New batch of false colour "infrared" film

nicholai · Jan 30, 2013

Lomography has put out a new colour infrared film, and is currently funding the first batch. No more paying insane amounts for aerochrome. Guaranteed delivery by July '13. LomoChrome Purple is out in both 120 and 35mm.
Waiting eagerly to try it out!

pdeeh · Jan 30, 2013

It doesn't appear to be infrared film, but some sort of "tweaked" C41 colour film that inverts some colours.

In fact, their publicity doesn't say it is infrared, but that it gives "naturally infrared results" (whatever that means)

Perhaps one of the APUG emulsion gurus could speculate as to how this is achieved?

Daire Quinlan · Jan 30, 2013

It's not colour infrared, it's fake-o simulated IR. They've replaced the green dyes in the green sensitive layer with purple/magenta dyes instead to make it look superficially similar to aerochrome. You'll notice in the blurb they never explicitly -say- it's a colour IR film. They don't DENY it either. Very poor effort on their part I think. Doubtless it'll sell in the bucketload.

nicholai · Jan 30, 2013

Aw man, just read a comment one of the employees posted.
" it is not an IR film, it is a color negative film where we shifted colors. so you won't need any additional filters. sorry, this is maybe not clear enough in this article but is communicated in the newsletter and the shop."
Bummer!

pdeeh · Jan 30, 2013

Who will be making it? (it seems extremely unlikely it would be Kodak or Fuji)
Who's got the machinery and know-how to do this?

nicholai · Jan 30, 2013

I'm pretty sure they're doing it themselves. Thats what they say.

keyofnight · Jan 30, 2013

Hm. Emulsions that mimic filters that mimic IR? I think we've come full circle, and I don't like it one bit.

steven_e007 · Jan 30, 2013

There's something fundamentally not right about the Lomography thing...
Digital is mostly auto everything so you have no control. Film can offer very precise control (yes, you can get either with either - but as a general rule for most cameras and users...)
Lomography seems to sell on the basis of getting wacky, random results with the 'photographer' having little control or idea what he or she will get until the snaps arrive.

In a way it is great as it keeps film alive among the youngsters.... But it also seems to be misrepresenting film photography in a very strange, misleading way....

pdeeh · Jan 30, 2013

Misrepresenting?

It could be said similarly that single-use, Polaroid, or 126-cartridge cameras "misrepresented" film photography

"Film photography" is not monolithic.

EASmithV · Jan 30, 2013

Weird... I'll probably try it, but... Weird...

AgX · Jan 30, 2013

This film technically belongs to a group called "false-colour films".

sehrgut · Jan 30, 2013

steven_e007 said:
Lomography seems to sell on the basis of getting wacky, random results with the 'photographer' having little control or idea what he or she will get until the snaps arrive.

It's very Dada-does-photography.

steven_e007 · Jan 30, 2013

pdeeh said:
Misrepresenting?

It could be said similarly that single-use, Polaroid, or 126-cartridge cameras "misrepresented" film photography

"Film photography" is not monolithic.

Misrepresenting In the sense that if you had no prior knowledge of film - if your experience of photography was purely digital, then when you discover Lomography you might well get the impression that film is some sort of primitive and quaint way of producing blurred pictures with odd or over saturated colours. Maybe misrepresenting isn't the best word to pick, but a Lomo fan could easily get the impression that digital is for serious, well exposed, properly focused photography - whereas film is fun because it is so unpredictably bizarre...

I think 126 was a way to get your holiday snap taking device small enough to fit into the pocket of your shorts.... and disposables so you don't have to worry about them getting broken or stolen, you can hand them out at weddings and parties, but I don't think many people bought them to deliberately produce pictures that looked weird or strange.

SuzanneR · Jan 30, 2013

I've changed the thread title so that it more accurately represents what type of film this is.

Prof_Pixel · Jan 30, 2013

pdeeh said:
... or 126-cartridge cameras "misrepresented" film photography

The 126 format was probably the most successful format Kodak introduced. It solved a real consumer FILM camera issue; the difficulty in loading cameras (35mm in particular). I worked in a camera strore for several years before 126 came out and people really did have a problem loading cameras.

It certainly DIDN'T ""misrepresented" film photography".

pdeeh · Jan 30, 2013

steven_e007 said:
a Lomo fan could easily get the impression that digital is for serious, well exposed, properly focused photography - whereas film is fun because it is so unpredictably bizarre...

I really think it's wrong-headed to assume that "Lomo fans" are all somehow learning-disabled and unable to look further than what lomography.com tells them. If they have any curiosity at all, they'll be googling film-related terms and subjects and APUG or RFF or photo.net results will be at or near the top. So they can find out what other kinds of photography is being done (and of course they'll also find they are derided as "hipsters" and dupes of lomography.com)

I have no interest in doing "lomography", by the way, nor do I own any "lomo" cameras.

But this is taking the thread way off topic so I'll clamber off my current hobby-horse and shut up

prof pixel said:
It certainly DIDN'T ""misrepresented" film photography".

And I didn't say it did. I suggested that was a possible corollary of suggesting "Lomo misrepresents film photography".
I used a lot of 126 cassettes in my teens in the 1970s. I've recently scanned about 200 of them in fact

Brian C. Miller · Jan 31, 2013

I'll definitely order some when I can. This looks like a very interesting film! Too bad it's not real IR, but what the hey.

keyofnight · Jan 31, 2013

I could see why someone would say that Lomo "misrepresents film photography," but I can also see why it doesn't. When I was growing up, I heard about technical advances in film: smaller/smoother grain, more accurate colors, cheaper, easier to use, etc. It was all about making film good at rendering sharp, vibrant images. Now some people want inaccurate colors, lots of grain, and they'll pay a premium for the look/style they want. Also, some people really value not being able to see the picture immediately—they like not being able to "chimp." We all, however, remember being excited about Polaroid film because it was instant! We all remember one-hour photo labs and wanted our pictures quickly. Why do we want to back to the stone ages? Nostalgia is certainly a big part of it, and trendiness is certainly another part of it.

Lomography (I think) cashes in on nostalgia, uses it to keep film alive. That's fine. Some of us may not like the hipster lomo sheik, but we should be happy people are interested in film and want to keep it alive!

I'll probably buy some Purple just for the cause.

C.poulton · Jan 31, 2013

Whatever people's thoughts are on this - good or bad, at least it's a new film being introduced into the market and this must be a good thing overall.

I might try some just for a bit of fun - why not?

Christian

railwayman3 · Jan 31, 2013

False colors aren't new.....there were some very bizarre effects filters available at one time from the likes of Hoya and (particularly) Cokin.

bsdunek · Jan 31, 2013

AgX said:
This film technically belongs to a group called "false-colour films".

Right!
In any case, I'll probably try some, although I wish they would have gone for real IR Color film. Of course then 'Lomographers' would have to understand about filters, and most likely, use a tripod. That violates their first rule - "don't think, just shoot". Wait, sometimes I do that. I also have a couple of Holgas. I may be a closet Lomographer.
See you later, I'm going to my darkroom to reverse roll some color film.

madgardener · Jan 31, 2013

I'm not sure why Lomography gets such a bad rap. I shoot both. There are times when I just feel like going out and shooting anything that moves. Other times, I like to take my time, set up the tripod, and take landscape shots.

I would love to get a medium format camera, but right now its just not in the budget. My "lomo" camera is one I picked up in a dollar store. I have another camera that my wife picked up at at discount store (5 below for those in the US), I'm going to try out soon. The shutter is directly connected to the shutter release, as long as I push the button, the shutter is open.

nicholai · Jan 31, 2013

I guess this debate is just an analogy on the classic pictorialist vs. straight photography debate, isn't it? Regardless, i think it will be fun to try out for some surreal pictures.

Simonh82 · Jan 31, 2013

Personally I'm not too bothered about this particular film but I am glad to see any new film being made. I'm more excited that a company as dynamic as Lomography is now producing its own film. If anyone is going to be bringing out new slide films it will be Lomography. Admittedly the focus will probably be on cross processing them but watch this space for new E6 film.

I only hope is that if they develop a new emulsion, they make one which gives good results when processed in E6 and not just for giving pleasing results in C41. I also hope that they pay some attention to quality control.

I might also speculate that you will get a C41 film with strong saturated colours and high contrast that might work for landscapes.

I wonder where they are making this film?

GregW · Jan 31, 2013

This sort of thing has been around for a long time. Look at Alexander Rodchenko's advice to photographers. A bit of iconoclasm isn't a bad thing is it?

New batch of false colour "infrared" film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency