Lomography Color Negative 800 ISO 120 3 Pack

Product Information

For the rest of the Lomo 800 120 images I shot scenes as I walked around the city of Cluj. It was raining and almost dark when I took some of the photos yet it looks like daylight in the pictures. I was shooting at ISO 800 but my Sekonic lightmeter died so I was guessing the exposure at one stage. I shot the Fuji GS645 Fujinon lens wide open and f3.5 at 1/30 for some photos to try to get enough light into the cameras. Scanning film – photo of monitor showing preview (*Not true representation) Film scans and thoughts – Romania Since Colorplus 200 is the latest version of VR 200, and evidence points to Lomography 100 and 400 being its respective Kodacolor VR counterparts... I don't think we can go by edge markings for film ID...Lomography obviously has their own custom edge markings on the 800 speed film. We should ask one of the Rons for more info, but I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers/letters were easy to customize in manufacture.

Lomography 800 is a daylight-balanced color negative film rated at the fairly high speed of – surprise – ISO 800. For my shots, I almost gave up the advantage in speed and overexposed it by one or even two stops. High-speed films are usually associated with a higher amount of grain compared to films rated at a lower ISO. Spoiler alert, I didn’t get the impression that Lomo’s grain is distracting at all.

Shooting conditions

Photos taken by Matthieu Quatravaux with the Lomography Color Negative 400 ISO 120. Model: @xiaqua. The problem for me is that it’s become impossible to overlook the down sides. I could deal with the lousy roll tapes. I could adapt to special handling to prevent the edge fogging issue (that I still believe is a manufacturing tolerance issue). But I can’t deal with rolling the dice on whether the film performs properly across the entire length of the roll.

Since shooting these rolls I had been busying myself with getting into the swing of 2018 and I had all but the fuzziest of memories about exactly which roll I shot where and when. I can tell you this however, each roll was fresh and once in my possession they were shot across three consecutive days on my Leica M6 TTL 0.85 with the wonderful 7artisans 50mm f/1.1 lens at ~f/4. I metered all the films at EI 800 so as to level the playing field a bit – some might say giving an unfair advantage to the Fuji. More on that later. That may be a decade old statement, but it embodies their ethos, and I want to be crystal-clear here: all of that is a perfectly legitimate form of photography. I’m also clear that it’s just not my type of photography.Now, before I get into this, I think that it’s important to caveat this review by saying that it is far from exhaustive, or even conclusive. I’ve shot a number of rolls of Portra 800, but they have all been 35mm, all processed the same way by AG Photo Lab, then scanned with my Noritsu LS1100 and post-processed in Lightroom by me, to my eye. I choose the labs I use for their consistent results, I use my scanner in a specific way and apply fairly subtle process to my scans in Lightroom all to achieve results that I am happy with without too much fuss. I talk more about my colour film workflow here, but I mention this now to highlight the point that there are a lot of variables within the process of shooting film, so really all you’re about to read amounts to is a review based on how I personally shoot and have processed this film. In short, your mileage may vary, but I hope that this at least gives a rough idea of the sort of results you can expect to achieve. More image comparisons from shooting Lomo 800 and Portra 800 side by side. I personally see very small differences between these negatives. There are no differences that can’t be e xplained by slight variations in temperature, agitation, or the brightness of the film scan between these rolls. Are there any differences between the images after scanning? Does anyone think the Lomography 35mm 800, if manufactured by Kodak, would be similar to Portra 800 at the price point it's sold at? Or more likely to be similar to Max 800? Personally I'd guess Max 800. It makes sense too, because Kodak hasn't marketed that film (outside of single use cameras) in years. Just like the ISO 100 (Kodacolor 100 no longer marketed unless you're talking Ektar). And although Kodak markets Max 400, it was speculated that the Lomography was based more on VR400. Actually, it'd be interesting to shoot Lomography 100, 400, and Kodak Color Plus 200 against one another to see if they match. Color Plus has already been verified as being the latest iteration of VR200. This might essentially be VR 100, 200, and 400. This and the previous image show the unpretentious surroundings of a large supermarket me and my parents used to go when I was a kid. Though I haven’t been shopping there for many years, the place feels strangely familiar. Especially on a deserted Sunday afternoon, it still exhales an uneasy atmosphere. Herrenhausen power station. For more than hundred years, there was a large railway facility nearby. As they used to repair locomotives and carriages, they needed a lot of acetylene gas for welding. Today, wasteland surrounds the power station where once stood an acetylene plant. A facet of Hannover’s industrial past, gone without visual memory. Yet again I was born too late.

Photos taken by Matthieu Quatravaux with the Lomography Color Negative 800 ISO 120, pushed 1 stop. Model: @cheristyle_. Something that I’m really amazed at withLomography Color Negative 800 is that it handles tungsten interior lighting and mixed lighting situations very well; perhaps even better than some digital cameras can. Here are a number of image samples shot over the years. Fujifilm GW690 III For quite a long time I used Kodak Portra or Fujifilm Pro 400H before discovering Lomo 400 and 800 films. I was surprised by the rather low price and I suspected the films to be of rather low quality but I still gave it a try and I did not regret it. For quite a long time I compared my results with the Portra and the Lomo and I was able to determine that: 1.) the Lomography film is more interesting regarding the price but also that 2.) I preferred the way it looks. The Lomo 400 and 800 gives pictures with good saturation and a real 'analogue look', I don't have the intrigue to take digital photos when shooting with them. In reality, I can’t think of a single image I’ve taken with this film that I’ve even negatively contemplated the grain in the final image. And because I’m not a massive bokeh-fiend, and don’t find myself with a desire to shoot much in the way of shallow depth of field photos in daylight, but do enjoy the versatility of being able to shoot colour film in low light, this pretty much makes it the ideal choice for me. That said, as I’ve alluded, with a 50mm f/1.2 lens mounted to a camera with a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000th of a second, I pretty much feel like I can shoot what, where and however I like. The results You take a lot of pictures with the Lomography Color Negative en 400 ISO et 800 ISO films. Why do you like these films?

Landscaping with Zeiss

I'm not big on overexposing color neg film. I'll usually shoot at 1/3 stop over the rated speed, unless recommended to shoot at box speed. Older film of course has to be overexposed more but that's because it's old.