a comparison of a expired roll of gold 120 from a decade or two ago to the gold 120 now. I thought this was a great video.
The nikkor 50mm f1.2 has a cool look to it, so the difference does make sense. The Pentax lens is warmer, I have both lenses and I have seen a difference in them
you’re right! it’s crazy how much the different characters that each camera and lens carry. i think accidentally cut out this part in the video, but it also has to do with the scanner too. they were both scanned on noritsu commercial scanners, but maybe the lab had set them up differently for 35 and 120.
The difference in the exposure between the shot may be explained also by the real shutter speed of the camera. The shutter of those old camera tend to loose speed over time depending how it was used and maintain, also it does not loose speed equally over the speed range of the shutter. An adjustment at 1/125 it can be close to the real speed but at 1/500 it can be way off. So maybe a 1/500 s speed shutter is not the same on both camera .... but it was nice to see the diffrence in the sharpness the 120 format and 35mm
ahhhhh gotcha
that’s why I love sharing my thoughts snd process here. thank you for educating me!
So glad you posted this. A comparison b/w the 35mm and 120 stocks is what I was most excited to see when this film stock was announced.
Hope it was helpful!
thank You for comparing both films, I just got my 120 gold 200 a couple of days ago and want to try them as soon as possible😉👍
Hope you like it!
You should check the light meters on your cameras. For a start compare the values to some other camera, possibly even digital one. Or use external light meter with same settings applied to both cameras. Now, not even that is the guarantee for proper exposure with such old cameras...
true. all the shots were actually metered on the f3 first, interestingly that f3 was “overexposing” most of the shots. i think it has to do with the film
How much of the difference is calibration of the camera? I know in my Nikon F3 if I use an LR44 verses an SR44 battery I can get a slightly different exposure because the batteries have slightly different voltages.
Found your channel recently and I freaking love it! Videos are also super informative and great for learning!!! Love from Singapore 🇸🇬❤️
thank you for stopping by! new videos soon~~
Aw this is lovely
I just picked up a couple rolls of Gold in medium format myself so i'm excited to see how it goes!
have fun!!
Great comparison! Fun video!
Thanks for watching!
Great to see this comparison!
thank you! glad it was helpful 🤗
Seems like 120 gold could have been aimed at a more experienced market who can get their exposures right, because when you do its miles better than the 35 version, but the 35 is more forgiving of over or under exposures “mistakes” that someone new to photography might make. That being said! Id happily shoot gold 35 at 400 or even 800….. but the 120 at 800 looks horrible lol
Great vid, thanks for sharing!
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that kodak did reformulate the gold emulsion for 120, instead of just recutting the same film from 35mm, which is really interesting! but also makes sense. it's visible here I think, but, for example, how 120 reallyyy doesn't like to be underexposed is probably because kodak knows that 120 is almost exclusively going to be used by professionals and thus there's probably some trade-off by formulating it this way to achieve better results in some other characteristic of the stock, compared to the 35mm equivalent which is ofc a consumer film which kodak knows will be used by amateurs (it is the cheapest color film, at least where I live, anyways) who will most definitely underexpose plenty. I also noticed 120 is way more saturated and has more contrast and 35mm has a much more neutral look. however, I do also find that even kodak portra doesn't like underexposure all that much in 120 as it can handle it in 35mm, in my experience. the difference in film stocks is so so cool to me. loved the video! keep it up!
you just summed it up perfectly! I agree with everything you said. I used to like the kodak gold in 35mm but now I LOVE the gold in 120! Hopefully by introducing a new “consumer market” medium format film, that will encourage more people shooting in 120. Film is definitely now dead now 🙌🙌
yay new video!!
🎉🎉🎉 more to come!
Got myself a pack. Can’t wait to shoot it myself 😩
I think you would really enjoy it! let me know how they turn out 🤓
I love shooting gold on 35mm now I just need to save up for a 120 camera
eeeek do it!! 👏👏👏
Nice review! Anw, can anyone recommend me some film as my first roll? I'm shooting on a toy film cam
i suggest starting with fujifilm color 200, fuji color 400, superia 200, superia 400, Kodak gold 200, colorplus 200, ultramax 400. these films are not too expensive to try first. and as you invest more time in film photography, then use professional films like portra and cinestill
oh b&w would also be a good way to start, try ilford xp5, Kodak tmax, Fomapan. although b&w films are cheaper to buy, but the developments are usually more expensive. in that case, try ilford xp2, because this film uses color chemical to process in the lab, and hopefully that will save you a few bucks
The issuance of Gold 200 in 35mm and 120 roll formats has provided a unique opportunity, but it is not to compare film, as the film in each format is exactly the same. For this video, and the several dozen of the same sort which have preceded it, What is shown is the technical incompetence and willingness to post trash videos by "creators". What we learn is that this creator either doesn't have the knowledge to make such comparisons in a meaningful way, or she doesn't give a crap. So, why do the same subjects and exposures yield images which are at least 2 stops apart in apparent exposure between 35mm and 120? The cameras and lenses were not calibrated before the test. The Pentax 67 uses a highly accurate, electronically controlled shutter. The Nikon F3 shutter is similar, but one is clearly "off". The lenses: The Pentax 105mm was shot wide open. Lenses are allowed in the industry a measure of "fibbing" on maximum aperture. Most are less fast than rated, often by as much as a 1/4 stop. The Nikon lens was shot below its max, so is likely to be more accurate. However, there could be issues of slow aperture actuation or stop setting adjustment to throw off the Nikon exposure. The difference in color and saturation between the lenses was interesting. Neither lens represents the peak of technical performance compared to others in its line-up, but that's clearly a lens issue, not one of film. There are other possible issue to difference the film results. These are scanned image, so may have been rendered differently by that process. Also, they were probably developed separately, which should not make a difference, but often will. So, what is the objective lesson of this video? It is that the creator probably doesn't keep her cameras serviced, and she does't know any better. What do we learn about Gold 200 in either format? Nothing at all. In fairness to this creator, nearly all of her fellow "Gold 200 comparison" creators don't do any better, just a bunch of B-Roll and snapshots.
Thanks, this is very well presented! As per your results, I am thinking the 120 requires more light to gather in to expose well compare to the 35 small size film surface?? Usual in digital photography we get opposit results to your test done here.
After watching this I am going to try some in my 1957 Yashica Mat with the 75mm Lumaxar f3.5 lens.
We’re they scanned on the same scanner? Because sich a difference in look would be easiest explained by them having been scanned on two different scanning systems.
I'm actually surprised at the 120. That warmth is so lovely. Can it dethrone Fuji? I dunno I call shenanigans. LOL.
hahahaha 🙈 I’m not sure either!
120 Fuji is too damn expensive. The price is going to be the death of Fuji
Absolutely loved the comparison between the two formats. The 120 looks absolutely incredible and Rosemary looks stunning!
she is a goddess 😍 for that one shot indoor and overexposed, she stayed so still at 1/4s!
I think I just found my new favorite TH-cam channel 👀
🥹🫶
Thanks for the comparison, I imagine the 120 is better at resolving fine detail since the negative is larger. Also, one little thing I noticed. When shooting daylight film under tungsten light like in the shop, you need to use an 80a cooling filter on your lens to get the correct white balance. That’s why the colors in the indoor shots are so overly warm. Also I’m fairly certain your F3 needs a CLA so that all the shutter speeds are accurate.
thanks! I’ll have them checked soon
Can I just point out I think it's hilarious how small the mic is lmaooo its cute tho and good quality, great video sissi!
Hahahha the small mic is really becoming the star of this channel, now I have to keep it around then 😂
thank you for this comparison. Great video :)
thank you for watching!
It’s really helpful to compare like that and I love your photos. And it’s impressive that you keep thinking up new projects! I am looking forward it:)
p.s. I love how you talk(with the little cute mic🎙) and your style..! Every season, you retain your own mood but it’s not boring, even new!! Your style is also inspiring. I hope to see you on youtube more~.~
ah I’m so glad that you enjoyed the video! these videos take me a long time to make, but I love making them~~ more to come!
As I'm hoping to be able to go to Venice this summer and planning to bring almost the exact same loadout as you are, this is pretty much convincing me to pack Gold200 as the default for the trip.
summer and Gold is the perfect combo!
Love the concept of this video! Sissi you executed this so professionally. And you’re 120 images are absolutely stunnnnnnning
with this film exist on the market again…? yes you need a medium format camera 🔥🔥🔥
Great video , can’t wait to try it 😎
Hope you enjoy it!
I love the mini microphone haha. Very cool comparison. I love that you chose to go back and shoot with the store owner. Also, you are so pretty☺.
Sissi ❤️
Another great video! loved the comparison, I think I will try it in 120 soon :) looking forward to the next video 👀
Great video!!
thanks! hope it was helpful!
i just picked up some kodak gold 200 35mm and this video was SOOOOO helpful. coming from a digital background i am so used to underexposing, but i can already tell i will definitely be overexposing these rolls of film. THANK YOU SO MUCH
so glad it was helpful! have fun shooting!
very excited to try 120 kodak gold! it was my go to stock when i shot mainly 35mm and have missed it dearly since shooting more 120. another great video, ive spent a lot of time in NYC and your videos always make me very nostalgic for it :)
it’s a good one! slightly different than the 35mm Kodak gold, but the 120 gives me exactly what I want from Kodak gold 💯 enjoy shooting!
HI, I´ve been using Kodak Gold in 35mm for years and I usually overexpose 1 stop. Seems I would not tend to do this in 120mm. Very interesting test.
Me too! I’ve been rating my 35mm Gold to 50 ISO and getting very decent results. But putting it right next to the 120 tho 😮💨😮💨😮💨
Def inspiring my next video! Helpful 🔥🔥🔥
thank you!!!
Been sitting on my Kodak Gold to test for the perfect day.. lovely video!
yeah the weather’s been so bad. i waited till that one sunny day to do this test
These videos getting better every time. Thanks for doing the test, needed that 🙌🏻
hope it helps!
Amazing video‼️ Very thorough and clean comparison
Thank you! I spent probably way too much time making this, so thank you for watching it 🙏
Great comparison video, crushed it!
Ah thank you! I can’t wait to shoot more of this film 🎞🎞🎞🎞
@@SISSI_LU SAME
Super cool comparison, I loved it! I came across your self portrait video a while ago and thought it was really good, I'm glad you're still making videos! I need to get on the medium format train, it is so beautiful. Film prices seem to be constantly rising though :(
omg thank you for sticking around! this year we will be making consistent uploads 🙌
yeah it’s a shame that the cost of film is going so high right now, but hopefully it means a resurgent of film photography, which I’m totally here for it 👏
The photos look great!! Gold is a very nice film and you did a great job showing its potential!!
thank youuuuu 🥰🙏
I wanted to say, your video is something natural and classic at the same time. It feels different to other photography reviews. I enjoyed watching this one as well. Thank you always.
so glad to hear that! 🥰
What would be interesting is doing a comparison of a expired roll of gold 120 from a decade or two ago to the gold 120 now. I thought this was a great video.
wooooo if I can get myself a roll of that. the expired gold 120 is so hard to find!
thank you for watching 🤗
Such a fun video, keep them coming
will try out best!
The nikkor 50mm f1.2 has a cool look to it, so the difference does make sense. The Pentax lens is warmer, I have both lenses and I have seen a difference in them
you’re right! it’s crazy how much the different characters that each camera and lens carry.
i think accidentally cut out this part in the video, but it also has to do with the scanner too. they were both scanned on noritsu commercial scanners, but maybe the lab had set them up differently for 35 and 120.
@@SISSI_LU watching your journey to bw, very nice 👏
@@datadinkusmc001 thank you! there are so much to learn 🙏