Lucky C200 (乐凯) vs. Kodak Gold

Direct & Practical Comparisons With Colour Charts, Exposure Tests, and More

14 min read by Dmitri.
Published on November 18, 2025.

Comments

Save

Lucky C200 (乐凯 C200, p.: Lè Kǎi) is a new colour-negative film manufactured in Baoding, Hebei (China). The technology behind it may or may not be stemming from Kodak’s short-lived collaboration with Lucky in the early 2000s — but as you’ll soon see, it looks very different from anything else on the market today.

In China, Lucky C200 is the cheapest colour-negative film money can buy. It has an MSP of ¥52 ($7.33), with buyers reporting having paid ¥65 ($9.15) for film, development, and scanning. This is significantly cheaper than importing Kodak films into China. But of course, depending on where you are in the world, there will be import fees for C200, with the US customers recalling having paid $10 just for the rolls. That’s how much I spent to get it in Canada ($14 CAD).

In most cases, it’s clearly an affordable film. But is it worth a try?

This article will examine Lucky C200’s colours, grain, contrast, and saturation — as well as physical properties against one of Kodak’s best-known affordable-tier films: Kodak Gold.

By the time you finish reading this, you should have a clear idea of whether Lucky C200 is right for your project and whether it’s a good substitute for the go-to “consumer” films offered by Kodak.

In this article: Experiment overview and methods. Lucky C200 vs. Kodak Gold: side-by-side under studio light. Overexposure tests: +1 and +2 stops under studio light. Underexposure tests: -1 and -2 stops under studio light. Grain size. Physical qualities: cartridge design, film base, and unusual emulsion colours out of the development tank. Which film is better? Support this blog & get premium features with GOLD memberships!

☝︎ We are so lucky to have this many colour-negative films to choose from this year! Not long ago, there was a shortage of anything film-related, with photographers reporting empty shelves wherever they looked. So far, Lucky is the ~6th unique ISO 200 option in addition to Phoenix, Gold, Kodacolor/ColorPlus, Fujifilm 200 (?), ORWO NC 200 (a.k.a., KONO Color 200/OptiColour 200).

Practical outdoor portraits on Lucky C200 and Kodak Gold 200. While these scenes are not identical by any means, there’s a clear difference between those films, which becomes even more obvious under controlled light. Can you tell which is which?

Experiment overview and methods.

Lucky C200 and Kodak Gold are unmistakably different. Yet these films are a lot more alike than, say, Harman Phoenix 200 or ORWO NC 200 — the two new colour-negative films from the UK and Germany. C200 and Gold feature finer grain than the European varieties and slightly more nuanced, realistic skin tones.

☝︎ Further reading: “Comparing Phoenix vs. NC200.”

☝︎ Further reading: ”Kodak ColorPlus vs. Kodacolor 200 vs. Kodak Gold.”

The differences between C200 and Gold should persist across various development and scanning methods, but to identify them, it’s best to examine those films in controlled settings. In doing so, we’ll better learn the strengths and weaknesses of both films as well as what to reasonably expect from each at just under ten bucks a roll.

Here’s how I’ve set up the experiment:

Scene. A static indoor scene with a reference card, a portrait attribute, and various props.

Light. Amaran F21x 5500K with diffusion.

Exposure. Nikon FE with Nikon AI-S Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 for Lucky C200 and Nikon F2 (same lens) for Kodak Gold. 𝒇4 1/125 (metered for middle grey) plus underexposure (-1, -2) and overexposure (+1, +2) brackets.

Development. Arista C-41 chemicals, same tank for both films.

Scanning. I’ve scanned all film as digital negatives using Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 500ED via VueScan.

Inversion. I used film Q (an app for inverting negatives without altering their characteristics). Manual white balance adjustments with reference greyscale masks for artificially-lit scenes.

Lucky C200, inverted with film Q — no colour corrections.

Lucky C200 vs. Kodak Gold: side-by-side under studio light.

Outdoor light can change rapidly. Often, we aren’t even aware that it has, which is part of the reason the Sunny 16 (a method for “seeing” light without a meter) is a skill we have to learn. A light breeze can shift the scene, affecting not only the position of its components but also the colours and contrast as the angle of reflection changes.

A consistent light set at a constant angle, carefully curated scene elements, and a tightly-controlled camera lens, position, and exposure are the same tools that film manufacturers use to test their emulsions.

I’m also adding an element you typically won’t see in those test setups — a self-portrait. In part, it’s to make the scene a little more interesting (or so I hope), and to add a bit more live context. Mannequin heads may be enough to demonstrate light-to-shade transitions, but they won’t capture the texture of human physiology, which comprises many hues influenced by skin tones, veins, bone structures, and more.

The colour chart in the scene, unlike the portrait element, is a well-calibrated set of Spyder Checker 24 swatches by Datacolor, printed on matte material to disperse reflected light as evenly as possible (for maximum consistency regardless of light position). I’m using it as a reference to compare how the Lucky and Kodak films render the colours relatively to each other.

Though this is not the case with every frame taken with Lucky C200, under certain light and in specific scanning conditions, this film may produce a heavy cyan tint. This can be corrected; I recommend using greyscale masking, although there may be other methods to tune the balance towards warmer, more natural hues.

I use the Datacolor chart to balance the scanned results using the greyscale masking method. This is the final step of film inversion, without which C200 may appear cyan, and Gold may look slightly green.

Below is the result of an exposure at 𝒇4 1/125 (metered for middle grey at box speed of ISO 200) after developing in the same tank and chemicals, inverting with film Q, and balancing the colours:

Above, Left (A): Lucky C200. Right (B): Kodak Gold. Inverted with film Q, colour-corrected. 𝒇4 1/125 (EI 200, middle grey).

Unsurprisingly, controlled light tests reveal a notable difference between the films, as did the outdoor shots at the top of the article. Lucky C200 renders significantly more contrast and saturation than Kodak Gold, and its yellow/orange hues are drifting strongly towards reds, whereas Gold renders the warm tones with a slight bias towards greens.

This is not to say that one is more colour-accurate than the other. Those films appear on opposite ends of the colour shift spectrum (red/orange for C200 and mint/green for Gold)

In my opinion, Gold’s colour palette is a little more flattering, whereas C200 is probably more realistic. But that’s at box speed. What would happen if we were to give those films more light — would it decrease the contrast of the lucky film to make it look even better; would it wash out Gold, or would the Kodak film preserve its qualities?

Overexposure tests: +1 and +2 stops under studio light.

Adding a stop of exposure reduced the contrast and saturation on C200 considerably (while Gold appears largely unaffected). Yet the colour tint biases of both films remained about the same.

FWIW, I think that rating C200 at EI 100 makes for more flattering, perhaps a little more realistic results (although you may also notice a slight shift toward the green in the middle-grey areas that was difficult to correct without shifting the rest of the colours towards the reds):

Left (A⁺¹): Lucky C200. Right (B⁺¹): Kodak Gold. Inverted with film Q, colour-corrected. 𝒇2.8 1/125 (EI 100, middle grey).

Let’s go further.

At a glance, shooting both films at EI 50 (overexposing by two stops) doesn’t seem much different from the above. However, if you pay attention to the whites and light-greys, you may notice that Lucky is beginning to fall apart. The shadows are trending towards purple while the whites are turning green. I’ve made several adjustments in an attempt to mitigate this, and this is the best I could come up with:

Left (A⁺²): Lucky C200. Right (B⁺²): Kodak Gold. Inverted with film Q, colour-corrected. 𝒇2.0 1/125 (EI 50, middle grey).

Whereas Gold is virtually unchanged (after colour corrections), Lucky is losing balance in the blue/green channels. Still, I wouldn’t say this is a serious issue in either case. In fact, my portraits look rather decent on both sides.

✪ Note: There may be some minimal light pollution in the room from an orange incandescent light bulb behind me. It’s very dark, but as the exposure is increased, the film may be picking it up. I like how Gold is interpreting it (correctly) as a red-brown hue — in the mirror behind my shirt — whereas Lucky paints it green. Because of that, I’d be wary of using C200 in mixed or artificial light.

Underexposure tests: -1 and -2 stops under studio light.

Overexposing colour-negative film is relatively safe, often even a desirable tactic. Yet giving it less light is when the true test of integrity would occur.

As fewer photons hit the emulsion, restoring shadows and colours can become more challenging. Let’s see how those films compare under these conditions, starting by removing a stop of light; in this case, I’m switching my lens to 𝒇5.6 (from the properly metered 𝒇4):

Left (A⁻¹): Lucky C200. Right (B⁻¹): Kodak Gold. Inverted with film Q, colour-corrected. 𝒇5.6 1/125 (EI 400, middle grey).

There’s something about the C200 that pushes it towards purple hues in both over- and underexposures. As with the rest of the tests, Lucky film looks warmer, more orange than Gold. Both usable, yet the deepest shadows lack detail on either side.

What about shooting these films as if they were ISO 800 and developing normally? Surely these relatively inexpensive films will fail in every possible way, making themselves completely unusable — that’s what I thought, and that’s not far from the truth. Although there’s still a difference between those films that would make me pick one over the other:

Left (A⁻²): Lucky C200. Right (B⁻²): Kodak Gold. Inverted with film Q, colour-corrected. 𝒇8 1/125 (EI 800, middle grey).

At this point, the films begin to look the same — high contrast, high saturation, few shadow details, and colour shifts. And yet, I look better in Gold. On the left, I’m tri-tone: orange, black, and white (somehow, with missing details in the highlights). On the right, there is at least an extra shade of yellow on my face.

The colour swatches confirm the above: the separation between reds and oranges is almost non-existent with Lucky C200, whereas Gold remains somewhat more legible. Plus, Gold is visibly less grainy.

Of course, it’s entirely up to you how you approach your projects — you may be looking for particular qualities that may not appeal to me here. But at least you know what to expect!

Grain size.

If you’re reading this on a large screen, it should be easy to see that Lucky C200 is significantly grainier than Kodak Gold 200. Though not necessarily a bad thing, it’s visible. Here’s an enlargement:

Left: Lucky C200. Right: Kodak Gold. 𝒇4 1/125 (EI 200, extreme enlargement from Nikon SUPER COOLSCAN 500ED @4,000 DPI, inverted with film Q).

Physical qualities: cartridge design, film base, and unusual emulsion colours out of the development tank.

I was a little concerned as I wound the last six frames of my 135 Lucky C200 cartridge. It made noises, as if something was stuck in it. The rattle got worse as I wound it back into the canisters — so much so that I opened my camera in a dark bag to carefully place it by hand inside the canister.

When I loaded C200 onto the development reels, I learned that tearing the film from the cartridge is much easier than any of the Kodak films, which wouldn’t budge. While I’m fairly confident the film is securely attached to the cartridge spool, if you think your camera is prone to pulling on film hard, you may want a backup.

Out of the development tank, Lucky film exhibited a milky glaze. But that concern faded with time as it dried. The emulsion on C200 is thicker than on Gold, so this may just be due to a higher gelatin proportion.

If you notice any of the above issues, there’s no need to be worried. The images will turn out. In my case, there was no unexpected damage or scratches.

Curiously, the film canister and the film box for Lucky C200 are smaller than those of the other 135 films. This may be a sign of a manufacturing choice that could allow more efficient packaging.

Lucky C200.

Which film is better?

This is entirely dependent on the nature of your project, your budget, and the prices you’ll be paying for each film. Lucky is a little pricier where I live, yet it’s sufficiently different from anything else for me to keep a few rolls handy for appropriate occasions.

Technically speaking, I’d say that Kodak Gold can render finer and more accurate shades than Lucky C200, especially when underexposed. However, you may get more realistic overall colours from C200 in certain situations. Neither is as accurate as the Kodak Portra series or Ektachrome.

Inverting C200 is a little more challenging than Gold; without adjustments, it can produce a cyan tint under certain light. You can, and probably should, correct it using the greyscale masking method (or any system of your choice).

C200 can be a fantastic choice for foliage and scenes that call for more saturation. Whereas Gold may bring a little more realism and be a better candidate for pastel colour palettes due to its subdued contrast.

Lastly, I’d say Gold is a little more reliable in terms of packaging quality, though the issues I’ve noted above are minor and likely won’t affect your process. You may even prefer the Lucky brand for your medium format needs, as it’s thicker, making it easier to mount on reels if you develop your film at home.

Kodak Gold.

Have you tried either of these films? Do you have any questions about the process, inversion, or colour correction steps in this article? Let me know!