[6BQ5]

It seems like there is a prejudice against most Lomography branded films because of the association with lo-fi photography. Most online image samples were taken with low quality cameras exhibiting massive vignetting, soft focus, and double exposures. There are also a lot of posts lambasting the quality of the 120 sized film that seems to come from China. All that together turns a lot of people off from any and all Lomography film.

Like you, I am impressed and pleased with the Lomography 100 film in the 135 size. It has a very pleasing look, is pretty sharp, and processes well. I wouldn't use this film for everything but I wouldn't hesitate to load it either unlike Rollei CN or CR films (bleah!).

[LesDMess]

I can see why some are not compelled to try it since it doesn't have an actual expiration date and likely unpredictable source - US or other? I know some people who prefer to use one type and even buy a lot at a time so that they can get used to the results. It is cheap and in the 6 rolls I have used, the results are quite useful for none critical use with my acquisitions and more than good enough for product shots. I suppose the question is whether the next ones will provide the same results?



Full res scan -> Lomography 100-2_05-26

[6BQ5]

No expiration date? Mine has one.

[Gerbermiester]

I've been fairly impressed with the recent Lomo color Neg 100. The color Neg 100 from a few years ago was Ferrania solaris 100. All the stuff that's being sold now is definitely a Kodak product; the box is marked made in the USA and comes in the same grey and white plastic film containers as all of Kodak's other 35mm stuff.

Rumor has it that the new stuff is Kodacolor VG 100, but I'm still not entirely convinced that it's not Kodak Proimage 100. (Proimage 100 is still in production, it's just not sold in the Canada/USA market. It's still being sold in Asia however.) Look at samples of Proimage 100 vs recent Lomo Color Neg 100, looks pretty close to me.

Both images below are with the new Kodak made lomo 100: The top was taken in December 2014, and the bottom is in March 2015. All in all, I like the film and it has a definite 'Kodak' tone to it, especially in the skin tones, but it's no competitor to Ektar 100 in my book. For 3 dollars a roll, however, it's half the price of Ektar. I'm not whining!

[6BQ5]

Thanks for the note on Kodak Proimage 100. I didn't know it existed before! A quick search on eBay shows it being available from Asian sellers. The price isn't too bad if you don't mind bulking up on quantity. $4-5 per roll shipped. I might try to get a pack just for the fun of receiving an international mail parcel.

Does anyone else buy and use Kodak Proimage 100?

[ChrisPlatt]

I like bargains and trying new films but for a couple dollars more I'll go with Ektar.
It's currently $5.50 per roll at Adorama and B&H.

In film photography one seldom gets a second chance at getting the shot after seeing the results.
Why take chances?

Chris

[stevebrot]

It seems like there is a prejudice against most Lomography branded films because of the association with lo-fi photography.

No prejudice here. If there is any hesitance it may be because they tend to change suppliers without changing their labeling. At one time they sold Ferrania Solaris 100 as Lomography 100. That film had much different characteristics than what you have posted here.


Steve

[6BQ5]

No prejudice here. If there is any hesitance it may be because they tend to change suppliers without changing their labeling. At one time they sold Ferrania Solaris 100 as Lomography 100. That film had much different characteristics than what you have posted here.


Steve

Lomography had no choice but to switch suppliers since Ferrania went out of business.

[Arvid]

I just shot a few rolls of LOMO 100 in 120. I really like the results and it was so much easier to scan and get nice results than with Ektar (which I shot and scanned a lot in 120 and 135 in the last weeks - 5 rolls in 120, 3 rolls in 35mm, shot in one day, scanned and tinkered with throughout the last weeks. I thought I should have gotten the hang of it, but I didn't. Scanning the 120 Lomo negatives was a breeze compared to that. Ektar has a lot less grain, but I like the overall look of the Lomo film much better). Too bad I don't remember exactly what the box said, but I think in my case it was "Made in Europe" or something like that (I remember it didn't say Italy or China).

The question now is, as I'd like to shoot some more 100 ISO 135 film, if I can assume that the 35mm film is the same as the 120 film, as long as it states the same origin on the package. Unlikely, isn't it?

Edit:
Negatives say nothing but "LOMO <3 CN100", by the way.

[Gerbermiester]

Weird... if it says made in the USA it's a Kodak product. As to wether it's the same stuff as 135 format is anyone guess. Post some scans and maybe we can figure it out.

[Arvid]

Went to the shop again today, they were out of ASA 100 color negative, but the lady told me that it wasn't the same film in 120 and 135. She said the 135 would be made in the US, while the 120 mostly came from China.

As I said, the 120 negative only says "LOMO 100CN" imprinted on the edges.

This is an interpretation of what it can look like. Taken on an old Voigtländer Bessa 6x9 Folder, around f8 at 1/150 of a second, so it might be a little over exposed. Scanned on an Epson V500 and tinkered with contrast a little in Photoshop. No idea, where I set my focus, to be honest. Seems to be in the foreground, for whatever reason.

[Gerbermiester]

I should have been more clear; I noticed that the lomo films are not marked with the country of origin directly on the film. They will, however, be marked with the country of origin on the box they are sold in, as they are required to by law. (Admittedly, this doesn't help much if you already have purchased the film and tossed the box. But it will be of some use with future purchases if you come across some old stock of Italian made "Solaris").

I've shot a bit of Chinese film from a producer called "Lucky" and was pretty let down. It was in 135 format not 120, but their quality control was quite poor. Halfway through two of the rolls of the 3 pack I bought were sprocket marks within the film plane and several black dots speckled around the frame that I have not experienced with any other film. Colour, as always, is a bit subjective, but my samples had lovely greens, and lousy everything else. Grain was quite prominent in their super 200, but this would probably be less prevalent in the larger formats. I'd spring for Kodak product for the few extra bucks. But, to each their own, experimenting with different films is half the fun.

[Arvid]

I should have been more clear; I noticed that the lomo films are not marked with the country of origin directly on the film. They will, however, be marked with the country of origin on the box they are sold in, as they are required to by law. (Admittedly, this doesn't help much if you already have purchased the film and tossed the box. But it will be of some use with future purchases if you come across some old stock of Italian made "Solaris").

As I said, I tossed the box, but I think that I remember it didn't say made in China or made in USA (120). They are out of stock now, so if they ever get it back in stock, I won't be sure what to expect until I have it in my scanner. I guess I'll take the risk, though.

EDIT
got my hands on some lomo 35mm 100 color negative film. the box says "made in USA", the internet says that this means "made by ferrania", "kodak color vr" and/or a bunch of other theories..

[Kiwi645hauler]

I love my Lomo film, i shoot the 100, 400 and 800 colour in my 6x6 and also shoot the lomo 110 films in my Auto 110, haven't run any through my recently obtained ME Super though, i really should grab a couple of rolls from work and have a go with the 35mm

[butangmucat]

I've shot a bit of Chinese film from a producer called "Lucky" and was pretty let down.

I thought this firm was out of the film business for many years, maybe you just got bad rolls? AFAIK many of the Lucky rolls on TaoBao are labelled as "defective" and were sold dirt cheap.