Our full review of Kodak’s newest film, Ektachrome E100, can be seen here. Here are some snippets from that piece.

The 200 ISO rating isn’t the fastest, and you do have Kodak Ultramax 400 if you need more speed, but I like to shoot in the kind of light where 200 is enough anyway. When I did so, the grain and contrast in the results were all good. Most of my photography is either travel or street, and I might end up reserving any future use of Kodak Gold film for the former, as it just feels more suited to that.So a film – such as Kodak Gold 200 – with a wide exposure latitude, is one where you can over or under expose it quite a bit while still achieving decent results. If you like shooting in direct sunlight, Kodak Gold is fantastic for that and will still maintain details in the highlights. There’s always going to be nostalgia in analogue photography. Some for the medium, some for the cameras we use, and some for certain films. Kodak Gold is surely one of those that command it in a way some others can’t.

The film is grainier than Portra 400 and makes a slightly more stark and contrasty image, which makes it pretty much perfect for moody, dimly lit scenes in which grain and contrast are welcome. Images made with 800 look more like a traditional color negative film, which is welcome considering how close to digital perfection images from Portra 160 and 400 can be. The only question to ask yourself when deciding whether to use Kodak Gold film for your street photography is if you want this look. I’m not sure I do but if you’re okay with it, I don’t see much else that will cause any big issues. Its initial low ISO setting provides a very fine grain that gives the latitude to play around in the developing, editing, and printing process. However even with its lower sensitivity, Its grain structure isn’t as smooth as Kodak Gold or Ultramax, two of Kodak’s other lower-priced consumer-level films. All of the above is still true. It’s still inexpensive, still found anywhere that sells film – in some cases where this is one of few options they have – and still gives those warm results you expect from a consumer level Kodak film. Gold 200‘s popularity stems from its remarkably balanced imaging characteristics. It has just the right amount of grain, is sharp without being clinically sharp, its colors are vibrant but not gaudy, and its speed is just right for an afternoon photo walk. It performs admirably for anybody’s general photography, and in experienced hands it can produce some seriously beautiful images.If you do your street photography once the sun has gone down, illuminated by low levels of artificial light, you’re not going to get the best of what Kodak Gold 200 can offer. This means that Kodak Gold has lower light sensitivity and is better suited for well-lit situations, while Kodak Ultramax is better for lower light conditions. Additionally, Ultramax is known for its fine grain, high sharpness and vibrant colours, while Gold is known for its natural colour reproduction and good skin tones. Ektar is also particularly challenging for the novice photographer. The emulsion does not have the wide exposure latitude of Portra 400 or even Ultramax 400, and shifts colors slightly based on slight over- and under-exposure. Self-scanning Ektar is also a pain with consumer-level scanners. Ektar benefits greatly when processed and scanned through professional level machines by those with extensive experience with the emulsion. What this also means is that if you’re shooting in a high contrast scene with bright highlights and dark shadows, you’ll be able to retain more detail at both extremes.