Portra 800 vs Lomo 800 120 film

[Pioneer]

Noticed Lomography has a sale on their 120 color film. I could use some ISO 800 color film and usually I buy Portra 800 when I'm low.

Any use the Lomo 800? Opinions? Comparisons with Portra 800?

Shut up and buy 3 rolls and tell us??

 

[Kino]

Shut up and buy 3 rolls and tell us??

 

[Anon Ymous]

Shut up and buy 3 rolls and tell us??

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[skylight1b]

I'm going to put in my two cents even though it may not be helpful...

I have only tried Lomo 800 in 35mm, but I really like it. It has vibrant colors, and skin tones look normal. The consensus seems to be that it's the same film that Kodak uses in their disposable cameras. Unfortunately, it is now more expensive per roll than Portra 800. I do have a 120 roll in a camera right now, but it takes me forever to get through any rolls, so it might be a while until I can say anything about it.

Also, I'm not sure if it applies to the 800 speed, but I have used a few rolls of 120 Lomo 400 and they all came out "fat". This was the case with a Pentax 67, Mamiya C330, and a Holga. Something about the backing paper causes this for a lot of people.

Lomo 800 in 35mm example:

 

[brbo]

Lomo CN 800 is very good. It's a modern ISO 800 film. Grain comparable to Portra 800. It's not like Lomo CN 100 or CN 400 where you instantly notice those two are a few generations behind current consumer emulsions like Gold or Ultramax.

I'd buy Lomo CN 800 when Portra 800 wasn't available (or way more expensive) and never thought I was missing anything. Now, in 135 format, Lomo CN 800 is priced the same as Portra 800 and Portra 800 is in stock.

A steady supply of 120 Lomo CN 800 at that new price would make me start looking for a MF camera again...


35mm RA-4 print:

 

[Pioneer]

On sale Lomo 800 is just under $30 for 3 rolls. Portra 800 is just under $80 for 5 rolls. I think I'll try some of the Lomo. If it holds up well at box speed it should be a good deal. Thanks for the info.

 

[koraks]

Is it actually different film? I assume Lomo 800 is manufactured by Kodak since there's no other manufacturer with this capability left. Do they coat an older version of their Portra 800 for Lomo, or a 'dumbed-down' version or something like that? Portra 400 with an 800 label/DX code stuck onto it? Is anything known about the actual differences?

 

[Prest_400]

I wish I had a Local Outlet carrying the Lomo films at the listed price, as buying off their website comes with a bit of a hefty shipping cost at the moment. Haven't used 800 yet, but it's a good idea with Medium Format and I am waiting on a Super Ikonta to arrive.
Did try Lomo 100 in 120 years ago and the results were nice. However, outputting hybrid through a lab, the consistency depends on how they interpret it. Have tried 400 in 35mm as well but some labs gave very "vintage" results so to say and the color palette markedly varied from modern Kodacolor. However, that is down to how it was scanned.

Is it actually different film? I assume Lomo 800 is manufactured by Kodak since there's no other manufacturer with this capability left. Do they coat an older version of their Portra 800 for Lomo, or a 'dumbed-down' version or something like that? Portra 400 with an 800 label/DX code stuck onto it? Is anything known about the actual differences?

Someone with tools that were able to measure/compare properly could give some insight.

From here on I'd like to speculate:
In general, 120 base thickness is different than 35mm and that should require some customization in coating. Someone noted that these films are now coated on a Polyester base.

New look to Kodak Ultramax

That is far from clear - other than the fact that they don't have competitors. And much of the cine film production may be the intermediate films - not camera films. They also have growing volumes in their non-photographic Estar sales. If EK is making custom polyester films, (not photo films)...

www.photrio.com

The 800 could very well be Ultramax 800 (Kodak GT800-5) of some variation which in 35mm is only available for the disposables.

There was another thread about why Portra 800 is so expensive. Given a certain specificity, it's fairly logical to infer that they have at least a couple 800 products (Portra+Ultramax) and the extra cost of Portra manufacturing just stays for the professional product while they can produce Kodak GT800-5 for the disposables and Lomo.

A note about Kodacolor VR (the suspected product lineage) is that despite it being old tech, so to say, I do have a more technical question about it being pre 2000 where C41 was modified to remove Formalin in Stabilizers. In that way I would infer that at that point in time, coated film required some modifications for this, so it would preclude these products from being exactly the same as the 80-90s Kodacolor. It might not be a very relevant point however as the manufacturers have constant adjustments for component variations and such. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-definitive-word-i-hope-on-color-stabilzers.89149/

 

[koraks]

Thanks for chiming in @Prest_400 ; I hadn't thought of the disposables, but now that you mention it, this was indeed brought up earlier. Good point.

As to the stabilizer thing: it would surprise me if Kodak coated anything in C41 that would still rely on a formalin stabilizer step for archival stability. It wouldn't make sense to still use different dye sets for C41 side by side. It's probably way more efficient to coat everything with the same dye couplers to begin with. I have no doubt that the dyes in e.g. Kodak Ektar and Portra are the exact same ones as in their disposable camera films. There will be plenty differences in the emulsions, though, and particularly emulsion layer thicknesses and interlayers.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't know what it is for sure but I have 3 rolls on the way. I normally use Portra 800 and am pretty happy with it, but I am out right now. I will occasionally push Portra 400 if I need a faster film but I actually prefer to over-expose Portra 400 by half a stop rather than under expose it.

The Lomo 800 is quite a bit less expensive with their current sale. What I was actually more concerned with is getting an ISO 200 film that Lomo has decided to call an ISO 800 film. They seem to have a habit of doing things like this.

 

[brbo]

Please, report back when you get your film. Curious about the exp. date.

Lomo CN 800 is definitely not ISO 200, I expose it the same as Portra 800. At ISO 800.

Btw, which Lomography film do you think is rated at much higher than real speed?

 

[Pioneer]

Please, report back when you get your film. Curious about the exp. date.

Lomo CN 800 is definitely not ISO 200, I expose it the same as Portra 800. At ISO 800.

Btw, which Lomography film do you think is rated at much higher than real speed?

I hope you are right that it turns out well at box speed. It will be nice.

It has been some time since I have used any of Lomography's films so my past experience may not be a good guide any longer. But back when I did use it I found that 400 films looked better at EI-2oo or even EI-100. Likewise I was shooting their ISO 100 film at EI-25 and getting much better prints from the film. As a result I basically just quit buying it.

But if this works out well I will need to re-evaluate my opinion of their films. And that is a good thing. Past experience is not always a reliable predictor of future results.

 

[Agulliver]

It is widely believed that Lomography 800 is indeed Kodak Max 800 (GT-800-5). It's certainly not Portra and it's certainly not some weird trick film like some of the other Lomography branded films.

The Lomography 400 an 100 CN films are believed to be Kodacolor VR similar to that sold in the 90s. Possibly even a pre-Gold formulation from the early 90s. As such the colours don't "pop" and they actually look far more natural to my eyes than Gold. Not sure why anyone would want to over-expose them two stops though....unless they are mistaking the older, more traditional look for under-exposure? In the end, as long as you're happy that's what matters but those films perform like 400 and 100 film used to 30 years ago. Which is a look I personally prefer to the over saturated, red/brown sludge dominated "reminds me of NTSC television" Gold. Ultramax is a bit better and I understand was tweaked for better skin tones.

I prefer it to Portra 800, to be honest. I was going to order some from Lomography but the quoted postage is £14....which is just insane.

 

[Prest_400]

I prefer it to Portra 800, to be honest. I was going to order some from Lomography but the quoted postage is £14....which is just insane.

Thanks for the report. Lomo has this "flat rate" shipping which does kill the deal. I might be able to pass by the Lomo embassy store during Christmas back home. In Reddit there are some reports about the decreased price purchases and aside of other things, they are saying expiration dates are not super long.

In general, Color neg films benefit from extra exposure and if you search around there was some technical insights by PE.

 

[halfaman]

I tried once Lomo 800 in 120 and I can't share the enthusiam shown here. Grainy even in 6x7 and unpleasant yellowish tones for me, miles away from Portra 800 vibrancy and more grainy. I still have two more rolls but not really looking foward to use them. This film is presumably the same or close to what disposable cameras have inside. The only positive thing I can say is that it is a true ISO 800 film.

The only Lomo CN I really liked in 120 was the 400. Nice neutral to cool colors.

 

[Pioneer]

My order showed up so I now have three rolls to play with. I think I'll meter the first at EI800 and the second at EI400 to see how it responds for me.

I normally store my exposed color film until I have enough to mix some developer and then develop all my film over a few days while the developer is still fresh. I am shooting a run of color in my 4x5 right now so I should be able to develop it fairly soon, like within the next 30 days.

 

[brbo]

Exp. date?

 

[Pioneer]

Exp. date?

The box the 3 rolls of film came in shows a production date of September 2021 and an expiration date of September 2024. Nothing printed on the foil packaging or the exterior of the roll of film itself.

 

[blee1996]

To see for myself, I ordered 3 rolls of Lomo 400 and 3 rolls of Lomo 800 film in 120. I am quite happy with Ektar 100 so no need there. And the shipping within US seems reasonable at $7.

A fresh batch of Bellini C41 kit awaits as well.

 

[brbo]

The box the 3 rolls of film came in shows a production date of September 2021 and an expiration date of September 2024. Nothing printed on the foil packaging or the exterior of the roll of film itself.

Thanks!

Let's hope they can keep providing 120 film at those prices even when they sell the current inventory.