So what IS this lomo 400 film?

[Berri]

Lomography color negative 100 film is now available in 120 size! good, I'll buy some!

 

[MattKing]

Lomography color negative 100 film is now available in 120 size! good, I'll buy some!

Of course, it probably is a different film!

 

[Berri]

Of course, it probably is a different film!

There is no way of knowing that if you don't try it. They could have it made to order by InovisCoat or kodak, for example. In this case the film would be the same as before. Where do you think they "find" Lomochrome each time it runs out? Someone must produce it for them.

 

[MattKing]

There is no way of knowing that if you don't try it. They could have it made to order by InovisCoat or kodak, for example. In this case the film would be the same as before. Where do you think they "find" Lomochrome each time it runs out? Someone must produce it for them.

I should have put a "smiley" emoticon beside my earlier post.
But more specifically, I would be surprised if Eastman Kodak would contract coat something similar to Ektar 100 for Lomography, as that is the only 120 colour film they make at that sensitivity, and it seems to be designed and marketed towards the "premium" side of the market.
The Gold 100 emulsions would have to be substantially reformulated to make them usable with the 120 film substrate.

 

[Berri]

I should have put a "smiley" emoticon beside my earlier post.
But more specifically, I would be surprised if Eastman Kodak would contract coat something similar to Ektar 100 for Lomography, as that is the only 120 colour film they make at that sensitivity, and it seems to be designed and marketed towards the "premium" side of the market.
The Gold 100 emulsions would have to be substantially reformulated to make them usable with the 120 film substrate.

There is no way it is ektar! Nobody thinks that! But I don't see how it can't be gold or Kodacolor. Anyway I believe it is more likely produced by inovis coat.
Don't worry about the smiley face, I wasn't having a go at you! (I better put a smiley face myself!)

 

[MattKing]

But I don't see how it can't be gold or Kodacolor.

Films have to go through some fairly extensive re-design work if you intend to change the support material from the thicker base material used for 135 to the thinner material used for 120.
And of course there are the serious wrapper offset problems that Kodak has been struggling with when it comes to 120 - apparently with both black and white and colour emulsions.

 

[Berri]

Films have to go through some fairly extensive re-design work if you intend to change the support material from the thicker base material used for 135 to the thinner material used for 120.

I don't see how this would matter much on a lomo film...Kodak would do all sorts of reserch if their brand name was on the film but this is not the case and you don't expect pro quality anyway from a lomo film

 

[MattKing]

I don't see how this would matter much on a lomo film...Kodak would do all sorts of reserch if their brand name was on the film but this is not the case and you don't expect pro quality anyway from a lomo film

I think it is more a case of Kodak not being willing to spend the money to do the research. You have to do that research, because otherwise you have problems with things like making sure the emulsion actually stays on the film backing!

 

[paulo]

I found this http://goods.ruten.com.tw/item/show?21103173894559 perhaps this is what agfa vista 200 really is...

Mitsubishi MX200, Samsung Prime Color 200 and Sakura Pro 200 all are Ferrania Solaris 200 based.

 

[Berri]

I think it is more a case of Kodak not being willing to spend the money to do the research. You have to do that research, because otherwise you have problems with things like making sure the emulsion actually stays on the film backing!

Let me put it this way, who did this research to produce lomochrome purple in 135 and 120 size? It is a fact that Lomography negative film is being produced from scratch, how else they could have theyr name on the film rebate if it was some old expired emulsion?

 

[trendland]

Mitsubishi MX200, Samsung Prime Color 200 and Sakura Pro 200 all are Ferrania Solaris 200 based.

Are you realy sure ?
I have some Ferrania Solaris 100 - the
only ISO100 emulsion I dont like any more from the older films.

It was extrem cheap but much grainy
in comparision to others.

The colors are not so much bad as the grain.Nut not realy supreme.
:-(
Solaris films were complete sold out
2006 - 2007.


with regards

 

[Prest_400]

Films have to go through some fairly extensive re-design work if you intend to change the support material from the thicker base material used for 135 to the thinner material used for 120.
And of course there are the serious wrapper offset problems that Kodak has been struggling with when it comes to 120 - apparently with both black and white and colour emulsions.

Something I hadn't thought about.
35mm quite blatantly points at Kodak with the "made in USA", 120 is quite ambiguous as it says "made in China". I recall seeing some Kodak Gold made in 120 but that may have been in 1990's? If it were the same film, there would be the question if it could be produced again without much R&D involved. Then, the theory/rumourology of "made in China" simply being the finishing would separate film master roll production from finishing. So, in part the offset wouldn't affect Kodak.
IIRC, there were some complaints about the Lomo Backing paper and it was able to imprint much more efficiently than Kodak's!

Ferrania used to be the supplier for the CN's until... 2012? Actually there was an agreement to produce film until 2009 or so, and they may have gone Agfa way in freezing some extra production, finished by Foma. Thus the funny aged Ferrania-Lomo found in Czech Republic.
Could an extensive sensitometry test tell something? We could call Kodak for contracting the manufacturing of some CN film and find out. Maybe, on the Soviet spirit of Lomo, sending an Industrial Spy would work.

 

[aleckurgan]

Films have to go through some fairly extensive re-design work if you intend to change the support material from the thicker base material used for 135 to the thinner material used for 120.

Ilford cuts both Delta 3200 135 and 120 formats from the same master roll with "thicker" 0,125mm/5mil support, which is used for 135 only by other manufacturers. Even if they use a customized spool with thinner core, which can be easily outsourced unlike backing paper, I see no reason why Lomography could not do the same.

 

[MattKing]

Ilford cuts both Delta 3200 135 and 120 formats from the same master roll with "thicker" 0,125mm/5mil support, which is used for 135 only by other manufacturers. Even if they use a customized spool with thinner core, which can be easily outsourced unlike backing paper, I see no reason why Lomography could not do the same.

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that about Delta 3200.
I wonder whether Eastman Kodak has the same flexibility though on the big coater in Building 38.

 

[peter k.]

From post #35

This lomo 400 film you suspect as Kodak
gold is indeed an older Kodak emmulsion.
It is Kodak VR 400.

Having shot some 35mm of this film in the past, and became curious reading this post again today, so sat down and decided to give it a scan whorl with the SilverFast program used for scanning film.
In this program you can select film type and speed, from various manufactures, or create your own.
So tried Kodak Gold, and a couple of others mentioned, and then selected Kodak Vr, 200... which gave the best results, really right on compared to the others. So, .. do believe it is Kodak VR 400!

 

[Berri]

From post #35


Having shot some 35mm of this film in the past, and became curious reading this post again today, so sat down and decided to give it a scan whorl with the SilverFast program used for scanning film.
In this program you can select film type and speed, from various manufactures, or create your own.
So tried Kodak Gold, and a couple of others mentioned, and then selected Kodak Vr, 200... which gave the best results, really right on compared to the others. So, .. do believe it is Kodak VR 400!

I believe Kodak VR is now called colorplus and it is sold here in europe as the cheapest kodak film. it comes only in 200ISO speed and 35mm. There is no mention of this film on alaris website, but in a recent interview (made by emulsive, if I remember right) kodak's spokesman confirms that this film is indeed the cheapest kodak emulsion and available only in some part of the world. Kodak produce for sure a 400 and 800 iso VR film to, and it goes in their disposable cameras only.
I used Gold and colorplus and they are quite good especially if printed in the darkroom. So I'm really curious to try it in 120 size and thanks to lomography this is possible!

 

[Berri]

http://emulsive.org/articles/commun...kodak-alaris-community-interview-results-time

"#1 COLORPLUS is a lower-priced color negative film offering, similar in nature to the old VR films. This product is sold only in specific regions around the world, and unfortunately there is no technical pub for it. Glad to hear you like it."

 

[trendland]

From post #35

Yes I think so : VR 400 because of the
fact that Lomo rated this as 400.

And in regard to the markings in the
original scan - the scan of the negative
with markings.
I am absolute not familiar with scans.
Sure I know Silverfast - but that was it.
If I need scans I got it from a specialist
with this hasselblatt imacon drum scanner.

Never worry about what software he uses. Scans are allways excellent to my oppinion.

But doubt software failure in your case with silverfast.

If the software do work in the best way
by using "VR 200" to VR 400.

Blame on Silverfast !!!

with regards


Having shot some 35mm of this film in the past, and became curious reading this post again today, so sat down and decided to give it a scan whorl with the SilverFast program used for scanning film.
In this program you can select film type and speed, from various manufactures, or create your own.
So tried Kodak Gold, and a couple of others mentioned, and then selected Kodak Vr, 200... which gave the best results, really right on compared to the others. So, .. do believe it is Kodak VR 400!

 

[keenmaster486]

I just got some 800 speed Lomo CN film.

The box is labeled "Made in USA". When I get some developed, I'll post pics of the edge codes and markings.

 

[Berri]

I just got some 800 speed Lomo CN film.

The box is labeled "Made in USA". When I get some developed, I'll post pics of the edge codes and markings.

I think is kodak consumer 800 film, the same used in disposable cameras. They must order in large quantities to kodak and cut it down (or have them to do it)

 

[Berri]

Lomography color negative 100 in 120 size is sold out again on the store, I managed to buy just three packets. I wonder how many rolls they had commisioned...

 

[Roger2000]

Sold out already! It's only been back on sale for a few days! Please let us know your thoughts when you've shot it; I'd be very excited to shoot Kodak Gold 100 in 120 (very sad, I know)

 

[Berri]

Sold out already!

Wait, it's my browser...maybe. I had a look again on my smartphone and it was available...don't know, with firefox it says is not available.

 

[Berri]

Yesterday I shot my first roll of Lomography color negative 100 in 120 size. Here's my opinion.
I shot it with my Pentacon Six in the Boboli Garden, Florence under typical spring condition; sunny - partly cloudy. I processed the film in Tetenal C41 and printed it in my darkroom on ENDURA premier F paper (7x7 inches) I also scanned the negatives.

It scans and prints very nicely, the tones are similar to Kodak Colorplus (cheap kodak film available in Europe, similar to VR films) It is a contrasty and saturated film, but it produce some really nice pastel tones if the light is not strong (you can see two portraits one in full sun and one when the sun was covered by a big thin cloud) The grain of the film is tipical of cheap films (again like colorplus or Gold) but in 120 size is definitely acceptable. It is more evident in the scans, especially in those dense frames probably due to scanner's lack ability to "see" through a dense film. When printed though the grain is very nice and unnoticeable (at least at that size 7x7) In the darkroom it behaves exactly like a Colorplus; same filtration needed to balance my grey card test shot in early afternoon light. It is an actual 100 ISO speed film, if shot at 200 (I tried) it produce thin frames and underexposure is not nice on this film. Overexposed by one stop it still prints ok but if scanned you are likely to notice some digital noise.
The film rebate says "LOMO CN100" in green (not the usual yellow) and there is no emulsion number between the frame 11 and 12 like Kodak products. Also the film edges both are fogged and I'm 100% positive it doesn't depend on a camera's fault. The film itself is sort of shorter then usual 120 films, still long enough to contain all my 12 frames.
I am really happy with the results I got off this film and I would definitely buy more, considering its price 4.30€ against 6.5-7.50 of colour negative films produced by kodak or fuji. Still, I'm not saying this film is as good as portra or ektar, but it is a good film just to shoot away without worrying to much. One last note to those who don't print but scan; portra scans much better and the grain is more noticeable on scans than on prints, so if you are not a fan of cheap looking photos, stick with portra (or ektar)
I'm not sure who produces this film, but after all it could possibly be a Kodak colorplus family film. Here some scans from the print I made yesterday.

 

[MattKing]

Does this film's substrate seem to be the same thickness as Portra or Ektra in 120, or is it more similar to 35mm film?