This is it, film photographers, the comparison you’ve all been likely curious about. Whether you’re a Kodak Portra 400 fan or are simply want to know how it compares with the new Kodak Gold 200, today’s featured video will surely interest you. The former has been a long-time favorite especially for portrait photography. Meanwhile, the latter has been getting the buzz for being the new film on the block.

Canadian film photographer Kyle McDougall was among the latest to put the two films to a side by side comparison. His goal was to see if the new Kodak Gold 200 could be a good alternative to the versatile but pricier Kodak Portra 400. With the current state of film prices, having more affordable options to premium films are always welcome. 

So, he loaded two backs with both films for shooting with the Bronica ETRSi medium format camera. In the video above, he shared his results and thoughts on how the two emulsions fared in terms of his typical workflow. He also scanned the negatives using a Fujifilm GFX100 with a Pentax 120mm macro lens, and converted the scans using Negative Lab Pro. His observations are definitely interesting, especially since Kodak Gold 200 is one stop slower than Portra 400.

Have you done any comparison of the new Kodak Gold 200 and other color negative film stocks? Share your findings with us in the comments below! You can also do so in our film photography group discussions if you’re already part of the Photofocus Community!