This showed up. Lomo's 'new' film. I already love their ISO 8 Fantome, will be interesting to see how this compares.
Camera already locked and loaded!
Camera already locked and loaded!
Another new film from Lomo - Babylon 13
-
A
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Minolta C E Rokkor-X 50mm f2.8 enlarger lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale Lot of (78) NOS Pakon 35mm Plastic Slide Mounts
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Pentax Spotmatic SP II 35mm film camera
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale Fuji Fujica GS 645 Pro medium format film camera
- Started by J Durr
Forum statistics
seems like they have been spooling almost all kinds of Movie lab films. they could be fun but I suspect that they are relatively expensive in te lomography packages.
Well it is moody monochrome with glamorous grayscale and nuanced nostalgia. What more could you want when you are given three alliterations. Apparently its advisable to use manual exposure ( another homage to the "old days"?) and apertures below f2 as well. Might be connected to an ISO of 13 I suppose? Combine Babylon( hint of the exotic Middle East and Arabian Nights?) with the kind of moody "rive gauche" HCB ambience and add in £8.50 a roll. What more could you want?
Cheap at nearly twice the price of HP5+ which may anyway lack the moody monochrome with glamorous grayscale etc. In fact when I think about it I now look at HP5+ with the same disappointment that I would if it was suddenly revealed to me that "off- screen" Jean Harlow and Mae West were really Quakers
pentaxuser
Cheap at nearly twice the price of HP5+ which may anyway lack the moody monochrome with glamorous grayscale etc. In fact when I think about it I now look at HP5+ with the same disappointment that I would if it was suddenly revealed to me that "off- screen" Jean Harlow and Mae West were really Quakers
pentaxuser
Well it is moody monochrome with glamorous grayscale and nuanced nostalgia. What more could you want when you are given three alliterations. Apparently its advisable to use manual exposure ( another homage to the "old days"?) and apertures below f2 as well. Might be connected to an ISO of 13 I suppose? Combine Babylon( hint of the exotic Middle East and Arabian Nights?) with the kind of moody "rive gauche" HCB ambience and add in £8.50 a roll. What more could you want?
Cheap at nearly twice the price of HP5+ which may anyway lack the moody monochrome with glamorous grayscale etc. In fact when I think about it I now look at HP5+ with the same disappointment that I would if it was suddenly revealed to me that "off- screen" Jean Harlow and Mae West were really Quakers
pentaxuser
Ilford HP5 is $6/roll in the US. I paid $7.50/roll for the Lomo film.
But it is weird that you compare the two. You do know that Ilford is ISO 400, right? The Lomo is ISO 13. Are those the same things to you? If not, why are you comparing them?
As for complaining about their marketing.. well, they are in the business to sell film and make money. Remember the last ad campaign you saw for Kodak film? Or Ilford? Me neither.
Perhaps that is why people say to me (like someone did on Sunday) 'do they still make film?'
Come on, it was pretty funny and spot-on. Sure, Lomo should be creative with marketing but they decided to dismiss the photrio crowd by focusing on "detailed tender renderings in a film that delicately imbues frames with nuanced nostalgia" and not including characteristic curves, reciprocity tables, and spectral response in their datasheets. Nothing is wrong with it, wish them best to convert as many people as possible.
Okay, yes, perhaps the group on this site -- clearly, Lomography is aiming at the same "accidental art" market who used to buy Polaroid just because you couldn't depend on it to produce a good likeness, proper color rendition, expected exposure, etc. The ones for whom "unpredictable" equals "arty."
I'll admit I enjoy using lo-fi cameras, but I don't want light leaks, or film defects; I'm after the effects of the cheap lenses -- which are very much predictable once you know the camera (a couple rolls will provide that knowledge). I also routinely shoot expired film -- because it's what I have and I already know what I can expect (for what I use, generally a little fog, nothing worse).
It sounds a lot like Kodak 2234/5234 spooled into 35mm canisters - and if so, likely precludes other formats being offered unless it's massively popular.
Interesting... I looked at its data sheet, and Kodak uses (unusual) D-96 at 21C process there. I vaguely remember reading about this developer as an "improved D-76" in the Film Development Cookbook. How come D-76 is still being sold under Kodak brand, and D-96 is mostly lingering on the Internet as a DIY recipe?
Bomental I am glad that someone saw my whimsy and I freely admit it, just possibly my slight sarcasm and even contempt at the effusiveness of the description which talks a lot but says almost nothing. Whenever I see such stuff but no substance I just detect a hint of "snake oil" salesman
I wonder how we'd react if Ilford or Kodak information sheets consisted of this?
pentaxuser
I wonder how we'd react if Ilford or Kodak information sheets consisted of this?
pentaxuser
D-96 was and is a cine developer -- it appears in the data guides for a number of films like Tri-X Negative and XX Negative, as well as working alongside D-95 in a couple reversal processes specific to B&W cine films. Cine labs seemingly like to mix their own chemicals, and Kodak obliges by publishing the formulae in the data guides for the films -- but D-96, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been offered to the still film market.
Why do you care? You think Ilford HP5+ ISO 400 film is a direct competitor to Lomo ISO 13 film based on cost, from your previous statement.
If you can't tell the difference between the two, how could information sheets possibly help?
I'll take marketing whimsy that will sell the product any day if it keeps the film market going.
Threads like this always brings out the old farts in the audience. Lomography bad! I get it. Of course you have not used the film...
Pretty sure the exact same comments were made in the Lomo Fantome thread, again by people who have never used the film,
Others had mentioned that 5234 could have been the same as Lomo Fantome 8. I bought some 5234 and it is very different, so most prob this film is some kind of respooled Orwo product.
On all these Lomography films, the word "Kino" is used on the packaging. Which we all know is German for movie, I,e, movie film.
Fantome 8 develops perfectly in DF96 Monobath if that is an indication of expected behavior. I will see if the Babylon acts the same.
Aside from using phenidone or dimezone instead of metol, the developer component in Df96 is very similar to D-96, and I can confirm it does very good work on XX film. It should work well on anything for which D-96 is recommended, with the correct combination of temperature and agitation.
Where have you been? Making fun of marketing nonsense in 2020 is a no-no. The sensitivity levels are at all-time high. This makes you a micro-aggressor, but if you get lucky you can get away as an "old fart".
I had more of an issue with the nonsense of comparing Ilford HP5 (at half the price!!! er, no.) to an ISO 13 film.
But whenever a thread on anything by Lomography appears, the same old tired tropes get rolled out, by the same old tired people. Who of course have not used the product.
Make of that what you will.
In the cinema world, D-96 is the BW neg developer standard - however, whatever advantages it has for cinema processing machines over D-76, that clearly doesn't translate into the usage/ replenishment levels found in still imaging darkrooms. Otherwise D-96 would have replaced D-76 a long time ago. The other side of the coin is that T-grain emulsions were trialled in BW cinema neg film in the past and were apparently not found to offer significant advantages in that usage. There was apparently an ascorbic acid variant of D-96 for a while, but it seems to be absent from the current H-24 documentation.
Orwo DN-2 or DN21 (if on polyester base) would certainly be a possibility. The most effective way would be through spectral testing - I think the Orwo and Kodak products have quite different spectral sensitivities.
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
D96 replaced D76 as the default B&W Movie film developer. Movie labs make up their chemicals from Scratch. D76 meanwhile is the default developer that almost any film is tested with, so their are researched times for D76 on any film's data sheet. So they sell a prepared version for convenience.
Both Kodak and ORWO make both a Master positive and a duplicating negative film for Movie labs.
the Kodak Negative is 2234. the Positive is 2366. IN the ORWO Line the Negative is DN-2 or DN-21 , while the positive is DP3 or Dp31.
I suspect that Both the latest Kino products will be based on the two related types of lab films.
the Kodak Negative is 2234. the Positive is 2366. IN the ORWO Line the Negative is DN-2 or DN-21 , while the positive is DP3 or Dp31.
I suspect that Both the latest Kino products will be based on the two related types of lab films.
Chill. He's just having a bit of fun.
It's just getting sooooo predictable... zzzzz
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |