Lomography Color Negative 800 ISO Review | All About Film
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.พ. 2017
- Lomography Color Negative 800 is a standard, rebadged, major-maker color film. I exhausted every lead I knew to find out who makes it and could not get a firm answer. In fact, it's distinctly possible that different makers have made it at different times. In the two years that I spent taking photos with the film, the performance characteristics changed somewhat with the photos from the stock I purchased in 2016 performing better than the stock I used throughout 2015. So whether this is Kodak, Fuji, or some other stock, I can't say with certainty.
What I can say with certainty is that Lomography Color Negative 800 is fun; it's good to use in low-stress and experimental situations; and it's a great option for learning color negative film use. That said, at some point most photographers will want to graduate out of it and into advanced films like Kodak Portra 800. For what it is, Lomo is successful and good, but it's unpredictable with results that don't always turn out well. Here are some metrics from the two years I shot with Lomo 800.
Twenty-one 35mm rolls (about 760 frames)
Twelve 120 rolls (around 135 frames)
Four 35mm rolls were unusable due to poor film performance.
Six 120 rolls were unusable due to poor film performance.
Seventy-nine 35mm frames turned out well enough to use in this video.
Twenty 120 frames turned out well enough to use in this video.
Those are VERY low hit rates compared to previous AAF videos in this series.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Index:
Skip the Intro: 0:15
Rated ISO: 1:38
Available Formats: 2:27
Subjective Film Characteristics: 2:33
Spectral Sensitivity: 6:53
Development Latitude: 7:36
Suggested Camera Settings: 9:04
Sample Photos and Thoughts: 9:24
800 ISO: 0:59
500 ISO: 6:56
400 ISO: 7:41
320 ISO: 8:14
250 ISO: 10:17
200 ISO: 10:58
100 ISO: 13:24 (not noted, but all are 120 6X6 images)
References:
www.apug.org/forums/forum.php
istillshootfilm.org/
www.filmsnotdead.com/
plus.google.com/u/0/communiti...
www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/FILMCON
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
www.covingtoninnovations.com/d...
home.comcast.net/~amitphotogra...
www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/h... - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
![[4K] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) “FOREVER” Band LIVE Concert “영원히” 베몬만을 사랑하게 되…💗 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TQfC0xdpiw4/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for this timely video. I just bought my first 3-pack of this stuff last week. You've likely saved me a great deal of aggravation.
Thank you!
Wow David, this is extremely educational! Thanks for sharing the video!
Thank you! The All About Film series stemmed from a long list of viewer questions and comments about film and my goal is to fill a gap in film knowledge through an explanation of use, discussion of experience in practical application, examples.
Nice to see a return of the film reviews. Like most Lomo products, I have mixed feelings about CN800. I'm glad that it's available because any interest in film photography is ultimately a good thing for all film shooters. That being said, I don't have a strong desire to shoot this film and this video confirmed my initial thoughts. Everything I've seen from it confirms your results - this is not an 800 speed film. There are plenty of good 400 speed options available, too. It's hard to see myself reaching for this when Portra 400 is such an awesome 400 speed film and Portra 800 is a true 800 speed film.
Thank you for the great review and saving some some money since I won't feel bad not trying this film out!
Thank you! Lomo serves a pretty specific market and its one that most photographers will graduate from at some point.
As you mentioned, I think this is really what they advertise: weird, unexpected, surprise photos with crazy color shifts. In that sense, they are doing exactly what they promise. Kind of experimenting with expired stock. I, personally, like consistency in my photos. However, I bought some lomo 100,400 and 800 just to see what it gives. I shot a roll of 800 at box speed this Saturday in the woods. Haven’t scanned it yet, But I got a “burned” stripe on the negative, where the film name appears. It shows that even the film itself is defected.
See here:
1drv.ms/f/s!ApuD20IO65lWpDu4s__ko1qS80jL
Truly.. A unbiased review. Good illustration. I am not truly a fan of lomography....I just got 5 rolls to try out in low light situation. After seeing your illustration, my perception totally changed. I am new to analog photography....
Thank you! Film photography is a fantastic way to capture creative images that are different from the sterile and identical output of digital cameras. I hope that it's thoroughly enjoyable for you.
Well researched video, thank you!
Thank you!
Wow! Loved the video. It reminds me of some Agfa 1000 stock I used. I believe Fuji was making film for Agfa. I have some of that, but ISO 100 that looks like that... Thanks again.
Thank you!
Thanks for your review guy!
Thank you!
Your vids are Brilliant and informative
Thank you!
Excellent. Bot some Lomo 800 before seeing your video. Now I will shoot at ISO 320
Nice!
These videos are the best. Seriously. And this one reminds me of how incredible it would be to have Natura 1600 in 120. I know you're with me on that one. Natura is about $7.00 a roll here in Japan and it's by far my favorite film to feed the Xpan. One more thing, this stuff couldn't possibly be rebranded Superia Venus. Do you think it could be based on some already discontinued film? Seems plausible to me. They could have paid some company to get their old equipment up and running to make this stuff.
It's possible, but I'm unaware of Lomo having their own film factory. That said, I could certainly be wrong. Making film requires a significant infrastructure and support team. Ilford, as I understand it, has their largest line-item cost in R&D, which is surprising for a company making proven, older emulsions, right? The issue with film manufacture now is environmental rules and chemicals used in film keep being added to banned chemical lists in more countries. So Ilford has to keep re-engineering their films to perform the same way with different chemicals used to formulate them. I would not think that Lomography has a team of engineers re-doing film formulations on a regular basis. Again, I could be wrong. It's a distinct possibility that they bought up a large quantity of bulk film, or periodically buy large quantities, and spool them in their own spooling machines in runs. That wouldn't shock me to learn and might explain why the film I bought in 2015 was largely awful and the film I bought int 2016 performed very well. That could indicate that 2016 came from a new purchase. But all that's speculation based on a limited number of available data points. I suspect they buy off-spec film from both Fuji and Kodak to relabel as CN.
As far as I know there were only 5 photographic film producing factories in the world: Kodak, Fujifilm, Svema (dead), AGFA (broken up) and Ferrania (dead, in the process of being revived).
There have, at other times, been others as well. Ilford (active), Kentmere (active), Foma (active), Fotokemia, 3M, DuPont, Lucky. ShangHai, and Seagull come to mind, and there were a few others.
Really informative video, David. Helps level my expectations since I just ordered a few rolls. Quick question, since I'm fairly new to film. If I shoot this (35mm) at 320 ISO, do I need to inform the lab of that to have them compensate during the development? Thanks!
Thank you!
And nope. All the photos in here were developed in a standard C-41 process with no adjustments for exposure ISO.
Have shot about 30 rolls of Lomo 400 using an Ensign Selfix with Ross Xpres - real retro from the early 50's. Have had a few problems with the spool width which is too wide and allows piping (light getting through the base from the side and affecting the emulsion). Some really nice sharp results as the film suits cameras with low-contrast lenses. Box says, 'made in China' Lucky perhaps which I think had some Kodak input when they set up a Chinese subsidiary. I think this is an old Kodak recipe, Kodacolor X or Vericolor tweaked for different ISO ratings. Use it because you like what it does (I also shoot 5x4 on Portra, so no hang-ups about "cheap" film) ApoSymmar.
Hmm. Made in China would be odd since the Lucky factory stopped making color film back in 2013, I think, maybe earlier. I was talking to a film seller in China back in 2015 who said that his Lucky stock had run out earlier in the years and he hadn't been able to get any new stock since the factory closed. The black and white factory re-opened this past year to make GP3 again. Lomo has been known to put large stocks of film into freezers for resale later. So maybe this is old Chinese-made Kodak 800 stock. That would explain why it doesn't perform well at 800 ISO -- the film is old and has lost speed.
Great vid.
Going purely on memory I sort of noticed the same thing, but put it down to my cameras being old and their meters potentially being a bit out of whack. I'll have to go back and look at my images in the light of what you've reported here.
Thank you!
Yeah, I used a LOT of high-end cameras with this film because the first rolls in 2015 largely turned out badly. So I wanted to make sure I had calibrated, known, very accurate cameras with good meters and shutters to test the film with.
Update - I went on holiday very recently and took a pack of Lomo 400 (not this 800) film with me. Given your experience with this stuff, I shot it at ISO 200 in my MX. Some at least of the shots I made seem to have turned out really well - crisp, sharp and well exposed. Others I have yet to see a return on (the second roll is still in my camera and the third is unshot). Many of my shots did NOT turn out, but this is probably because I pushed the boundaries on shutter speed or didn't pay heed to the nature of the illumination & shot daylight colour film under tungsten, or worse, fluoro lights (what filter do I need for this?).
For daylight color under tungsten, you'd need to use a filter that removes red, so a light blue filter. There was a specific filter name that I'm blanking on right now. They have about the same coloration as a robin's egg. Also, though, outdoor film works different under tungsten. So good outdoor films, color or black and white, typically list a daylight ISO and a tungsten ISO. There's often about two or three stops difference (the tungsten rating being slower.) That varies from film to film and has to do with their spectral sensitivity in the tungsten range.
*Nods* What about fluoro? I think it's a light rose colour but I'm not sure.
That's a light purple (it's called an FL-D filter.) There are a few shades for that and the specific filter depends on the type of fluorescent bulb. Fluorescent bulbs will typically cast a green shade on film but different color temperatures have different affects.
It’s pretty save to assume that Lomo gets master rolls of Ultramax 800 from Kodak. That probably why they can do 120. And it wouldn’t be anything crazy since CineStill also get master rolls directly from Kodak now, without any remjet applied.
As for Lomo 800:
The price is just to close to Portra 800 especially considering shipping you’d have to do since you can’t Lomo 800 everywhere. I just found out that you can cover up the lens of a Kodak Funsaver and wind the roll back into itself. This way you get a roll of 39 exposures of Ultramax 800 for a fair bit less than Lomo 800 and you get a free battery. It’s not particularly sustainable to throw away a disposable camera but than again. Why is Kodak not selling Ultramax 800 at drugstores with the Kodak M35 Kamera?
I suspect that you're correct about the source, yes. As for why they don't bundle the film and camera, I'm not entirely sure. I believe that the M35 is made by the same company that makes the Harman reusable and Dubblefilm Show cameras, among others.
The DX cartridge imprint of Lomography CN800 is 114064. According to dexter.pcode.nl/?dx=114064 the manufacturer is Ferrania Imaging. There are rumors saying that Lomography bought all the remaining stock of the original Ferrania when they were bankrupting, and repackaged them, so this is possible.
I have been having fairly good results with its 35mm version (after I had problems getting Portra 800 in China during college vacations, I switched to this as an alternative). I usually expose it at 500 or 640, just like how I expose Portra 800. There are also rumors saying that the 120 version is a completely different stock, but I don't shoot medium format so can't comment on this.
Oh nice. Good find and thank you!
I was reviewing some of my images, and I realized that the 35mm version of this film somewhat resembles Portra 800 - especially in terms of its warm colors I am getting. The plastic can that holds the 35mm version of the film also looks identical to the ones Kodak use. I also received a complete pack of this film, and the packaging says "made in USA", so it may also be sub-spec Portra 800. I know that Fuji dumps their sub-spec Provia 100F to AgfaPhoto, which is then marketed as CTprecisa 100 slide film, but in the Fuji and AgfaPhoto case, the DX cartridge code can link the two films back to the same emulsion. However it should be noted that I am not comparing prints, but scans from Noritsu scanners from various labs both here in the US and back in China.
Confirmed, Lomo 800 is Ferrania stock. Ther very last meters of film produced at the Ferrania Factory in very early 2011 were produced for Lomo. Also if you look at the film canister at around 0:36 and onwards, the writing below that white stripe is the same as on the Ferrania Solaris canisters.
So do you recomend that i shot it overexposed and dont mention it when i send it to the lab, no pulling in the development?
Correct yes.
Hey David, a quick question: how do you get those ISO numbers such as 500 or 320? All the cameras I've used thus far only have speeds you see on films, i.e. 100, 200, 400, 800 etc.
Those would be detents that are in between the marked numbers. I can't think of any cameras I've used that don't have the ability to set for film speed in third-stops. Let me know if that makes sense.
@@DavidHancock I... I can't believe I didn't think of that! I just assumed you had to pick one of the marked numbers, and if you accidentally set the dial between the two the camera would pick the one that was closer, and not meter differently. Thanks, David!
Hi, I have the lomo LC-A+ 35 mm, do you think this film will work well with it?
It should.
These are really useful. Will you continue this series?
Yes! The next up will be Rollei Vario Chrome. I have one roll left to shoot of it (this weekend, probably) and a few still images to take of the packaging. After that, Ektar, Kodak 5222 Double-X, and some others are nearing completion. depending on the film, making one of these needs between 80 and 180 photos, so it's just a time-consuming process.
I'm really happy to hear that. You explanations on film characteristics, Along with the slides showing what are the best development cycles/developers are extremely enlightening (Although some new material to learn about reading all this info). I would be interested to see your input and development recommendations on the Delta 100/400, TMY 100/400, Kodak Gold, Velvia/Provia and maybe Kodak 5363. In my "vision" I see a table with comparisons of best usage for the photography type, Best/less good developers and development cycles. This would be priceless.
Thank you!
Velvia is coming along and, though a while out, will likely be the next slide film. The TMax videos are in process, too, and 100 will be the first of those (I'm aiming for later this year with that as I have a box of 4X5 TMax 100 to shoot through.)
So what you're thinking is a meatball chart with different photo types along the top and film types and formats along the side and then a meatball dot where the film type and format is a good choice for that photography type?
David Hancock yeah, pretty much, but added the best (or a few good alternatives) for developers and times (since you sometimes had a few good ones and one WOW in the Acros video for example)
I’ll take another example: in the Tri-X video, you embedded 2-3 options for each possible ISO (and also had one best option for 3200).
So i’m thinking about such a matrix.
By the way, speaking of tri-x: I never saw a really good options in the video for 400 developments. You rated most of them as “meh” One “promising” (don’t know if it kept the promise)...
One more thing I would like to ask: Do you have any scenario for consultation on results I get with film? Something like “here is the result, tell me what I can do differently, is it the development, is it the metering and shot, is it just the film which does not having exposure latitude you have in the scene” etc?
I just shot a roll of lomo film picked up in japan. very random results within the same roll which I don't fully understand. for instance, shot in proper daylight, picture and color range was acceptable. a frame I shot in sunset direct light came out completely red. and digitally when I tried to correct for the red shift, lost all resolution. plus incredibly grainy overall . in low light high contrast situation, even though I had properly exposed the film, in the low light areas there is some light flare (not the lense - its a zeiss 85mm f1.2 for nikon). in other high contrast photos the dark areas have nothing to work with on the digital scan unless I strip out all color and make it black and white. bascically, I like surprises, but not nasty ones.
A question. would there be any property of film that would result in all images not being in focus or would that purely be an artifact of the negative scans? I know its not the camera as I recently shot a roll of cinestill 800 with it. which turned out beautifully. like butter and velvet combined.
thanks to anyone who might respond.
Lots of things can cause that. It could be old film for some of the color shift issues, improper exposures for the image detail and coloration in the sunset photo, and improper film loading could lead to the images being inconsistently in focus. Sounds like there's a good change multiple things happened.
@@DavidHancock thanks. The film is about 3 years old, not kept in a fridge. The color shift was expected but far more extreme than I’ve experienced in the past. And focus issues and film loading, I’d not paid close attention to that but it’s possible. Thanks for your feedback - that particular film batch is finished. I’ll rescan the negatives myself on a higher end scanner and see if that makes any difference on the resolution.
I've always wondered how they sourced there film stocks. I take it there isn't a made in USA or Japan label anywhere on the rolls or packaging?
I've got it on reasonable authority that their Lady Grey 400 and Earl Grey 100 are rebadged Tmax of the same speed, and I've used corresponding Tmax developing times (massive dev chart) with good results, but others say differently about the 100 (I think Fomapan was named at one point), so who knows?
Not on any of the packages I got. That was the first thing I looked for. Rollei's films, for instance, indicate that they're made in the EU (therefore by Maco, I believe.) But Lomo's packaging doesn't say, and I thought packaging had to indicate point of origin.
I've read that, too, but I'm not 100% sold. I developed some of both the Grey films in the same tanks as the TMax films and had the rolls turn out differently. That could be again due to them being off-spec, if that's in fact the case. Or they could be something else. It could also be that Lomo's not picky about who makes it and packaged it based on film type and ISO only.
Rollei films are made by Agfa-Gevaert NV in Mortsel, Belgium. Interestingly Agfa-Gevaert are not allowed to sell films under Agfa brand, as the rights are owned by another company who sells Agfa APX (made by Harman, same film as Kentmere), Agfa Precisa (repackaged Fuji Provia) and Agfa Vista (also made by Fuji). Rollei RPX is a modernized version of the 'real' Agfa APX, made at the same factory by the same people. Rollei Retro 80S is Agfa Aviphot Pan 80, Rollei Retro 400S is Agfa Aviphot Pan 400S, Rolleichrome CR 200 is Agfa RSX II 200 etc.
when shooting lomo 800 at a lower iso, did you develop accordingly or at box speed?
At box speed.
Thank you for the reply! @@DavidHancock
I've been trying to figure out what this film stock actually is in 2023. Is it just repackaged Kodak 800/Kodak Ultramax 400 or is it Kodak Ultramax 800 (if it still even exists)?
Good question and I don't know, either.
How about Lomo 100 ISO?
I cind of like the Red-scale from Lomo, but apparently there are two verients: "normal" and ISO dependent it really is marketed to shoot at different ISO speeds... But anyway, really cool video!
Thank you!
Lomo 100 is a long ways off. I'm working a little with Lomo X-pro 200 and redscale 50-200, in amongst other films, but 100 is pretty far down the list.
Ok, thanks for the reply!
I really liked the 50-200 Red-Scale. I know Lomo allso have that "purple" film that apparently
is based on (or rather emulates) Kodak Airochrome… I think Dan Bullamn did a
review of it, but I really hope Kodak might bring that false colour-IR film
back… It kind of is with the times now with “experimental film photography”.
By the way. X-Pro, that´s the slide film right?
Do you cross process or send it off for E-6?
I'm not sure what stock X-pro is. I think it's a slide film. Here's a roll I developed but I forgot to keep notes on whether it was developed E-6 or C-41. photos.google.com/album/AF1QipNlfcv2AprSw8jYmfEmgeHCI9vDXKQFaUoojyOU
Ok, thank you!
Unfortunately the link did not work, I only get that Error code 404…But thank you anyway!
Just so cool to see film making a comeback in today’s digital age.
goo.gl/photos/F87a1Hv66GcRfdkE8
I grabbed the link the wrong way.
What are the symbols on the side of the film? The look says more Fuji than Kodak, certainly the 35mm photos. Perhaps its cut from the sides of the production roll where imperfections are most likely and the film is not 800 ISO to start with.
Good question. I'll check on that this week. The film certainly has a Fuji look about it.
So basically I should just take my Lomo 800 roll it backwards and use it as red scale. ;)
That's ... a really great idea. I hadn't thought of that. It would expose at ISO 200 or slower that way.
im 4 years too late now $50 for 3 roll
s
I'm not sure where you're at, but if you're in the U.S., try Freestyle Photo and B&H, That price sounds like an Amazon price and amazon is absolutely gouging on film prices right now. Freestyle and B&H tend to have far better prices.
more grain better photos
Depends on the grain structure, but grain can definitely complement some subjects.
It's great in 35mm. In 120, it's garbage.
I've wondered if it's possibly different stocks in each, but I don't know.