Kodak Gold 200 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film, 5-Pack)
Kodak Gold 200 is a low-speed color negative film that offers an outstanding combination of color saturation, fine grain, and high sharpness. It is designed for general picture-taking situations in daylight or with electronic flash. You can also expose this film under photo-lamps (3400 K) or tungsten illumination (3200 K) with filters. It also features wide exposure latitude from two stops underexposure to three stops overexposure.
Kodak Gold 200 is a low-speed color negative film that offers an outstanding combination of color saturation, fine grain, and high sharpness. It is designed for general picture-taking situations in daylight or with electronic flash. You can also expose this film under photo-lamps (3400 K) or tungsten illumination (3200 K) with filters. It also features wide exposure latitude from two stops underexposure to three stops overexposure.
Kodak Gold 200 is a low-speed color negative film that offers an outstanding combination of color saturation, fine grain, and high sharpness. It is designed for general picture-taking situations in daylight or with electronic flash. You can also expose this film under photo-lamps (3400 K) or tungsten illumination (3200 K) with filters. It also features wide exposure latitude from two stops underexposure to three stops overexposure.
Kodak Gold 200 is a low-speed color negative film that offers an outstanding combination of color saturation, fine grain, and high sharpness. It is designed for general picture-taking situations in daylight or with electronic flash. You can also expose this film under photo-lamps (3400 K) or tungsten illumination (3200 K) with filters. It also features wide exposure latitude from two stops underexposure to three stops overexposure.
in 30 offers
The lowest price for Kodak Gold 200 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film, 5-Pack) right now is $15.86 at pandacamera.com, compared across 19 retailers.
The all-time low was $11.83 on 8 May 2026 — today's price is 34% above the lowest ever. It has been notably cheaper before — worth setting a price alert.
Prices last updated 20 June 2026.
Last updated at 20/06/2026 21:42:49
Kodak Professional Gold 200 Color Negative Film, 120 Roll Film, 5-Pack
Free delivery
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Professional Gold 200 - 120 Color Negative Film (Single Roll)
Delivery $12.74
Kodak Gold 200 120 film
Kodak Gold 200 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film)
Delivery $8
Kodak Gold 200 120 Film
Delivery $7.50
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Gold 200 120 Film | Medium Format | Colour Negative | Fresh
Delivery $9.90
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Gold 200 120 Single Roll
Free delivery
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Gold 200 Color Film Exp 1980
Delivery $10
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Gold 200 Colour Negative 120 Film 5 Pack
Delivery $7.95
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Gold 200 Colour Negative 120 Film 5 Pack
Delivery $7.95
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
originally posted on analoguewonderland.co.uk
I had been sitting on this stock for a while, waiting for the right conditions to see what it can do. Luckily, a spell of dry and sunny weather in early January allowed me to shoot a roll - half around dusk and the other half around dawn. After getting the roll developed by AW, I went through my usual work flow that begins by converting the negatives using Negative Lab Pro, which usually performs well, but this time the results were disappointing. I'm not sure if it had something to do with this stock or the twilight conditions I had been shooting in. I then did a manual conversion in Photoshop and the results were much much better. To recap, you might end up having to go through manual conversion but I think the price makes this film a no-brainer.
originally posted on analoguewonderland.co.uk
For everyday colour film it's really hard to beat Kodak Gold. With the 200 you have a great all round workhorse - especially in 120 format since the negatives are big enough to get pretty fine grain. Colours are warm and tend towards the yellows but all the better for it. Fuji Velvia has a green cast, but for Gold it's all in the name - golden tint across the spectrum. Perfect for portraits and strong light but enough sensitivity to pick up something good, albeit more muted, indoors. Standard C41 developing so fairly cheep and easy to get your pictures back. For everyday colour it's a tough act to beat. Samples shot on Hasselblad 500CM.
originally posted on analoguewonderland.co.uk
So, I use various box and folding cameras, some over 100 years old, and have for the most part been using Fomapan 100 (which is actually ISO 64 in case you didn’t know!) as a good, cheap B&W film suitable for these old dears. Bright, high contrast scenes with good subjects work well with this, but it lacks flexibility, and seeing what these cameras can do with colour is interesting; this is before the days of chromatic coatings. I generally use stand or semi-stand development, and wanted to experiment with a basic cheap C-41 film, to see how this process would turn out for colour. The results are pretty good, with reasonable contrast and not too much fogging. Colours are a little muted with these older cameras - or maybe it’s stand developing? - but can be easily ... MoreSo, I use various box and folding cameras, some over 100 years old, and have for the most part been using Fomapan 100 (which is actually ISO 64 in case you didn’t know!) as a good, cheap B&W film suitable for these old dears. Bright, high contrast scenes with good subjects work well with this, but it lacks flexibility, and seeing what these cameras can do with colour is interesting; this is before the days of chromatic coatings. I generally use stand or semi-stand development, and wanted to experiment with a basic cheap C-41 film, to see how this process would turn out for colour. The results are pretty good, with reasonable contrast and not too much fogging. Colours are a little muted with these older cameras - or maybe it’s stand developing? - but can be easily corrected after neg scanning, which produces something very like the old “enhanced” seaside postcards John Hind was creating with his outsourced Italian technicolour separations in the late 50s. Very atmospheric, and a higher than typical ISO (they’d typically have been 64-120 back in the day) helps with dimmer days
| Film Format | 120 |
| Film Type | Color Negative |
| ISO/ASA Film Speed | 200 |
| Color Balance | Daylight |
| Film Processing | C-41 |
Kodak Professional Gold 200 Color Negative Film, 120 Roll Film, 5-Pack
Free delivery
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
Kodak Professional Gold 200 - 120 Color Negative Film (Single Roll)
Delivery $12.74
Kodak Gold 200 120 film
Kodak Gold 200 Color Negative Film (120 Roll Film)
Delivery $8
Kodak Gold 200 120 Film
Delivery $7.50
Affiliate Disclosure: We may receive a small commission for purchases made through this link at no extra cost to you. This helps support our site. Thank you!
I had been sitting on this stock for a while, waiting for the right conditions to see what it can do. Luckily, a spell of dry and sunny weather in early January allowed me to shoot a roll - half around dusk and the other half around dawn. After getting the roll developed by AW, I went through my usual work flow that begins by converting the negatives using Negative Lab Pro, which usually performs well, but this time the results were disappointing. I'm not sure if it had something to do with this stock or the twilight conditions I had been shooting in. I then did a manual conversion in Photoshop and the results were much much better. To recap, you might end up having to go through manual conversion but I think the price makes this film a no-brainer.
For everyday colour film it's really hard to beat Kodak Gold. With the 200 you have a great all round workhorse - especially in 120 format since the negatives are big enough to get pretty fine grain. Colours are warm and tend towards the yellows but all the better for it. Fuji Velvia has a green cast, but for Gold it's all in the name - golden tint across the spectrum. Perfect for portraits and strong light but enough sensitivity to pick up something good, albeit more muted, indoors. Standard C41 developing so fairly cheep and easy to get your pictures back. For everyday colour it's a tough act to beat. Samples shot on Hasselblad 500CM.
So, I use various box and folding cameras, some over 100 years old, and have for the most part been using Fomapan 100 (which is actually ISO 64 in case you didn’t know!) as a good, cheap B&W film suitable for these old dears. Bright, high contrast scenes with good subjects work well with this, but it lacks flexibility, and seeing what these cameras can do with colour is interesting; this is before the days of chromatic coatings. I generally use stand or semi-stand development, and wanted to experiment with a basic cheap C-41 film, to see how this process would turn out for colour. The results are pretty good, with reasonable contrast and not too much fogging. Colours are a little muted with these older cameras - or maybe it’s stand developing? - but can be easily ... MoreSo, I use various box and folding cameras, some over 100 years old, and have for the most part been using Fomapan 100 (which is actually ISO 64 in case you didn’t know!) as a good, cheap B&W film suitable for these old dears. Bright, high contrast scenes with good subjects work well with this, but it lacks flexibility, and seeing what these cameras can do with colour is interesting; this is before the days of chromatic coatings. I generally use stand or semi-stand development, and wanted to experiment with a basic cheap C-41 film, to see how this process would turn out for colour. The results are pretty good, with reasonable contrast and not too much fogging. Colours are a little muted with these older cameras - or maybe it’s stand developing? - but can be easily corrected after neg scanning, which produces something very like the old “enhanced” seaside postcards John Hind was creating with his outsourced Italian technicolour separations in the late 50s. Very atmospheric, and a higher than typical ISO (they’d typically have been 64-120 back in the day) helps with dimmer days
I vaguely recall being a little sniffy about Kodak Gold many many years ago, simply because it wasn't a transparency film. I did end up using it and it was of course very good. It would have been more affordable then of course when lots of small shops stocked films. Now if you are looking for a colour film that will perform in a variety of roles, I would recommend it based on my recent experience with a Mamiya C220. I will certainly be buying more. I gave the film some slightly tricky problems in bright sunlight and it stood up well. Bright white semi gloss plastic fencing in direct sun, still has some form where digital probably would have lost it completely. Latitude is good, with a stack of motorcycle racing tyres showing what the film can do with blacks. Skin ... MoreI vaguely recall being a little sniffy about Kodak Gold many many years ago, simply because it wasn't a transparency film. I did end up using it and it was of course very good. It would have been more affordable then of course when lots of small shops stocked films. Now if you are looking for a colour film that will perform in a variety of roles, I would recommend it based on my recent experience with a Mamiya C220. I will certainly be buying more. I gave the film some slightly tricky problems in bright sunlight and it stood up well. Bright white semi gloss plastic fencing in direct sun, still has some form where digital probably would have lost it completely. Latitude is good, with a stack of motorcycle racing tyres showing what the film can do with blacks. Skin tones look natural and nothing looks completely blown out even in full sun. A little bit of pleasing grain and good sharpness. The shot I have included is probably third of a stop over, which works for the black leathers, but I think the film has still handled it and it is still okay as a picture. Kodak Gold is hardly the cheapest, but I believe it won't disappoint as an all rounder and I suspect it may be as good an option as Kodak's top level films perhaps unless you are going beyond medium format.
Grabbed a 5 pack of this as soon as it was announced but have only just found time to use the first roll. Shot ona bright sunny day in a Zeiss Ikonta folder, hand metered with a Zeiss Ikophot selenium meter, so exposures were pretty consistent but not guaranteed "correct".As expected from Gold, any errors were well within the emulsion's latitude but it seems that Gold's sometimes slightly gaudy colours are somehow muted a little in 120 format. They're still bright, with plenty of impact, but not quite as "in-yer-face holiday snap" as the 35mm version sometimes produces. Given that 120 is probably not used much for holiday snaps nowadays (although next roll may go in a Kodak Cresta for some real retro snapping) that was a pleasant surprise and maybe goes some way ... MoreGrabbed a 5 pack of this as soon as it was announced but have only just found time to use the first roll. Shot ona bright sunny day in a Zeiss Ikonta folder, hand metered with a Zeiss Ikophot selenium meter, so exposures were pretty consistent but not guaranteed "correct".As expected from Gold, any errors were well within the emulsion's latitude but it seems that Gold's sometimes slightly gaudy colours are somehow muted a little in 120 format. They're still bright, with plenty of impact, but not quite as "in-yer-face holiday snap" as the 35mm version sometimes produces. Given that 120 is probably not used much for holiday snaps nowadays (although next roll may go in a Kodak Cresta for some real retro snapping) that was a pleasant surprise and maybe goes some way to justifying the apparent rebrand to "Professional" on the carton. The backing paper (plastic?) is a good, heavy, weight which gave little concern about any risk of light leaks from the frame window and - although it only took about 20 minutes to shot the roll - there was no sign of any issues even with the window cover left "open" in pretty fierce sunshine.It developed easily in Tetenal C41 (way out of date - mixed in January!) and dried nicely flat for scanning thanks to the fairly thick base. Scanning on an Epson V600 using Vuescan was uneventful, with full auto settings giving predictably balanced results.One word of caution - I have no idea what Kodak were thinking with the backing paper markings (image attached) but, having loaded the roll and wound on waiting for the normal "3-2-1 dots" type markings to warn of the next frame, I suddenly realised it was showing frame 3 as I'd completely missed the first 2 small "kodak" markings which are all the warning you get. Nothing a quick trip to the changing bag couldn't sort out, and I'll know next time, but it does seem a bit of an odd choice by them!Overall it's a nice film to work with, in a useful speed, and well priced compared to most of what's available in this format currently. So, tempted as I was to deduct a star for the silly numbering, I can't really justify marking it down.
Film arrived quick through B&H and was well within expiration window. Not sure if it's the exact emulation as the 35mm KG200, but typical (great) quality from Kodak. Great warm tones, not too grainy, forgiving exposure latitude and great skin tone reproduction. Have run several rolls through my Yashica TLR without any issues. Honestly, my go to color film for medium format. Much better value, considering the number of shots you get on 120, than Portra or Ektar and very pleasing images.
I have run a slew of Gold 200 through a couple of my cameras and overall I like the film. It has a bit more of a neutral look to it out of the gate than I'm used to seeing with Kodak but not nearly as cool as Fujifilm used to be when they made film. It handles whites very well, as you can see in one of my example photos of the stone columns and white flowers. But it warms up nicely in post if you want that classic warm Kodak look. It seems to have good latitude for pulling back highlights as well. My gripe with the film, and this is just me being nitpicky, is with the Professional name on it. This is just a bold faced lie. This is not a professional film and it's wrong for Kodak to market it as such. This has long been a cheaper grocery store film emulsion and the ... MoreI have run a slew of Gold 200 through a couple of my cameras and overall I like the film. It has a bit more of a neutral look to it out of the gate than I'm used to seeing with Kodak but not nearly as cool as Fujifilm used to be when they made film. It handles whites very well, as you can see in one of my example photos of the stone columns and white flowers. But it warms up nicely in post if you want that classic warm Kodak look. It seems to have good latitude for pulling back highlights as well. My gripe with the film, and this is just me being nitpicky, is with the Professional name on it. This is just a bold faced lie. This is not a professional film and it's wrong for Kodak to market it as such. This has long been a cheaper grocery store film emulsion and the proof is in the pudding. It does not live up to the aspects of being a professional Kodak film like T-Max, Portra, and Ektar. So far all of my negatives curl lengthwise, making it difficult to get a good, flat scan. Secondly, the gain is a bit messy viewed 1:1 in comparison to another professional film like Portra or Ektar. In fact, this 200 speed film has larger and more prominent grain than Portra 400, which is a full stop faster than this film. Because there is more grain, sharpness takes a bit of a hit as well. As the metaphor goes, they've essentially put a pig in a dress. It's obviously less noticeable on medium format than it is on 35mm and I'm guessing they know this, which is why the 135 film doesn't have the word professional on it. The only reason it's more of a nitpick for me than an actual gripe is the price. They've at least (for now) kept the price affordable compared to their real actual professional film. If they were charging $60 for this like they're charging for Ektar, I'd be done with Kodak. But anyway, I like the film and will continue to shoot it because it's really the last affordable color film on the market thank to Kodak's monopoly. Just know you're not getting a truly professional film when you buy this.
The samples are indeed Gold but developed in BW chemistry; read on; I had shot ten rolls in a variety of different environments the first five not long after it was first introduced. the dynamic range is relatively limited and the grain makes this come across as a 'cheap Lomography film rather than something from reputable Kodak stable. I can only guess Kodak went with the recent regergitated influx of interest in film photography; the target audience being young newbies and a variety of lomography style young folk who like to experiment. I can imagine someone might use it as a beginner colour negative film but considering its price across the market I would rather coach on Ektar pitching it against 200 and 400 Fujis.Alright for experiments, and if you want your ... MoreThe samples are indeed Gold but developed in BW chemistry; read on; I had shot ten rolls in a variety of different environments the first five not long after it was first introduced. the dynamic range is relatively limited and the grain makes this come across as a 'cheap Lomography film rather than something from reputable Kodak stable. I can only guess Kodak went with the recent regergitated influx of interest in film photography; the target audience being young newbies and a variety of lomography style young folk who like to experiment. I can imagine someone might use it as a beginner colour negative film but considering its price across the market I would rather coach on Ektar pitching it against 200 and 400 Fujis.Alright for experiments, and if you want your holiday pics to look like something from 1990s.I was largely so disappointed with the results that I decided to experiment myself and ran it through a 100year-old 6x9 folding brownie and had the last few rolls developed in BW chemistry.overall not for me.
Overall I like this film a lot. It's currently the cheapest color negative film on the market and it has great color and contrast. It's a viable alternative to the ultra expensive Portra film, which has inflated to absolute clownish prices. It has that classic Kodak warmth and the contrast is very natural looking. I haven't shot this at 160 or 100 yet, but then again, I don't see a need to. It looks pretty great at 200. The only two negative things I can say about it is the negatives curl a bit once dried, which can pose a problem for scanning. If you have a negative carrier for flatbed scanning, it's probably not a problem but I scan with a digital camera so getting them to lie flat was a small issue. The other thing is the grain. It had a noticeable amount of ... MoreOverall I like this film a lot. It's currently the cheapest color negative film on the market and it has great color and contrast. It's a viable alternative to the ultra expensive Portra film, which has inflated to absolute clownish prices. It has that classic Kodak warmth and the contrast is very natural looking. I haven't shot this at 160 or 100 yet, but then again, I don't see a need to. It looks pretty great at 200. The only two negative things I can say about it is the negatives curl a bit once dried, which can pose a problem for scanning. If you have a negative carrier for flatbed scanning, it's probably not a problem but I scan with a digital camera so getting them to lie flat was a small issue. The other thing is the grain. It had a noticeable amount of grain for a 200 speed film. This is no doubt because it's not a true "professional" film like Kodak is marketing it as. It's a grocery store emulsion. Always has been. But the truth is this ISO 200 film has larger, more noticeable grain than Portra 400, which is a full stop faster. The only reason it doesn't bother me is it doesn't have a professional price. At $45/5-pack, I can live with the non-professional grain.
Paul Simon famously sang a song extolling the virtues of Kodachrome, and it's ability to make 'all the world a sunny day'. Kodak Gold 200, won't really do that. If, however, you do find yourself on a sunny day, and have a roll of Kodak Gold 200 in 120 format in your favourite camera, you'll experience the oft referred to 'golden' look. This is a film for sunshine. It works perfectly well in overcast conditions, but it is the sunshine which really brings it to life. The grain in 120 format is much less pronounced that it is in 35mm, but is still visible. While the more muted colours of Portra are loved for their vintage hue, Kodak Gold 200 gives results which replicate what good colour film looked like back when it was the only option. I am now a devotee of this film ... MorePaul Simon famously sang a song extolling the virtues of Kodachrome, and it's ability to make 'all the world a sunny day'. Kodak Gold 200, won't really do that. If, however, you do find yourself on a sunny day, and have a roll of Kodak Gold 200 in 120 format in your favourite camera, you'll experience the oft referred to 'golden' look. This is a film for sunshine. It works perfectly well in overcast conditions, but it is the sunshine which really brings it to life. The grain in 120 format is much less pronounced that it is in 35mm, but is still visible. While the more muted colours of Portra are loved for their vintage hue, Kodak Gold 200 gives results which replicate what good colour film looked like back when it was the only option. I am now a devotee of this film stock, and given Kodak's commitment to continuing to produce film, I'll be happily using this for many years to come. Oh, and it's very good value as well!
| Film Format | 120 |
| Film Type | Color Negative |
| ISO/ASA Film Speed | 200 |
| Color Balance | Daylight |
| Film Processing | C-41 |
