Like other photographers, I have preferences when it comes to using film. Kodak products are ok but they do tend to suffer one major problem. Coldness. An image taken with kodak film has an overall 'blueness' about it which gives landscapes in particular, a less than natural feel. It is not very obvious at first, but when a kodak photo comes up against a warmer toned image such as Fuji in an exhibition or competition, the difference is obvious. Kodak themselves recognise this and as a result of surveying the feelings of professional and club photographers some years back, they developed the 'Gold' range for print workers. To avoid problems with Fuji, Kodak couldn't just alter the colour definition of its entire range as this would have meant stepping on the toes of their competitors who would no doubt have taken legal action (remember the Kodak instant camera Polaroid clone!) So they developed a brand new warm tone grain which is a great improvement particularly for portraits and the holiday markets (always sunny with Kodak Gold!). However, you can't beat the original and I feel that Kodak has gone a little over with its warmth and have possibly called it 'Gold' as a form of cop-out. Fuji remains the Rolls Royce of roll film and will always be my prefered choice.....unless I do a tourist brochure for tropical Andover!
I find this film a bit hit and miss, if perfectly exposed it offers a fantastic result with good colour and grain characteristics. The problems occur when lighting conditions are poor or if the subject has strong colours, for me Kodak Gold does not 'cut it' in the same way the Fuji Superia can. In an ideal world all exposures would be perfect but in reality they aren't, over and under exposed negatives tend to look very drab and the colours a little unrealistic. If you can guarantee perfectly exposed negatives this is a good film, if you can't try another film as the latitude of this one is not the best I have seen.