Lomography 800 35mm likely manufacturer?

[B&Wpositive]

So I just discovered Lomography 800 C-41 film. I haven't bought any yet. People on here and other sites have essentially confirmed that the 100 and 400 are Kodak color neg. film.

But the 800 seems to be harder to pin down. People have reported that the 35mm film said "Made in USA" and was coming in Kodak style containers. Can anyone confirm this is still the case?

Also, has anyone tested it head-to-head (shooting identical images) against MAX 800 or Portra 800 to see how similar it might be? Or against Fuji 800 for that matter? To me, that would be the definitive test as to whether it's Kodak or not.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

I actually just watched a Youtube video on this film. It has some interesting information about the characteristics of the film, and has test shots at different ISO/EI settings, but nobody seems to be able to pin down who made it. Overall, a good video, I thought.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Interesting video. It seems centered around the 120 format film, which people have speculated might be a different film altogether.

 

[rpavich]

Why would a person buy 800 ISO film and shoot it between 200 and 400? I can see fudging a slight bit so that you don't underexpose but 200?

 

[Prest_400]

Funny enough, a couple months ago I found curious the Lomo film and lack of discussion about it. So, not long ago there was a thread about the 400.
I would use the same rationale of it being Kodacolor 800, perhaps not the same as MAX800 if contract coated.

Why would a person buy 800 ISO film and shoot it between 200 and 400? I can see fudging a slight bit so that you don't underexpose but 200?

A stop or so may be good as it enables shadow detail (expose for shadows), of course depends on the metering. Back on Pnet, I ended up on a thread about Kodak 800 and there was PE and Ron Andrews arguing that Kodak's film was the fastest, while Fuji was slightly optimistic (measuring shadow detail at 800).


Nowadays it's much in vogue to exploit the overexposure latitude of negative, not only for pastels. Earlier today I saw a quite influential photographer boasting the latitude of Portra 800 shot at an equivalent of ISO 12 (basically shot at f2, plenty of sun, 1/1000). Then there is Pushing Ektar to 800, when the film is crazy enough at box speed itself.
The understanding I have is that overexposure is not the best for Negative film, printing traditionally. However, for hybrid, I can imagine there's a lotta software magic doing its thing. My *ahem* flatbed does fine with well exposed-box speed C41, but not overexposed negs.

 

[Berri]

I just bought some 100iso lomography in 120 size. The package reads made in China and expiry date 2019.
I think it is Kodak emulsion and packaged in China.
I recently shot a Lomography rescale xr that I previously reverted to normal negative, I shot it at 100, 200 and 400 ISO. I processed the roll and it is overexposed but the frames shot at 400 are quite alright. The film rebate reads "LOMO❤ RS 400" and numbers. Some people say that you could tell who makes the film by the font used, well I don't know, maybe similar to kodak

 

[B&Wpositive]

I'm not big on overexposing color neg film. I'll usually shoot at 1/3 stop over the rated speed, unless recommended to shoot at box speed. Older film of course has to be overexposed more but that's because it's old.

I don't think we can go by edge markings for film ID...Lomography obviously has their own custom edge markings on the 800 speed film. We should ask one of the Rons for more info, but I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers/letters were easy to customize in manufacture.

Does anyone think the Lomography 35mm 800, if manufactured by Kodak, would be similar to Portra 800 at the price point it's sold at? Or more likely to be similar to Max 800? Personally I'd guess Max 800. It makes sense too, because Kodak hasn't marketed that film (outside of single use cameras) in years. Just like the ISO 100 (Kodacolor 100 no longer marketed unless you're talking Ektar). And although Kodak markets Max 400, it was speculated that the Lomography was based more on VR400. Actually, it'd be interesting to shoot Lomography 100, 400, and Kodak Color Plus 200 against one another to see if they match. Color Plus has already been verified as being the latest iteration of VR200. This might essentially be VR 100, 200, and 400.

As far as the 800, I have a roll of Kodak 800 (not Portra, but the type that used to be called Max 800). I'll get a roll of Lomography 800 and test them against each other. Any tips or ideas for that test? I'd want to shoot a few subjects and bracket everything. Also, anyone else want to try likewise, testing Lomography 800 35mm against Max 800 and/or Portra 800? There are some pretty perceptive people here. It shouldn't be hard for you all to tell if this is Kodak or not. We just need a big enough sample size to be reliable.

 

[Berri]

I'm not big on overexposing color neg film. I'll usually shoot at 1/3 stop over the rated speed, unless recommended to shoot at box speed. Older film of course has to be overexposed more but that's because it's old.

I don't think we can go by edge markings for film ID...Lomography obviously has their own custom edge markings on the 800 speed film. We should ask one of the Rons for more info, but I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers/letters were easy to customize in manufacture.

Does anyone think the Lomography 35mm 800, if manufactured by Kodak, would be similar to Portra 800 at the price point it's sold at? Or more likely to be similar to Max 800? Personally I'd guess Max 800. It makes sense too, because Kodak hasn't marketed that film (outside of single use cameras) in years. Just like the ISO 100 (Kodacolor 100 no longer marketed unless you're talking Ektar). And although Kodak markets Max 400, it was speculated that the Lomography was based more on VR400. Actually, it'd be interesting to shoot Lomography 100, 400, and Kodak Color Plus 200 against one another to see if they match. Color Plus has already been verified as being the latest iteration of VR200. This might essentially be VR 100, 200, and 400.

As far as the 800, I have a roll of Kodak 800 (not Portra, but the type that used to be called Max 800). I'll get a roll of Lomography 800 and test them against each other. Any tips or ideas for that test? I'd want to shoot a few subjects and bracket everything. Also, anyone else want to try likewise, testing Lomography 800 35mm against Max 800 and/or Portra 800? There are some pretty perceptive people here. It shouldn't be hard for you all to tell if this is Kodak or not. We just need a big enough sample size to be reliable.

I'm not a fan either of overexposed film, but I couldn't tell what actual speed the film was because it was intended for redscale and originally rated 50-200. As for the 800speed, Kodak still produce a cheap 800iso speed film but it goes inside disposable cameras, perhaps you should try that one against lomography 800 (both fresh and possibly the same emulsion)

 

[B&Wpositive]

The roll I have is 2014, so probably not the best test. The other rolls I shot came out ok, but I hear Max 800 is sensitive to degradation. Probably not the best idea to use it for a test.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Just thought of something...

Assuming it's definitely an existing Kodak formula...

Since Colorplus 200 is the latest version of VR 200, and evidence points to Lomography 100 and 400 being its respective Kodacolor VR counterparts...

Could Lomography 800 be VR 1000?

Or is that kind of far-fetched? Never having shot VR 1000, I'm not familiar with what it was like. But for those who have shot it and have also used the Lomography 800, could they be similar? Or is the Lmography much better/newer than VR 1000 in image quality?

What about the newer Royal Gold 1000, Pro 1000, Ektapress 800, or newest Supra 800? Even though technically discontinued, could Lomography have ordered up new production of a large batch based on the formula from one of these discontinued films, working with Kodak?

Or does it have to be Max 800 or Portra 800, because those are the only two still made?

I wasn't aware of VR 100 or VR 400 still made currently...until the Lomography films came out. See my thought process and rationale?

 

[Berri]

Just thought of something...

Assuming it's definitely an existing Kodak formula...

Since Colorplus 200 is the latest version of VR 200, and evidence points to Lomography 100 and 400 being its respective Kodacolor VR counterparts...

Could Lomography 800 be VR 1000?

Or is that kind of far-fetched? Never having shot VR 1000, I'm not familiar with what it was like. But for those who have shot it and have also used the Lomography 800, could they be similar? Or is the Lmography much better/newer than VR 1000 in image quality?

What about the newer Royal Gold 1000, Pro 1000, Ektapress 800, or newest Supra 800? Even though technically discontinued, could Lomography have ordered up new production of a large batch based on the formula from one of these discontinued films, working with Kodak?

Or does it have to be Max 800 or Portra 800, because those are the only two still made?

I wasn't aware of VR 100 or VR 400 still made currently...until the Lomography films came out. See my thought process and rationale?

Kodak is still manufacturing a consumer grade 800ISO film for its disposable cameras, my guess is that film could be special ordered by lomography in different sizes. I don't know how much film lomography actually orders because it seems that all the time it becomes available it's sold out pretty quick. At the current time all their colour negative films are out of stock. They also have the new Lomochrome film out, someone must produce that film too, and my guess is Inovis Coat

 

[epp]

I just purchased the Lomography 110 and 120 color films and both boxes indicate the films are made in China.

The expiration date embossed on the boxes, has the same typeface, so it would appear that the same company may have manufactured both sizes.

 

[MattKing]

I just purchased the Lomography 110 and 120 color films and both boxes indicate the films are made in China.

The expiration date embossed on the boxes, has the same typeface, so it would appear that the same company may have manufactured both sizes.

Or that the same company did the finishing, from bulk stock from ????

 

[epp]

Or that the same company did the finishing, from bulk stock from ????

Haven't a clue.

I also purchased a three-pack of Lomography's 35mm 100 speed color film, that box indicates the film is made in the U.S.A. Kodak Alaris is the only film manufacturer I know of in the U.S.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I actually just watched a Youtube video on this film. It has some interesting information about the characteristics of the film, and has test shots at different ISO/EI settings, but nobody seems to be able to pin down who made it. Overall, a good video, I thought.

Answers everything wondered all over this thread. Bottom line: It's best as a 400 EI film.

And, to counter some other's comments, color negative should always be overexposed, not under, if you have a choice. Unlike B&W or slides, the grain gets better with overexposure, to say nothing of color saturation. And it's hard to blow out the highlights at one stop overexposed, even straight to print (as compared to scan and digital workflow.)

The invention of Kodacolor brought color photography to the masses because cameras could be simple and exposure became relatively non-critical compared to slide films.

 

[Agulliver]

Nope it is NOT a 400ISO film.

I've used six rolls of Lomography CN800 film and I'd say it's Kodak MAX800 or very similar. I've used it at dawn, dusk and at rock concerts. It's definitely ISO 800, if it were 400 then my photos wouldn't have come out well at all.

Note that my rolls were bought in 2017, last one used up in December 2018.

 

[Huss]

My fresh Lomo 800 35mm film dated 2022 says made in USA

 

[ludwighagelstein]

Or that the same company did the finishing, from bulk stock from ????

The intricacies of the OEM market...

 

[Lachlan Young]

My fresh Lomo 800 35mm film dated 2022 says made in USA

Currently at least, the Lomo 800 emulsions are apparently Kodak Gold or similar - and the Made in China previous films are likely to be from Kodak derived formulae coated at the plant in China Kodak was/ is involved in. Longer term, I would not be surprised if Lomo gradually shift fully to Inoviscoat/ Agfa derived formulae coated in Germany.

 

[ludwighagelstein]

Currently at least, the Lomo 800 emulsions are apparently Kodak Gold or similar - and the Made in China previous films are likely to be from Kodak derived formulae coated at the plant in China Kodak was/ is involved in. Longer term, I would not be surprised if Lomo gradually shift fully to Inoviscoat/ Agfa derived formulae coated in Germany.

Made in China does not mean coated in China though.

 

[Arcadia4]

Pro image (e.i. 100 not iso) is essentially a variant of gold 200.
Lomo 100 is considered to be kodacolor VR100 and having shot the 135 version the colour palette is similar to colorplus which is VR200.
VR is of course an older version of the gold line from the 80s so common parentage.

 

[Agulliver]

What is so bad about UltraMax?

I certainly don't like Gold, never did. But my understanding is that it was designed for the average user who would buy a couple of rolls for their summer holiday....and that it makes dull days look brighter. But if you actually know what you're doing with your camera, it tends to make things look too brown/red. Some seem to like this look or find it nostalgic whereas I was delighted to find that the previous VR film was still available under another name.

The Lomo 800 doesn't have the overblown reds of Gold, but it has that Kodak look to it in that reds tend to be more saturated than greens. Unlike the long gone Fuji Press 800 I wouldn't ever consider using Lomography 800 for everyday use....but it's great for low light conditions.

 

[laingsoft]

I only know of a handful of companies that are capable of coating a c41 emulsion. Fuji, Kodak, Ilford, Inoviscoat, Tasma and Astrum. Ilford doesn't make color emulsions as far as I know and Fuji doesn't really play nicely with the new film companies. Tasma will make a color negative on contract, and Astrum does make color negative that has similar effects to Lomo's.

My guess is that Lomo's color film is either a contract batch from Inoviscoat or it's Astrum film being canned by someone in China that bought the Lucky canning machines.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

from my own inquiries, I've been told it's kodacolor vr 1000.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ography-repackaged-films.168336/#post-2189851

 

[Huss]

My guess is that Lomo's color film is either a contract batch from Inoviscoat or it's Astrum film being canned by someone in China that bought the Lucky canning machines.

It says Made in the USA on it.