[Jonathan Mac]

I picked up some Lomography 400 colour film yesterday. Looking at samples online it looks like it produces quite dark, lo-fi looking images. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Anyone here used it? Bear in mind old Lomo 400 was a Ferrania film, now it's a Kodak one (but not the same as Gold/Ultramax).

[edmundrt]

Anyone here used it?

It's ok! A little grainy but good stuff, nice colours. If you're looking for results that are a little lo-fi, it'll definitely do the job. I also recommend their 100 and 800 films - 100 is so colourful and scans brilliantly, and the 800 is as good if not better than Superia 800, and cheaper. Some people get snobby about it but even if their other stuff is expensive, the Lomography films are good value and give satisfying results.

[LesDMess]

It's ok! A little grainy but good stuff, nice colours. If you're looking for results that are a little lo-fi, it'll definitely do the job. I also recommend their 100 and 800 films - 100 is so colourful and scans brilliantly, and the 800 is as good if not better than Superia 800, and cheaper. Some people get snobby about it but even if their other stuff is expensive, the Lomography films are good value and give satisfying results.

Unfortunately - as I understand it anyway, there is no accounting for Lomography film as each can be sourced differently. So you may get a "good" version one time and possibly something else another.

I've only tried the 100 and the version I got was a very good value.

[alan_smithee_photos]

I picked up some Lomography 400 colour film yesterday. Looking at samples online it looks like it produces quite dark, lo-fi looking images. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Anyone here used it? Bear in mind old Lomo 400 was a Ferrania film, now it's a Kodak one (but not the same as Gold/Ultramax).

I've had good luck with it, although (maybe speaking to the inconsistencies in the underlying stock) much better with 120 than 35mm. When I looked at this shot from my first roll of Lomo 400 (from a Rolleiflex 3.5) I thought, "why the hell am I paying twice as much for Portra?!"


Lomo 800 is my go-to color neg film for natural light indoors. Sometimes it has this wonderful painterly effect:


For the money, I don't think you can beat it.

[Ron_c]

Mamiya RB67 and a roll of Ilford Delta 400 B&W

cigar break at lunch!

[AldaCZ]

I had to try it and I liked it

MX + 50 1,7 + Fomapan 100 + Self dev + Scanned by P&S

[skyer]

I've had good luck with it, although (maybe speaking to the inconsistencies in the underlying stock) much better with 120 than 35mm. When I looked at this shot from my first roll of Lomo 400 (from a Rolleiflex 3.5) I thought, "why the hell am I paying twice as much for Portra?!".

Super great colours!

[Swift1]

I picked up some Lomography 400 colour film yesterday. Looking at samples online it looks like it produces quite dark, lo-fi looking images. I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Anyone here used it? Bear in mind old Lomo 400 was a Ferrania film, now it's a Kodak one (but not the same as Gold/Ultramax).

I've used the recent 35mm stuff. It's pretty good film for the money IMO.

This was 35mm Lomo 400.

[wuzet]

Pentax 67, SMC 67 Takumar 105/2.4, @2.4, Fuji Provia 100F

[skyer]

After reading praising words about Lomo 400 negative film I decided to buy some rolls. However I've also noticed that Lomo also produces 100 negative film. Can anyone say how the Lomo 100 film performs against the Lomo 400?

Also, after seeing the first image of alan_smithee_photos I am thinking on buying a medium format camera Please, recommend me some good but not expensive medium format cameras I should look at.

[Jonathan Mac]

Thanks everyone.

I've been thinking about trying some 800 colour film but portra is so expensive and Superia doesn't get great reviews. I've seen a lot of people have problems with poor quality backing paper on Lomo 120 film though.

I've used the old version of the ISO 100 which was Ferrania Solaris, but not tried the new one.

After reading praising words about Lomo 400 negative film I decided to buy some rolls. However I've also noticed that Lomo also produces 100 negative film. Can anyone say how the Lomo 100 film performs against the Lomo 400?

Also, after seeing the first image of alan_smithee_photos I am thinking on buying a medium format camera Please, recommend me some good but not expensive medium format cameras I should look at.

I have a Yashica Mat 124G TLR and a Pentax 645 along with a few folding cameras. The folders are much less flexible in use but are compact for traveling (I think my Franka Solida III will be going with me to the US in 10 days).

Any of the Yashica Mat variations should be good and cheap, just make sure everything works properly. An SLR like the Pentax will probably be more expensive.

[Nesster]

Pentax 645, SMC-A 55mm f/2.8, Portra 400, dev and scan by Dwayne's

[cooltouch]

Also, after seeing the first image of alan_smithee_photos I am thinking on buying a medium format camera Please, recommend me some good but not expensive medium format cameras I should look at.

I can also recommend the Yashica Mat 124. It's a great camera. I owned the "G" model years ago. Now I own the plain 124, which I actually prefer. Same features as the G, but it has more metal and less plastic.

There are a lot of good mf folders. Probably the best are the Voigtlander Bessa series, which can get really pricey, and the Zeiss Super Ikontas, some models of which can also get fairly pricey. Zeiss made a plain Ikonta series with uncoupled rangefinders that usually sell for quite a bit less, but the pics they take are just as good. And there are other good, but less known folders, like the Agfa Isolettes, I believe they're called. You can often pick then up for reasonable.

Of course one of the things you always have to watch out for with folders is the bellows - make sure they're light tight.

These days, it's possible to pick up system mf cameras - SLRs and interchangeable lens rangefinders. I believe prices on these cameras have finally hit bottom and are beginning to rebound, but you can still find great deals. I can personally recommend the Bronica ETRSi and the Pentax 6x7 systems. They are still available for great prices if you do a little shopping around, and as far as quality goes, they provide outstanding results.

Although there are other great 645 SLR systems, like the Mamiya and Pentax, the Bronica ETR system is the only one in which all lenses are leaf shutter and which has interchangeable backs for all models.

Regarding 6x7, Mamiya and Bronica built outstanding systems, some of which can be found for great prices, and Fuji built the 680, an incredible 6x8 camera, these are all pretty much studio cameras. Whereas the Pentax 6x7 is perfectly suited, if not designed, for outdoor and field work.

So you should consider how you plan to use your mf camera because this will help you get the right one for your budget and needs.

[skierd]

I have a YashicaMat (original, not the 124, EM, LM, etc) with no light meter for my 120 needs. It's a great and refreshing camera to take out for me since I mostly shoot AF 35mm and DSLR's with the odd-rangefinder day. It was $200 I think from a local shop that CLA'd it prior to purchase. Haven't used it nearly enough but I have a couple rolls to send out as soon as I build up enough to put a package together.

[bobbotron]

I just had two rolls of film developed, one XPS, one FP4, shot on my Spotmatic F. Some turned out well, others were really blown out. Good fun!