NEW Kodak Gold in 120 vs. Portra 400 - Side by Side Comparison

[@AdrianBacon]

I shot a massive pile of Gold as a kid, and as an adult, Gold 200 in 35mm is my all time favorite go-to emulsion. I'm totally stoked that it's available in 120. All that said, looking at Kodak's tech pubs for each emulsion (specifically the spectral response charts), it's pretty clear that they're both going to render very similarly. No surprise there, as they're both designed to print on the same RA-4 paper. If using RA-4 paper as the rendering standard (wet prints in a darkroom), both emulsions have the same spectral peaks, though Portra 400 will render blues, cyans, and a touch of green with a little less saturation than Gold. Gold has a pretty healthy red response in the cyan layer all the way down to 475nm, and another spike up in both the magenta and cyan layers at the 400nm mark which will give gold a warmer rendering in the greens, yellows, oranges, etc, and the layer spikes down at the 400nm mark will give a little less saturation to magenta colors. Gold's Cyan layer has color response a little higher than Portra's cutoff at ~675nm vs gold which looks closer to 685 or 690nm, so it sees a little deeper into red than portra. So, yes, similar, but Gold just simply has a really fat red response that shows up as a slightly warmer rendering, though, if scanning digitally, a lot of those differences are going to disappear or at least be really muted.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for sharing this, Adrian. 🙏

[@JamieMPhoto]

I definitely see how Portra is "better" in terms of grain, neutrality, and gradiation of tones... but unless I'm looking for those things specifically, Gold is a phenomenal choice. I like it because it feels a little more like the old Portras.

[@KyleMcDougall]

It's definitely another great option to have! Excited to shoot more of it.

[@geofff6671]

If you want a film look Gold may be a better choice. Portra's clean look could almost be mistaken for digital.

[@BryanBirks]

Pretty insane how similar they ended up being. I was hoping you'd say you were doing an exposure test as well. Definitely interested in seeing how it compares. I'm not too worried about colors since I do my own scanning and editing but if the latitude is at least "decent" it would be a sweet alternative for more casual shooting on 120. Also, 6:20 is giving me Joel Sternfeld vibes. Really dug that one.

[@oceangrunge7139]

1:18

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah man, that'll be the big one for me. If it's decently flexible and can still scan well, then I'm game. The colour differences are pretty minimal right now!

[@peterfarr9591]

Kodaks official documents do seem to indicate that there's a pretty large difference in apparent grain between Portra 160 and Kodak Gold 200 (far more than the ISO difference would indicate). I feel like Portra 160 would be a closer comparison because of the relative film speeds. Grain index may not be too different for 400 portra vs gold, but you are losing a stop of speed in that case

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. P160 would be an interesting comparison. I used 400 as it's what I shoot most with, and I was curious. :)

[@webmaster4ZLCB]

I haven't shot medium format since high school (late 1970's), and haven't shot film since the late 80's ... but I don't miss a single video you post. It's such great content!

[@thenoizshaun]

I recently spent two weeks on the road doing a Route 66 trip in the US. I started by shooting 6 rolls or Portra in my Yashica TLR. Half-way through the trip I stopped at a store where they had Gold 200 in stock, so I bought a pack. I had my local lab process and scan the 6 rolls of Porta and 6 Gold. I honestly cannot tell the difference. I expected the Gold to have a bit more saturation, but I was surprised at how much I liked it. And it's always a nice thing to have a new choice in 120 film. Looking forward to your exposure tests between the two.

[@linjicakonikon7666]

This is the ONLY place on KZbin to go for color film reviews. Great job once again.👍🌟🌟🌟

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. Glad you enjoyed!

[@EricGibaud]

Thank you Kyle! great work as always!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Eric!

[@MacnTeensVisuals]

Didn't expect it to be that close, both looked great in all those scenarios. Lovely shots btw & cheers for the info Kyle, great stuff 👌

[@alastairrathie8073]

Very interesting, thanks for making. I have my first roll of Gold in the fridge, excited to shoot it. At 100% Gold is definitely grainier and less sharp to my eye, but no one else apart from you is looking at 100%! I feel it is actually testament to how smooth Portra 400 is! I can see myself sticking to Portra for portraits and projects and using Gold for photo walks and fun.

[@elementalview1]

Getting back into film after a hiatus since 2003. I'm so excited about the current film revival and the great choice in film emulsions. I just stumbled on to your channel yesterday and your videos are godsends! Thank you!

[@gregwardecke]

Great video! I hope you realize how helpful that is to us Kyle. You provided a tremendous service to the film photography community. Thank you thank you thank you!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Greg. I appreciate that.

[@GreedyDr]

Best film comparison on youtube, I enjoyed my stay.

[@andyvan5692]

kyle, you also forget, there are as many film developer 'mixes' out there, not counting if we do anything else in the 'darkroom' before scanning, as well as the difference between flatbed and drum scans, ie using the common epson v700 or something like a hasselblad flextight system (wet mounting and all).

[@user-bh6bv8xu3v]

Thanks man, your videos are just the best. Clear, interesting and the viewer always comes out with some knowledge in his pocket 🎞️ thanks! Keep doing what you do 💪🏼

[@movietheme]

Wow they look almost identical! Maybe an exposure stress test will reveal more differences between the stocks

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll be curious to see!

[@hanphan2633]

Always love and appreciate your deep dive videos into film stocks. Thanks for doing this!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Han! Glad you enjoyed. :)

[@jasonisip9619]

Thanks for this! A great help as am considering the 120 gold at the moment

[@timsouter1]

As someone who often warms is photos up a little, if I get back into film again I'll give gold a look in for sure.

[@ianharper6015]

Another informative and well produced video. Thank you.

[@buyaport]

True what you said about the many variables that go into the equation. I made the comparison last week (I guess many do now), and I also was impressed with the Gold. One has to bear in mind though that Portra is a 400 film, and it has not more grain than Gold 200. When shooting in the "golden hour" Portra 400 will be handy esp. with handheld shots on medium format, but else Gold 200 will be a great alternative.

[@devroombagchus7460]

Thanks a lot. It’s good to know that for many shots I loose one full stop, but save a lot of money. This does play a role, because I often set the lens to one distance and have to rely on depth of field. I look forward to your next findings!

[@ThomasL.116]

Incredible... i must confess, i even prefer the grain of the gold images... maybe with portraiture more differences might be 'felt', but its nothing that can't be regulated in post. Great!

[@patrickjclarke]

Funny, back in the old days we used to use 35mm Gold as “tester” rolls just because it was so cheap. You might want to check the spec sheets for both before you do the next test. Gold isn’t as linear in over exposure and doesn’t have as much latitude in either direction. But shot at ISO 200, it’s predictable and pretty good & in 120, the grain index isn’t terrible at 34 or so, but not the 25 of Portra and doesn’t have all the latest advances Portra or even Vision 3 250, but for the price it’s a great choice

[@Raden253]

Yess this is so true, we used gold as tester roll or even just sacrifice roll

[@corbinwesler3985]

You were saying that the two films were so similar, and you sometimes had to double check to make sure you were correct. The differences stood out to me really easily, and I didn't have an issue determining which image was shot on which film. I wonder if that's because the previews we're seeing in a video are smaller than what you're looking at, and that makes the differences stand out more.

[@astonyao2298]

shot two shots so far, and i am loving it. looking forward to the exposure test video 💡

[@rinusborg]

Thank you for comparing these two still available Kodak films. In a number of shots it is very clear that Portra is more open in the shadows and waaay more detailed in the highlights. As a commercial photographer we used/picked films for the intended work. When film choices were abundant, nobody would use a Portrait film for anything else but portraits and weddings where skin tones were most important. The brickwork on the church or fence or green fields were very secondary. Kodak Gold is a film for general shooting and was never intended for anything the professional did. It was an amateur general purpose "left over" do everything emulsion that was first seen in general every day stores on a rack next to the checkout. It replaced the 100 iso and 400 iso Kodak amateur films to provide just one "universal film". Portra 160 and 400 were intended for the larger 120 film market but demand grew quickly for 35mm. As with the old Vericolor 160, exact exposure would allow for great shadow and highlight details. Black tuxedos were black with the pleats and buttons showing. White wedding dresses were white with all the embroidery and stitching clearly showing. And both of that in a single frame. People of all skin tones had their faces recorded correctly even in a single sunlit high contrast picture. A must for the wedding/portrait/group professional. Remember that it had to be printed on color paper with limited but precise contrast and gamma. As also a lab owner, there were very few sidesteps other than precisely controlled C41 negative processing and E4 colour paper printing. Scanning images from negatives is a grossly imprecise method but it holds amazing results and can sure improve (or ruin) image quality. Unfortunately, it can never be fair to the intended use. Grain was never the Portra's best quality but the long toe quality did what is needed to do. Millions of weddings and portraits were shot on Portra, a film that actually requires a refrigerator or freezer to maintain perfect skin tones. This is what determined the high retail price. Yes, from factory to client in a freezer. Finally, Kodak Gold is very capable colour film but cannot be used for products or accurate skin tones as It does neither! A minor exposure error and it causes colour Crossover. It was nearly impossible to print economy wedding (very inexpensive) prints due to colour changes in the bride's dress. Yes, fully custom printing at 3 to 4 times the price and up to a week longer was the result. We were happy to pay the price.

[@frstesiste7670]

Interesting comparison. To me the main takeaway is that I can get as good or better performance from a more than one stop faster film, but at a cost - and save some money if I don't need the higher speed.

[@AdamAllen]

Can’t wait for the exposure test.

[@andersblomster]

Nicely done comparison! Just loaded a roll myself and looking forward to explore it.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. Enjoy!

[@LoganDavidson]

0:55 - Wait (Medium format noob) so, you can have two separate backs with different types of film rolls?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Depending on the camera you shoot with, yes. Some offered it as a feature.

[@LoganDavidson]

@@KyleMcDougall epic! Thanks man!

[@RichardSilvius]

thanks for doing this comparison! I haven’t had a chance to try the 120 Gold yet. What’s jumping out at me the most is that it’s just a bit more contrasty than the Portra, in a way that I really like. On the fence about the coarser grain… but looking forward to giving this stuff a try.

[@KyleMcDougall]

You're welcome, Richard. Cheers.

[@fuego_photo]

Thank you so much for creating this Kyle! I was hesitating getting gold200, ordering it right noww! :D

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad I could help!

[@javixo1997]

Extra pro for Gold: it’s harder to mess in development. Portra requires a much more precise development than Gold. So if you are having issues with Portra (like color shifts very difficult to correct), give Gold a try

[@craigfouche]

I shot my first roll of Gold last weekend, found the film base thin when loading for development, but not as thin as Rollei. I felt I had to work the film a bit more in editing to bring the colours up. I usually shoot Ektar and Portra for landscapes; Gold did ok, but it isn't my go to film. Would I use it again, yes. The grain was pleasing and skin tones faired well too. Thanks for the side by side review Kyle.

[@KyleMcDougall]

You're welcome, Craig. Cheers.

[@xanderyashnikov]

I had the same problem with my Zenzanon 50mm for SQ. Only on 1/500...

[@InkaSlowik]

That's the only mechanical speed on the bronica lenses so a simple CLA should resolve that

[@2handsomeforlaw]

Great review! Would love to see a comparison of portraits.

[@mjmdiver1137]

I'm curious why you didn't also look at Portra 160 here, since I would think the Gold 200 would be more like that than the Portra 400. I just got a 5-pack of Gold 200 to try out in the Hasselblad camera.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Mostly because P400 is my go-to film, and it's also more popular / common than 160.

[@mrca2004]

Kyle, you are the "gold standard" pun intended of youtube film reviews. I shoot portra for skin tones. Would be great to see if you have it with portraits.

[@chadalexander7740]

Hi Kyle, thanks for this very informative video. I’m curious, have you tried pushing Gold a stop? If so, how were the results in comparison to portra 400. Thanks

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Very interesting! They're definitely more similar than I expected.

[@Guairenito]

I can see the Portra is a tiny bit sharper and the grain is smoother. That is pretty noticeable. But hey, Gold looks great and I am going to shoot quiet a bit of it very happily.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll be shooting a lot of it as well.

[@chrisrumsey7918]

I've recently just sent my Bronica lens for repair with the same issue you, unfortunately mine had gotten worse and was sticking quite a bit more at times

[@jw48335]

Kyle - I had the same issue on two of my Bronica ETR lenses - both of the older "E" versions. In my case it wasn't expensive. I have now had all four of my lenses CLA'd, even the ones that were working fine, because I expect Bronica repair skills to be even harder find in the future. Great stuff here - I think the timing for providing gold on kodak's part was well played. I also suspect it was driven by necessity, the rising demand on portra may have exceeded their current capacity to produce it.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Interesting to hear that! I'll be sending mine off to get fixed.

[@jw48335]

@@KyleMcDougall Talking to my repairman here in Michigan, he said "these professional bodies and lenses were designed to be serviced on a regular interval". He stated most of the pro MF kit he sees looks professionally used and then just shelved when the owner went to digital. He said after CLA he would expect my ETR kit to outlast me, saying he'd trust the Bronicas more than Hasselblad. He installed my split prism screen from Rick Oleson too - so much nicer than the stock screen

[@VariTimo]

You wanted to do an exposure series for CineStill 800T like ten years ago.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Ten years! 😁

[@mikeschaid959]

Gold def warmer in the shadows, BUT portra looks warmer in the highlights where I would say gold looks more neutral

[@andrewsimpson5436]

Good to see your results and opinion, big rush on Gold now I guess :-)

[@KristofferTrolle]

As always your videos and work are always top quality, keep it up! ❤️

[@KyleMcDougall]

I appreciate that. Thank you!

[@Topsyrm]

Thanks for doing this comparison Kyle, THB I thought you played down the grain issue, the Gold was obviously much grainier than the Portra. Maybe Portra 160 would be a closer film to compare to? From what I have seen so far I'll not be changing from Portra but I will be interested to see youe exposure tests also maybe a comparison with 160?

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. Grain preferences will be different for everyone. I'll be curious as well to see how the Gold reacts to different exposures!

[@guildengilbert170]

I am interested to see if there are any differences in exposure latitude.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I am as well. I'd expect there to be, but we'll see.

[@carltanner9065]

Bought myself a roll of Gold a week or so ago but haven't tried it, yet. Seems everyone likes it. If I like it, it'll become a go to film for me, since it's a lot cheaper than Portra or even Ektar. And, with the good results people have been getting it seems it's going to be a film a lot of people will consider when it comes to what to choose, first up.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'm sure you'll enjoy it, Carl.

[@constantinslotty5309]

Great review, I think that was the question which was on most of our minds when the new Kodak Gold was released :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers!

[@wujiali1117]

Would you please do film exposure latitude test in gold, colorplus and ultramax? Maybe proimage as well. With skyrocketing film prices, these are ones I can convince myself to shoot. Mich appreciated.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Gold coming soon.

[@KTMrider696]

Great video but id love to see portrait comparisons to check skin tone differences

[@jaceleroy402]

Great video as usual. Quick question about your scanning setup. I also have a GFX100 that I want to scan negatives with. What is the exact model of lens you're using on yours? Thanks in advance!

[@andersblomster]

I think it is the Pentax 120mm macro for the 645.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, as mentioned, Pentax 120 macro for the 645.

[@magnusa.5599]

thanks kyle, as always. just got my first two rolls of gold in 120 back from the lab, one at boxspeed, one overexposed half a stop. for a hobbyist i see no real reason to stick to portra. checking the difference on skin tones might be intersting though. keep it up and cheers from cologne.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Magnus. I'll be curious to see what it's like with skin tones as well.

[@Caballeroshot]

I have been stocking up on Gold for that price alone. Portra is great but not 20-30 more IMO. Great comparison, thanks for doing the tests for us all to benefit from.

[@terrywbreedlove]

Definitely preferred the Portra 400. I wonder how Portra 160 would have compared. 5 pack BH price Portra 400 $59.95, Gold 200 $44.95. And Portra 160 is $54.95

[@KyleMcDougall]

Those prices are so much better than here in the UK. :)

[@theobibard]

Very cool, not even the price but the image it self look very similar, for an alternative pack of film & especially that less cheaper is so amazing that kodak make thoses ones in 120 ! I have 4 rolls on the way & can't wait to see the result with different type of natural lightning :) Thank's for the video Kyle much love from France !

[@nanoulandia]

I am surprised too. And other than the grain, I prefer the color of Gold vs Portra. Seems a little less magenta (though it could be my screen or the scans or who knows). That is what I used to shoot in the 90s and 00s so there's the nostalgia factor too.

[@c.augustin]

Gold 200 in 4x5 - *this* would be a treat. I actually preferred the Gold 200 colors nearly all the time. I don't think Kodak will come up with a 4x5, but who knows, I can dream … ;-)

[@paulfeldem]

In this test, Gold is definitely the winner for me. Drastically more affordable and apart from the grain, which I don't mind, can keep up, no doubt, with the Portra

[@thorstenjaspert9394]

I missed a comparison by overexpose +1 or +2 stops. How is the different if you do it?

[@andyvan5692]

great comparison, look forward to hearing more about this, and also perhaps; if Ilford HP5+ is a good beginner film, for B&W, is this new Kodak Gold a beginner friendly colour film?, ie: in it's look, ability to handle bright light and shaddows, can it be over/under exposed a few stops safely, and be recoverable in the darkroom? As maybe this is a replacement for portra 400 film, aka an exact look-a-like.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll hopefully have the exposure test up soon which should answer some of those questions.

[@BuzzLiteBeer]

Gold seems slightly more saturated, slightly more contrasty, and with a bit more bloom on highlights. I think it's an excellent choice at about 9 bucks a 120 roll here in the US whereas Portra is closer to 11 bucks.

[@MarcS4R]

i have to say i do love the gold , and probably prefer it on 120. i have a feeling the colors are quite different on 35mm, where i have issues with the skin tones.

[@ericsimon1630]

very helpful video, thanks. I'm gonna have to check it against Ektar.

[@adnamamedia]

I actually find Gold in 120 to be so pleasant. Portra has finer grain and is more color accurate, but I love the nostalgic look of Gold

[@justyjust]

This is interesting would the gold look more portra if you upped the magenta in the white balance???

[@KyleMcDougall]

With digital you could tweak to look very similar.

[@thebitterfig9903]

Just to myself, I think I like the Gold more here. The ways in which it's "worse" than the Portra seem like they could be pluses. The extra warmth, the little bit more blooming in the highlights, to some extent even the grain--these seem like the things that make film feel like film. If I really need something super clean with more neutral colors, I have digital. I'll have to get myself some Gold soon.

[@LesterBeasley]

Thanks for the comparison. It is a bit difficult to make comparisons on KZbin. You really have to pixel peep to see differences. Gold is a bit grainier but not that much.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Lester.

[@RM.TokyoPhotographer]

I have a feeling Kodak..really Tweaked the Gold 200 (120) unlike probably back in 100years ago similar to how Portra 400 has been tweaked for scanning digitally...its great to know that Kodak is not making the exactly same product but making it better as of 2022. great video :D

[@dandan1364]

Wish you’d do the same series of shots but with models…. Love to see the skin tones

[@mrenovatio3739]

Going to check this out on skin tones

[@F9FCJ429]

I think in medium format the differences between the two reach the vanishing point. In 35mm the loss of sharpness and extra grain matter, and a sharp lens tells on Gold. 120? Not so much. Useful video, I just ordered a bunch!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Tim. Looking forward to seeing what you make with it!

[@nollieheel214aim]

I'm really digging the warmth of that Gold 200! For the price point I may honestly stop shooting Portra 400 daylight scenes.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll be shooting a lot of Gold, for sure.

[@SummersSnaps]

Be interesting to see skin tone differences between the two, time for a selfie Kyle!

[@oliverlyu3784]

Definitely Gold is more grainy and the saturability is higher, hard to say it's a advantage or not but considering it's even more expensive than Portra before the price hike, I really don't know if it's a good choice for me.

[@crolodon8024]

I didn't hear you mention it but the Portra has much finer grain in all of these scans, it's clear whenever you do a side-by-side zoom. Maybe you did and I just missed it. Also the greys look much nicer on the Portra.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Mentioned near the end with a side by side.

[@crolodon8024]

@@KyleMcDougall Totally, I see that. The Portra definitely performs!

[@scottchenoweth4937]

Did you shoot both at box speed?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yes, box speed for both.

[@perceptionz-de]

is this a focus issue or is gold a little more sharp?

[@MrMacroJesseSky]

Headed to Italy tomorrow. I have 10 rolls of Kodak gold, 10 rolls of ektar, two rolls of portra 400, my 500 cm and 2000fcm. Let’s find out how the Mediterranean handles this stock

[@GKhanKutar]

I believe the grain and the skin tones are the most important differences between 2

[@VivienMalagnat]

Great vidéo, I'm a bit sad you didn't make some portrait to see how they handle both skin color. Maybe next time ? :)

[@child0fthesun]

120 Kodak Gold (5 pack) in USA is $32, so $6.40 a roll right now. Very affordable! (25 pounds for 5 pack, 5 pounds per pack for UK conversion)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep. Quickly becoming a favourite.

[@nickdeak]

I felt like the Gold seemed a bit fresher? But so so similar.

[@btpuppy2]

How can you compare a 200 iso film with a 400?.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Why not? This isn't a comparison about sensitivity. More so about two of the most popular color negative choices/options on the market.

[@thomaswynne9970]

Pretty happy myself too. Quite a lot different to process, in handling terms. Super slimsy in comparison to portra/ektar..

[@OriAlSirr]

hey so i have some portra 400 120 film which has expired (02-2022) does anyone one know how i should i expose it or what are the rules in exposing expired film

[@mattdavis9986]

Don’t get me wrong, I like the fact that Kodak have brought out a new colour film. What I don’t like is the fact that it’s a budget film that costs the same as portra did less than a year ago. I can’t shake off the feeling that the Kodak price hike was partially to do with the release of this film.

[@gspanos0105]

Should a lower speed film have finer grain?

[@jeg569]

Didnt realise how expensive film has got, glad I have a stock in the freezer.

[@gregorysargeant6305]

Your video is one of the best on this subject there are videos in which I like this film and there are videos I say NO WAY because of the warmth of the whites especially at midday and mornings.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Mainly because P400 is most popular and common, and it's also what I shoot most of.

[@randallstewart175]

In terms of practical use referencing color saturation and contrast, Gold falls in the middle between Portra and Ektar. The color balances are slightly different, but not materially so. I do not shoot Portra, because I shoot landscapes, and Portra's low contrast and lack of saturation makes it a poor choice by comparison. I know a lot of folks use Portra for anything, but IMO that is because its low contrast makes it easier to shoot for people with poor metering skills and the "one stop over" crowd, and its shortcomings can be corrected in digital processing. We who make RA-4 color prints have to be more sensitive to such differences because we do not have the editing controls available to a digital file. In the more distant past, I shot everything on Gold 100, and I missed it when it was terminated in 120 format.

[@jharrelphoto]

I can agree to an extent. I was mainly shooting all of my landscapes on ektar. Here lately I have been shooting more portra 400. Something about it I just like. But for waterfalls in the spring I totally prefer ektar. The greens are so good. And the 100 film speed is more suited for the long exposures of the water.

[@kurtozan251]

You should do a video editing people's scans

[@capcaplightleaks5869]

I assume the comparison would be better presented if not an overcast day.

[@VariTimo]

What are your NLP settings?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Lab Standard, Natural LUT, auto WB.

[@RudolfWolph]

Probably a bigger deal that the slower film is grainier if you're shooting 35mm.

[@Jon_Oates]

I wonder why there is such a disparity in price. Is the production process more complex and costly for Portra, or is it down to marketing?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I doubt it's marketing. I'm sure there is a cost difference with something in the process.

[@trulsdirio]

Grain and speed are the only real difference in practical terms, the rest is just one slider away from being adjusted to be indistinguishable.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep. Often the case with scanning colour negative.