Lomography 100 color negative - anyone try it?

Curious about this film and wondering if anyone has tried it. Is it very old stock with weird colours, or rebadged kodak gold, or some other emulsion?

How does it print in the darkroom?

It has just come back in stock at B&H.

1kgcoffee said:

Curious about this film and wondering if anyone has tried it. Is it very old stock with weird colours, or rebadged kodak gold, or some other emulsion?

Click to expand...

Ya know, I REALLY wish they would tell you what those rebadged films actually are!

I understand it's Kodacolor VR...toll coated by Kodak for Lomography.

I haven't tried it but I have shot a lot of the Lomography 400 and I am confident that it is Kodacolor VR 400. And the Lomography 800 is Kodak Max 800.

So what you are getting is brand new, fresh, 1990s formula Kodacolor VR.

1kgcoffee said:

Curious about this film and wondering if anyone has tried it. Is it very old stock with weird colours, or rebadged kodak gold, or some other emulsion?

How does it print in the darkroom?

It has just come back in stock at B&H.

Click to expand...

Here you can see a print I made in the darkroom from Lomography CN100 120. And the link is a 20x30cm print from lomography cn800 35mm

https://berrizolonte.prodibi.com/a/mk2m06zk2918r5/i/kq711840dl9rm4

I concur with Agulliver that the Lomography colour negative films are Kodak VR based, which are an earlier version of the Kodak Gold films from the 1980s . Thus similar to Kodak Colorplus which is VR 200 based (probably why Lomo doesn't offer a 200 iso version).

Rough history being:
Kodacolor II 1972- 83
Kodacolor VR 1982 - 86 (utilising T grain technology from HR Disc films )
Kodacolor VR-G 1987 - 88
Kodacolor Gold 1988 -97
Kodak Gold 1997 on (latest Gold 200 v7 from 2007)

In terms of look I would say Lomo CN100 is grainier than current Gold 200 with a more subdued palette (can look washed out by comparison) typical of its era with bias to browns/yellows. Overall results are acceptable for a budget film. Lomo increased prices in the UK this year from £9.90 to £12.90 for 3 pack, so now similar in price to Kodak Gold 200 but 20 years older in technology.

I used Kodak VR 100 until VR-G came out (1987), and the VR films definitely had less contrast and saturation than the VR-G and Gold films later did. It was more like the VPS professional films then, and Portra films today.

After many years of Kodak consumer films having a modest, natural look, Kodak upped the contrast and saturation in response to the Fuji films of the day selling well that had much brighter colors. Kodak finally learned consumers wanted "pop" in their snapshots. This started the "film wars" of the 80s and 90s that saw other manufacturers such as Agfa and Konica also jumping on the pop bandwagon.

Lomography 100 may be based on the old Kodacolor VR films, but has more saturation and contrast than the original Kodacolor VR 100. That film was somewhat dull and lifeless. Kodak took on Fuji in the saturation race with the introduction of the VR-G films which were, in effect, the first generation of Kodak Gold. My guess is that Lomography 100 is based on the VR-G emulsions, not the first generation VR.

Thanks for the responses. I was hoping for kodak gold in 120, with its' medium contrast and warm colours. This is pretty damn close by the sounds of it. I will have try it.