Light Lens Lab - New Film Project

[Film-Niko]

I can't remember the company right now (I'd really have to search), but I know Lomography gets their film coated at another manufacturer that is not Filmotec.

That company is InovisCoat (Monheim, Germany), see above, it is in my list.
That is a company "without own factory", because the factory they are using from time to time for their products is owned and operated by Polaroid (InovisCoat has a contract with Polaroid).

But they produce only a smaller part of Lomography's films. Lomo Lady Grey and Earl Grey are just repackaged Fomapan 100 and 400. Kino Berlin and Potsdam are repacked FilmoTec BW films.
The "normal color" CN films are repackaged Kodak amateur CN films. And only the "fancy" color films of Lomo like Lomochrome Purple and Turquois are produced by InovisCoat for Lomography.
By the way, when Lomography introduced the first of these films - Lomochrome Purple - they also made a lot of marketing fuzz claiming they have "an own factory". That was just a pure lie! They have never had any shares in InovisCoat. InovisCoat has always been independent from Lomography.

Light Labs might be doing the same.

Of course they can buy film at other film manufacturers like Lucky or InovisCoat. But that has nothing to do with an own film R&D and production.

 

[Film-Niko]

What I want to point out is this sentence in their blog post : "The Film Project will utilize our newly developed proprietary machine and emulsion process, allowing us to be self-sufficient in our production."

For film production you need much, much more than one "proprietary machine".

It seems that they indeed weren't capable of producing film up to recently, and are just starting with what's the easiest, black and white film. However, they apparently already managed to have T-grain film, even showing examples of the structure, and a film example. I'd say it's rather transparent.

These examples are not from them, as they simply don't have an own film factory. That is fact.
The examples look identical to the current Lucky BW films.

One thing I'd like to add is the industrial strength of China nowadays, if there is one place where a completely new manufacturer can emerge it is China, with experienced engineers, low manufacturing costs, and many brilliant minds.

But there are only a handful of experienced emulsion chemists in China, and those are working for Lucky and a daughter company of Fujifilm, which is producing XRay film.
Silver-halide Emulsion making is an extremely rare science, with at max. only 120-150 experienced chemists worldwide. That science is not taught at universities. Existing film manufacturers do all the special education for new emulsionists (in the rare cases when a new one is needed because an old one is retiring) in house. And several years are needed to become good in that profession.

We are now in the 10th year of the film revival. China is extremely late to the party. We've seen new film production activities in the US, Japan, England, Germany, Netherlands, Czech and Italy. But not in China until recently. And there are reasons for that.
And the main reason is that film production is very different to other production processes, and need very special requirements.

With Fujifilm's history, we know that some new manufacturers can enter fast, with sufficient investments. I'm fairly confident that they could manage to make colour film in the coming years.

They will not be able to produce color film by their own as a complete newcomer. InovisCoat for example needed about ten years to produce a competitive, standard (not fancy) color negative film. And that despite having access to former Agfa Germany emulsion chemists, Agfa technology and the former Agfa film emulsion and coating machinery (which is implemented in the Polaroid factory in Monheim).

 

[Richard Man]

I don't know either LLL or Lucky Films finance, and this is PURE speculation, but it's always possible that the people behind LLL either making so much money or that their backers have so much money, that they could be working with Lucky to improve their film emulsions. Maybe premium LLL brand vs. inexpensive Lucky brand.

 

[Film-Niko]

I don't know either LLL or Lucky Films finance, and this is PURE speculation, but it's always possible that the people behind LLL either making so much money or that their backers have so much money, that they could be working with Lucky to improve their film emulsions. Maybe premium LLL brand vs. inexpensive Lucky brand.

Wishful thinking. The LLL lens manufacturing is a very low volume production. They make lenses for a very very small niche market. You don't earn enough money with that to build up a new color film production.
For really new color film you need millions of dollars.

 

[brbo]

And only the "fancy" color films of Lomo like Lomochrome Purple and Turquois are produced by InovisCoat for Lomography.

To help you keep the 100%-correct-on-all-things-film badge, please update your knowledge and add two additional colour emulsions that Inoviscoat does for Lomography. Thanks!

 

[koraks]

You now say there is no value in what I am saying. That means you claim that my sources are either idiots, or they are lying to me.
Sorry, but that is an extremely arrogant statement, especially from someone who is outside that industry, and has no inside knowledge.

Relax. Nobody ever said anything along these lines. Having a strong opinion is fine, just keep it polite, please. Thanks.

 

[Film-Niko]

To help you keep the 100%-correct-on-all-things-film badge, please update your knowledge and add two additional colour emulsions that Inoviscoat does for Lomography. Thanks!

No update needed. You are referring to LomoChrome Color '92 and Color '92 Sunkissed. These are indeed less "fancy" and more "normal" than the other color films produced by InovisCoat for Lomo. But still not on the standard of Kodak or Fujifilm. That is my benchmark.
But I think it is not worth to waste time in arguing about that: If someone has the opinion that these two films fulfill their expectations for a standard, "non-creative/fancy" color negative film......fine for them. I will say nothing against that. If they are happy with that quality level, it is good for them.

 

[Film-Niko]

Relax. Nobody ever said anything along these lines. Having a strong opinion is fine, just keep it polite, please. Thanks.

I am relaxed. It has been Don who has said "there is no value" in my explanations which are based on 100% trustworthy industry insiders who know LLL.
So someone without inside knowledge of the industry says those in the industry don't know what they are talking about.
That is not helpful at all for a polite discussion.

 

[Don_ih]

It has been Don who has said "there is no value" in my explanations which are based on 100% trustworthy industry insiders who know LLL.

I said there was no value in this discussion. I already explained it. If they never make any film, it impacts exactly none of us. If they do make film, great! Stating that that do not know how and can never make film is irrelevant. And you don't state it as an opinion (which it is) - you state it as insurmountable fact.

People can do surprising things.

 

[Film-Niko]

I said there was no value in this discussion.

Wrong. To quote you:
"I know you think there is value in what you're saying, but there isn't."

You have clearly referred to me and my explanations which are based on the industry experts / insiders.

People can do surprising things.

Yes, like e.g. bold and unrealistic marketing statements. We've seen exactly that so many times concerning film in the past.

If LLL wants to be taken seriously, they have to proof their statements with facts: For example
- photos of their R&D lab
- photos of their machinery for film production
- an interview with the responsible emulsionist.

From Harman, Polaroid, Kodak, Film Ferrania, Adox for example we have all that. We get a realistic picture what is going on there.

If someone completely new (even a newcomer in lens manufacturing) with no history at all in film production publishes a statement that he will produce extremely challenging film products like E6 film and peel-apart film, then he has to deliver much much more than just this claim.

 

[Don_ih]

You have clearly referred to me and my explanations which are based on the industry experts / insiders.

Interpret it that way if you want. It doesn't matter to me either way. The explanations are irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is claiming to be a new venture by a company that is not currently making film.

If LLL wants to be taken seriously, they have to proof their statements with facts

Their facts would also be irrelevant. They only need to offer proof like that to potential investors. They don't need to prove anything to random internet armchair specialists. "Proof" will be film on a store shelf.

If someone completely new (even a newcomer in lens manufacturing) with no history at all in film production publishes a statement that he will produce extremely challenging film products like E6 film and peel-apart film, then he has to deliver much much more than just this claim.

Exactly. What needs to be delivered is a product. It's been done in the past, it can be done again.

 

[Film-Niko]

Their facts would also be irrelevant. They only need to offer proof like that to potential investors.

No, they need to offer proof to potential customers. No customers, no business.

Exactly. What needs to be delivered is a product. It's been done in the past, it can be done again.

No, it has not been done in the past. There is no case / example in which a total newcomer without any roots in film production was able to offer quality films like CN film, CR film or peeel-apart instant film.

 

[koraks]

Settle down guys.

 

[GabrielC]

Here's my two cents :
- I do agree that maybe no other manufacturers ever managed to make new high quality films, however, it was done when prospects where not looking good, trying to come in an established market. Now, there is room for new manufacturers, hence the current rush. Never being done doesn't mean impossible.
- Making film is hard, or to be clear, it was hard decades ago. Now, when industrial capacities are able to make increasingly difficult products, film is hard, sure, but not the hardest. China can indeed manage to bring a product quickly (looking at nuclear power plants, they were able to build them in a few years, when western nations took decades, even if all the experience, engineers, etc, were western)

However, I do agree that their roadmap is probably overly ambitious.
Considering their actual industrial capabilities and machines, there is no proof, but I don't see any reason why they would lie in such a manner. There is no way to invest in them, it will not make them sell more lenses, the only thing it can do is discredit them. So maybe they do have something, maybe they partnered with lucky (the timing would make sense indeed), maybe they have nothing, it is all speculation.

 

[Don_ih]

Settle down guys.

Gladly.

it is all speculation

Exactly. They'll either make film or not make film - whichever they do has nothing to do with any of us. We can only wait and see if it happens.

 

[Monomer]

I’ll be honest when I first heard about Light Lens Lab (LLL) planning to make film, I was pretty skeptical. It sounded ambitious, maybe even unrealistic. But after reading some discussions on other platforms, my opinion has completely changed.

Apparently, Robert Shanebrook personally invited one of LLL’s partners to his home, and they had an in-depth discussion about T-grain film production. Not only that, but the LLL team even brought back two signed copies of his books! Later, in the comments, the founder confirmed they’ll be working with Shanebrook on an improved version of K14 Kodachrome film.

I don’t know much about LLL as a company, but if Robert Shanebrook sees potential in them, that’s more than enough reason for me to be excited. His expertise in film manufacturing is second to none, and if he’s on board, I’m definitely paying attention. Really looking forward to seeing how this unfolds!

 

[GabrielC]

I’ll be honest when I first heard about Light Lens Lab (LLL) planning to make film, I was pretty skeptical. It sounded ambitious, maybe even unrealistic. But after reading some discussions on other platforms, my opinion has completely changed.

Apparently, Robert Shanebrook personally invited one of LLL’s partners to his home, and they had an in-depth discussion about T-grain film production. Not only that, but the LLL team even brought back two signed copies of his books! Later, in the comments, the founder confirmed they’ll be working with Shanebrook on an improved version of K14 Kodachrome film.

I don’t know much about LLL as a company, but if Robert Shanebrook sees potential in them, that’s more than enough reason for me to be excited. His expertise in film manufacturing is second to none, and if he’s on board, I’m definitely paying attention. Really looking forward to seeing how this unfolds!

Where have you heard that ? It's good news, I guess. I'd say they're biting more than they can chew for now with Kodachrome (and mainly K14).

 

[Monomer]

你从哪里听说的？我想这是个好消息。我想说他们现在对 Kodachrome（主要是 K14）的承受能力已经超出了。

I actually saw this info on a Chinese social platform called Xiaohongshu (REDnote). Used a translation tool to read through it, and it seems like Lucky Film is also testing an ISO 10 reversal film.

 

[brbo]

Two signed copies of a book and... Kodachrome is back.

And they said it was impossible...

 

[abruzzi]

Apparently, Robert Shanebrook personally invited one of LLL’s partners to his home, and they had an in-depth discussion about T-grain film production. Not only that, but the LLL team even brought back two signed copies of his books! Later, in the comments, the founder confirmed they’ll be working with Shanebrook on an improved version of K14 Kodachrome film.

That makes me very skeptical. Kodachrome is a bit of a shibboleth for the hardcore film shooter, but in the real world you not only need to make a K14 film, you also have to setup a K14 lab to process the film, or sell K14 chemicals. Its an order of magnitude more risky since there are many more failure points. (There is a reason Kodak hasn't brought it back.)

 

[GabrielC]

Yeah, I think wanting to resurrect kodachrome shows a rather poor understanding of what's needed in the market and what's feasible. There's a difference between being confident and delusional.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I was skeptical back when I heard they were going to make lenses but they knocked those out of the park. Film is a different beast but if you are going to bet on someone, bet on someone that has already exceeded expectations. Film will probably be a long road for them.

 

[koraks]

they’ll be working with Shanebrook on an improved version of K14 Kodachrome film.

I'm sorry, but this is very implausible. The problem with Kodachrome/K14 isn't so much the film - it's the processing infrastructure. From a business point of view it would border on financial suicide investing in a complex color film that will rely on a distributed processing infrastructure and highly specific (and probably expensive) consumables across the globe.
Maybe they mean "a color positive film with a color palette that reminds of Kodachrome." That would be sort of realistic in the long term, although the step from "hey look, we can make T-grains" to a functional color positive film is moon-shot sized.

if Robert Shanebrook sees potential in them

Well, that's easy enough to check, since he posts on here from time to time. @laser, apparently you've been in touch with LLL - what do their plans sound like to you, in terms of technical and commercial feasibility?

Btw, welcome to Photrio!

 

[Lachlan Young]

The problem with Kodachrome/K14 isn't so much the film - it's the processing infrastructure

Coating will be potentially less complex than Phoenix, the processing chemicals are achievable if you have ready access to organic synthesis (Bent and Mowrey's patent essentially discloses everything including synthesis paths - from what Ron had said about it, this was to encourage other manufacturers to take up the process) - the major complexities in processing are the remjet removal, the need to give re-exposures from different sides of the film, and maintaining the fogging magenta developer - but if a modern version of the K-lab Kodachrome machine (roughly minilab sized) could be engineered for a sane/ sustainable sum, then that offers possibilities. However, I think the problem is one of interpretation - if someone asks what the easiest route to making a reasonably fast (this is very relative - but compared to dye bleach!) colour film is, the obvious answer is 'one based on Kodachrome technology' - which is a different question from 'what colour film technology is easiest for the end user to process/ access processing for?'.

 

[Monomer]

I’ll be honest when I first heard about Light Lens Lab (LLL) planning to make film, I was pretty skeptical. It sounded ambitious, maybe even unrealistic. But after reading some discussions on other platforms, my opinion has completely changed.

Apparently, Robert Shanebrook personally invited one of LLL’s partners to his home, and they had an in-depth discussion about T-grain film production. Not only that, but the LLL team even brought back two signed copies of his books! Later, in the comments, the founder confirmed they’ll be working with Shanebrook on an improved version of K14 Kodachrome film.

I don’t know much about LLL as a company, but if Robert Shanebrook sees potential in them, that’s more than enough reason for me to be excited. His expertise in film manufacturing is second to none, and if he’s on board, I’m definitely paying attention. Really looking forward to seeing how this unfolds!

Here are some images mentioned in the posts, but the original text doesn’t have links. I couldn’t find a way to share them from the app.