35mm C-41 film: what emulsion/brand?

[removedacct2]

this is a roll of 35mm Lomography color 100 iso, I had in the fridge for a while. Lomography buys a diversity of old stocks, their 120 rolls are usually easy to identify from the edge markings.
But this I have no idea, the 100-2 ie. 100-N number reminds me of some Kodak.

 

[Brad Deputy]

That does look like Kodak Gold 100, series 2?

Given the current Gold 200 is marked similarly, but as 200-7.

 

[cmacd123]

that is where Kodak puts the serial Number on their rolls.

Now does that mean they packaged it, or that they made it? Who Knows.

 

[Ten301]

AFAIK, only Ferrania Technologies originally, until they shuttered, then Kodak until presently, supplied film for Lomo for their Lomography Color Negative 100. What you’re showing is not the Ferrania, which had their • + and triangles on the negative edge, and a slightly different hue to the mask. That’s Kodak’s mask color, and also how Kodak identifies their emulsion generation on the negative rebate. Looks like Kodak Gold Gen 2, which was somewhere in the ballpark of what Kodak was reportedly supplying to Lomo.

 

[removedacct2]

thanks.

having some clue about the emulsion can make things easier when doing scan->positive inversions. I use ColorPerfect and it provides a list of presets by brands/emulsions which I find often a good ground for further tweaking if needed.

in this case I was testing the behaviour of a 70's/80's zoom lens from an obscure brand (Kamero...).

In ColorPerfect I chosed the "Gold 100 (2007)" profile and the 2nd frame of the negative in previous post gives this:

there the sun is setting to the left of the shot, we see CA, besides some vignetting occurs at wider focals with this zoom.
I could keep this profile as a ground for color modifications or try another one. Then decide to play a bit more with this lens, with a shade next time, in order to know what use I could have for it, C41 or BW.

But then it's good to have a ground for conversion of a whole roll.
In this case, an indoors frame later on the same roll, with a nice even light tells that the profile applied as is, no mods, is indeed a good pick:

 

[mshchem]

Computer books yeech. You need to get better test subjects

 

[foc]

Here are a few samples of different film edge markings.

This is Kodak. Note the arrow under the 7A, the same as in the image posted by the OP.

Agfa

Ferannia

Fuji

Of course some of the edge markings changed with different emulsions appearing but the basic idea is there.

 

[removedacct2]

Here are a few samples of different film edge markings.

thank you! very useful. Which makes me now think of Lucky. I was expecting Lomography to sell repackaged Lucky in 35mm, because in 120, their 100 iso was Lucky for a while (CN marking) and I still some rolls of that stock. Nice emulsion, takes push up to two stops very nicely.

 

[brbo]

All current "normal" Lomo C-41 films (CN100, CN400, CN800, Tiger 200), regardless of format, are from Kodak. The weird ones (Metropolis, Lomochrome, Redscale) are from Inoviscoat.

 

[removedacct2]

All current "normal" Lomo C-41 films (CN100, CN400, CN800, Tiger 200), regardless of format, are from Kodak. The weird ones (Metropolis, Lomochrome, Redscale) are from Inoviscoat.

CN100 is Kodak? this one:

interesting, sometime in autumn I was shooting by a very dark day, had Ektar and Lomography-100 and had to push, metered like 400 and added one minute in developer. When inverting the scans to positive I had to seriously work the colours of the Ektar in software, but the Lomography-100 had minimal shifts.

 

[brbo]

CN100 is Kodak? this one:

Is it fresh?

 

[removedacct2]

that one CN100 was expiring 06/2018 (the Ektar I shot same day was fresher 06/2022). I guess I will post a thread showing the difference when both shot as iso 400...

 

[Arcadia4]

Other posts based on testing have suggested that lomo 100 is kodak pro image 100, which would make sense as a current kodak product rather than bespoke for lomo and the 35mm version is clearly packaged by kodak. I've shot rolls of both in 35mm on the same location and there is no difference in appearance.

Pro image is thought to be based on gold v6. So 1 generation back. However its uniquely sold by kodak as an e.i. 100 film on the box (doesnt state an iso) actual sensitivity is perhaps nearer 200 hence its ’good underexposure latitude’ ( the 100 designation is a bit of a false friend )

Pro image seems to have been out of production as a kodak branded film for a couple of years now presumably as a lower priority in the backlog. So in the meantime lomo 100 is the only version on sale.

 

[Ten301]

Other posts based on testing have suggested that lomo 100 is kodak pro image 100, which would make sense as a current kodak product rather than bespoke for lomo and the 35mm version is clearly packaged by kodak. I've shot rolls of both in 35mm on the same location and there is no difference in appearance.

Pro image is thought to be based on gold v6. So 1 generation back. However its uniquely sold by kodak as an e.i. 100 film on the box (doesnt state an iso) actual sensitivity is perhaps nearer 200 hence its ’good underexposure latitude’ ( the 100 designation is a bit of a false friend )

Pro image seems to have been out of production as a kodak branded film for a couple of years now presumably as a lower priority in the backlog. So in the meantime lomo 100 is the only version on sale.

My experience with Lomo 100 and Kodak Pro Image has been different than yours. While it’s obvious both share their Kodak Gold lineage, IMHO Lomo 100 appears less refined, with slightly more pronounced grain, higher contrast, like a very early generation of Gold.

Kodak Pro Image is indeed said to be a tweaked version of Gold Gen 6. It appears ‘smoother’ than Lomo 100, with much better control of/detail in the highlights.

 

[Xylo]

Do you still have the film canister?
You could check the numeric DX code just under the lip of the can next to the minilab barcode.

 

[foc]

Do you still have the film canister?
You could check the numeric DX code just under the lip of the can next to the minilab barcode.

Have a look here

http://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase/

 

[Xylo]

And if anybody wants to have fun calculating it by hand, Wikipedia has a pretty good article on the subject

DX number - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[braxus]

I thought it was decided Lomo Color 100 was Kodak VR Plus 100 film. That was in production around 15 years ago in 35mm, but 120 no. My understanding is Kodak makes it currently special order for Lomo.