What's interesting is that 100CN and Pro Image 100 tests the same but Lomo 120 is made in Germany, not packaged in Germany. I think under EU rules the film has to made in Germany as opposed to be finished in Germany to be called Made in.
What actually are Lomography repackaged films?
-
A
- Thread starter TheGreatGasMaskMan
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Ilex Acme #3 Shutter Face Plate, NO Aperture Scale!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Floating Lid for Kodak 4x5 Hard Rubber Tank.
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Alphax #4 Shutter
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: New, NOS Deardorff 4"x4" Lens Board, Undrilled.
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Kenna (signed), Laughlin, Modernism, Leica
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
For film there are no such EU rules, but national rules, which are rather vague.
It is not a conspiracy. It is being made at Innoviscoat. On the same machinery the base material for Polaroid is being made these days.
I don't think "made in " statements are so rigid, they are part of the product marketing with very little rules about it. Not to be confused with declarations or certificates of origin, which are a complete different thing with real and serious legal implications.
The test was in 35mm only.
I did a test with Lomography 400 and Ultramax 400 in August but I made a mistake.
I have only now got around to shooting a new test and am waiting to get the films processed.
Then it's over to Henning to check the results. Hopefully, in the next few weeks.
Would be interested to learn what tests, and would they for example be able to distinguish between different iterations of the same film, pro image seems to have a lot in common with gold 200@ e.i.100 and uses a gold print profile so would in interested if you could tell these apart or say against colorplus given common ancestry.
Yes, it does make an interesting read.
They have been around for 29 years and appear to be going strong.
Love them or hate them, they have sold a lot of film, introduced people to film photography and stood the test of time.
Can that be said of other big names in film photography?
I’ve shot and scanned several rolls of Kodak Pro Image 100 and the “Made in USA” 135 Lomo CN100 over the past couple of years. To my admittedly untrained eye, the two films look like they’re from the same ‘family’, but not identical. Lomo CN100 seems to have a bit more grain, and just has an older, less refined look to it. Pro Image appears to have better skin tones and contrast. It has a richness and depth to it that Lomo CN100 lacks.
That being said, I agree with what others have said in that it makes no business sense for Kodak to make a special run for Lomo when they can supply the Pro Image 100 they’re already manufacturing. So I guess only Kodak and Lomo know the truth, and they’re not going to say.
I wonder how much Kodak charges to make a master roll? If I win the big lottery would it be Panatomic X, Plus X or maybe Verichrome pan in 120 and 4X5?
But then you have to wonder if they're even still able to make those antique emulsions. Feedstock chemicals go out of production all the time (that's the official reason from Fuji for the end of Velvia 50 sheet film and NPH 400/160), and if they're specific to a single emulsion, if it's even possible to produce them again, it would be prohibitively expensive to produce and test and adjust and retest.
I agree, I'd love to be able to Verichrome Pan again in 120 (or even better in 620 on original metal spools) -- but it's about as likely as being able to buy Roman era garum at the local grocery store.
MattKing
Moderator
The last iteration of Verichrome Pan was just the Plus X emulsion with less anti-halation.
Bob Shanebrook (laser here on Photrio) has posted about that - it was within his responsibilities at Eastman Kodak.
It wouldn't be a simple "pull out the recipe and make it again" matter, but it might be that they could relatively easily approximate the task based on curent Tri-X with some tweaks.
Bob Shanebrook (laser here on Photrio) has posted about that - it was within his responsibilities at Eastman Kodak.
It wouldn't be a simple "pull out the recipe and make it again" matter, but it might be that they could relatively easily approximate the task based on curent Tri-X with some tweaks.
Didn't Panatomic X contain cadmium? That's another reason why you won't see it back. Plus-X is only discontinued 10 years or so, so chances for that are better I would guess.
MattKing
Moderator
I doubt it - cadmium was used mostly with paper.
Both were discontinued because of low sales volumes and the consolidation of all film manufacture on to one, high volume coating line.
That is also coated by Innoviscoat
It had according to some posts in different fora. They wanted to get rid of the cadmium, but sales were already that low that the couldn't justify re-engineering for a emulsion without it.
Thanks.
I picked up a roll of Potsdam 100 in 120, and was told it is (and confirmed is is likely) Orwo UN54. The Berlin is the Orwo N74.
OP
OP
I love this channel by the way
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |