What actually are Lomography repackaged films?

[Arcadia4]

Xpro and crossbird are not the same film

A different opinion here; https://emulsive.org/articles/rollei-cr200-ei-200-35mm-xpro-by-alexis-analog

It maybe stock of different 'outdatedness' gives different results and indeed Rerapan is understood to also be very outdated Agfa-Gevaert Aviphot Chrome stock to the extent it carries a warning about its suitability for 'normal' photography..

 

[MattKing]

A lot seems to depend these days on the definition of the word "truth". Matt King was unable to get anything resembling what I would regard as the truth from Pemberstone about rebadging and for my part I have made a similar inquiry of Pemberstone in a way that only an unequivocal answer was possible. Needless to say I got an equally vague answer that told me nothing but did help me to decide that in terms of the films that were allegedly Kentmere the only sensible action was to buy on price as the only real distinguishing feature.

pentaxuser

I would beg to disagree
First, while Pemberstone may own the shares in Harman, they aren't Harman.
Secondly, they confirmed one thing clearly - that Ilford products are not re-badged - and expressly declined to share any information about whether they were willing to re-badge any Kentmere products. No untruths, just truth on one issue, and an unwillingness to comment on another.

 

[Agulliver]

I thought it was quite well known that the Lomography colour negative films 100, 400 and 800 are Kodak.....almost certainly Kodacolor VR as offered by Kodak in the 1990s. That's the reason why there's no Lomo 200 film because Kodak themselves offer it as "Color Plus".

Certainly the Lomography branded 100 C41 film I currently have in 120 format says "Made in China" on the box...which may well be the Chinese factory that Kodak licensed it's older colour film technology to a few years ago. Or it could be that EK manufactured the film but it was finished in China.

The films all have a Kodak-like colour palette but are definitely not Gold. As someone who shot a *lot* of Kodacolor VR back in the day I'm fairly confident that's what the Lomography branded stuff is. Either toll-coated by Kodak or by the Kodak-licensed facility in China.

I am curious as to what it is....but whatever it happens to be, I like it and it's relatively cheap. The 800 is now the only high speed C41 film on the market.

 

[Ste_S]

The 800 is now the only high speed C41 film on the market.

There is also Portra 800... but then you'd be forgiven for forgetting about that as it's cheaper (and sometimes better) to under expose Portra 400 a stop.

Anyhoo, I bought a box of the Lomo 800 last winter and quite liked it. I'll be stocking up ready for winter this year

 

[mitorn]

You coulde try and search for the DX barcode number on this page: http://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase/ .

 

[removed account4]

i don't remember his user name but years ago there was a guy selling film from the 80s and 70s and ? the classified section, he litterally had had hundreds of rolls of film for sale. He mentioned/claimed he in the past would sell some of his film to LOMO who repackaged and resold it. No clue if it is true, who knows, I searched the classifides for a while and did some digging but couldn't find it ( it was IDK 3 -4 years ago? ). Haven't seen the user since.

 

[Agulliver]

There is also Portra 800... but then you'd be forgiven for forgetting about that as it's cheaper (and sometimes better) to under expose Portra 400 a stop.

Anyhoo, I bought a box of the Lomo 800 last winter and quite liked it. I'll be stocking up ready for winter this year

I did indeed forget about Portra 800 due to it's price.

As for the barcode number on Lomography 800 film, they haven't changed the 135 canisters since they were sourcing film from Ferrania years ago. THe last time I checked the Lomography 800 code identified as Ferrania....this was probably two years ago. However the Lomography 800 film doesn't act at all like the old Ferrania 800 film....it's far more like Kodacolor VR 1000 or possibly Max 800 which they load into their single use Kodak cameras. The 100 and 400 work exactly as I'd expect Kodacolor VR to.....which is great because I love(d) VR.

 

[MattKing]

As for the barcode number on Lomography 800 film, they haven't changed the 135 canisters since they were sourcing film from Ferrania years ago.

My understanding, which may be incorrect, is that the reference to the "barcode" is a reference to a barcode which forms part of the edge printing on the film.

 

[wahiba]

I must admit that i assumed the Made in USA on the film was a big clue to origin. I found the 800 to have a wide latitude and worked very well in Lomo cameras like the Sardina. As for Harman/Ilford being the source of other films at least one dealer stopped stocking Agfa as they could not tell the difference from Kentmere. It would seem logical to use the Kentmere film as the basis for 'other makes'.

I assume that when contract film is cut and perforated the edge numbers and letters are added then so the origin is not obvious. Made in the EU also helps in clouding a more specific origin. Ilford is certainly not made in Ilford and Kentmere in Cumberland where there is a River Kent so possibly a place called Kentmere. Yest there is, just looked it on a road atlas, slightly north of Windermere. Kentmere originated as paper makers which explains the nearby water.

 

[Ste_S]

I must admit that i assumed the Made in USA on the film was a big clue to origin

That isn't always reliable, "made in..." usually means 75% of the value of the product has to come from the stated country. Eg the bulk rolls could be done in china for instance, then cut and packaged in the USA

 

[B&Wpositive]

Could Lomography 800 actually be VR 1000 rather than Max 800? Didn't VR 1000 have much larger grain, and we should be able to tell which one it is based on grain?

I still have a roll of Max 800 outdated a few years ago. I should test them regardless, by taking some identical frames on both. Anyone can obtain fresh Max 800 by purchasing a disposable camera and removing the film to do a real test. You'll need to go into total darkness to do so.

 

[AgX]

That isn't always reliable, "made in..." usually means 75% of the value of the product has to come from the stated country.

That "Made in ..." designation in first instance is not even related to the country of origin, but the country where the product is sold (in the context of correct labelling). So for the same product you may get countless evaluations.
In addition there may be regulations in the country of origin (in cases where such designation might offer an export advantage to locally registered firms).
In Germany for instance there is not even a law on that, but only court decisons. These required that the essential parts are made in Germany.

Thus the whole complex is tricky.


Different is the situation with some foof stuffs, were the designation country or even place is regulated by international treaty.

 

[Agulliver]

"made in" has different legal definitions depending on where goods are sold. The USA has it's own definition of what constitutes "made in"....as does the EU...Australia has it's own and so on. There is sometimes "assembled in" and "from foreign parts". In these days of goods whizzing around the world, the constituent parts of something as apparently simple as a 35mm film could come from various sources....the chemicals needed to make it might easily come from several sources....the cassette from another.....film base from another....box from another....the felt on the cassette might be shipped around the world etc. So there are definitions.

The 120 Lomography 100 that I currently have which expires towards the end of this year says "made in China". All the Kodak Color Plus that I have says "Made in USA". I don't currently have any Lomography 800 left so I can't check. ANyone have any around? The only possibility for coating C41 film in China is surely the facility to which Kodak licensed it's VR formulae to some years ago.

 

[thuggins]

A different opinion here; https://emulsive.org/articles/rollei-cr200-ei-200-35mm-xpro-by-alexis-analog

Did you read the article? It is basically a screed against CR200 because it is not Provia (which is the one correct observation in the article). There is some nonsense about cross processing it as it is not a "real" slide film, and he ends with an off hand and unsubstantiated remark that the LOMO XPRO is probably the same thing.

The Rerachrome and the XPRO both have a very yellow cast and certainly look like the same film. Rerachrome is rated at 100 but is actually a 200 speed. The XPRO is rated at 200. The CR200 has a blue cast, and the frame lines and unexposed leaders are a distinct dark blue. The unexposed areas of the Rerachrome are a more typical dark brown. And thought the CR200 is rated at 200, it is actually a 100 speed film. Given the different speeds and entirely different color palette, it is unlikely that CR200 and XPRO/Rerachrome are the same thing.

As mentioned above, CR200 is certainly not Provia, but it is a beautiful film. The colors are somewhat muted and realistic and it reminds me of perhaps an Astia look.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've been trying to do some digging on this, and haven't been able to get very far, but what are all of Lomographies repackaged color films?
I read that 100, 400, and 800 are repackaged Kodak gold- But Gold doesn't come in 100 or 800 speeds anymore, and does Kodak specifically do 120 rolls of gold just for Lomography?
xpro is supposedly ct precisia, which would explain why it's not available- though since I have three rolls, should I shoot it at iso 100 if I want to process it in e6?
I'm not convinced Lomochrome is a repackage.
I don't know what's used for the redscale films.
And I don't know much about what the 110s are.

And just so you don't ask, I don't have that much interest in figuring out what their black and white films are.

Their black and white films are actually simple. Late 2017 they switched to Foma, so they are Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400.

For their color negative films, I suspect, they are emulsions that Kodak already makes, though not necessarily for the US market. For example, the 800 speed is probably the same 800 speed that you get in the Kodak funsaver disposable cameras, the 100 speed is probably their Pro-Image 100, which is available in lots of places worldwide and very recently Europe and the US, and the 400 speed is probably an older consumer class 200-400 speed emulsion.

 

[Arcadia4]

Did you read the article? It is basically a screed against CR200 because it is not Provia (which is the one correct observation in the article). There is some nonsense about cross processing it as it is not a "real" slide film, and he ends with an off hand and unsubstantiated remark that the LOMO XPRO is probably the same thing..

Yes I did read the article. I didn't say anything about Provia. Specifically I was more interested in this bit;

"For those interested all of these are the exact same emulsion (same film different names)

1. Rollei Crossbird: currently marketed as a C-41 creative film
2. Rollei Digibase CR200: discontinued Q4 2016 (can still be sourced) marketed as an E-6 film
3. Agfa Aviphot Chrome 200 which was the Agfa RSX II 200 emulsion but on polyester, all discountinued ages ago"

Maco also used to link CR200 to the Aviphot tech sheet. The article also makes a statement about Xpro being the same. Yes it unsubstantiated but only Maco and lomo know for certain

It has been reported in forums previously about issues with CR200 sometimes having a yellow cast. e.g:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/has-the-yellow-cast-of-rollei-cr200-been-fixed.114981/
https://www.largeformatphotography....ellow-quot&s=81f958fc3ac871f768f3b88caabc9576
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1453767@N24/discuss/72157626397006141/

These seems to be variable between batches, some experience it others not. I agree with you that Agfa would normally have a bluish tone rather than yellow, however all of it must be quite old now, given the Aviphot colour films ceased production some years ago and is probably why its sold for cross processing - dont expect accurate colours here!

There aren't a huge number of alternative possibilities for these films (Xpro, Rerachrome and CR200), hence a suggestion that the yellow cast could reflect different stock ages/storage, or possibly that the film used for CR200 has changed over time.

 

[AgX]

These seems to be variable between batches, some experience it others not. I agree with you that Agfa would normally have a bluish tone rather than yellow, however all of it must be quite old now, given the Aviphot colour films ceased production some years ago and is probably why its sold for cross processing - dont expect accurate colours here!

There is no offical statement by Agfa on when emulsion making and coating of their colour films actually ceased. And the batch of Aviphot Chrome that Wittner bought from Agfa and converted themselves was not reported to be affected by that cast. And that was and still is sold as film for E-6 processing.

 

[Arcadia4]

Agreed. In one of the links provided above, someone noted that the Wittner product didn't suffer from that cast when people reported that the contemporaneous CR200 did. The Aviphot Chrome films are no longer offfered on the Agfa-Gevaert website (they were discontinued circa 2015/6). The Wittner site now states '*** LAST MANUFACTURE *** SALES WILL CONTINUE UNTIL STOCK DEPLETED ***

As i stated above the yellow cast could reflect different stock ages/storage conditons, or possibly that the film used for CR200 has changed over time.

 

[thuggins]

Yes I did read the article. I didn't say anything about Provia.

Perhaps you should read it again. From the article:

When developed in E6, first the grain is quite noticeable: it stands no comparison to any of the Fuji chrome line.

All of the films I referred to from my use and processing were "new", i.e. within the printed expiration date. If the extreme difference in appearence was due to age, and if they were of the same stock they should be approximately the same age. Rollei (at least) is still "making" the stuff (whatever that may mean). When I ordered it from Freestyle last year they were waiting for Rollei to fill a backorder and the most recent stuff shows an expiration date of 3/21.

While it is possible (perhaps likely) that all three of these films have been produced from different stocks, there is no reason for the groundless claim that they are all the same thing. If it is some long expired stock then the ethics of giving a future expiration date is problematic. It may not be a big issue for Lomo or Rerachrome, Rollei has an established brand and reputaion to cosider.

 

[AgX]

Rollei has an established brand and reputaion to cosider.

That "Rollei" is just a trading firm to use and to licence that brand. Their licencee Maco would be affected first. (If at all...)

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Well, after shooting a ctprecisia and xpro, I can say the emulsions are NOT the same. just looking at my 35mm xpro slides without scans I can say that the xpro is a grainy film.

if I had some 120 xpro rolls, I could compare it to the crossbird I shot.

 

[wahiba]

Did you read the article? It is basically a screed against CR200 because it is not Provia (which is the one correct observation in the article).

As mentioned above, CR200 is certainly not Provia, but it is a beautiful film. The colors are somewhat muted and realistic and it reminds me of perhaps an Astia look.

Recently used my last rolls, processed E6 and agree it has a great warm look. I thought it was Gevaert in origin though.

 

[AgX]

Iti was an Agfa consumer CR film from the 90s revived by coating on PET base for their aerial range.

 

[braxus]

Has there been any updates to suggest what the Lomo Color Neg 100 film is? I just purchased 6 rolls in 120, and it would be nice to know if its Kodak VR 100 or Gold 100 (or 200). And is this film supposed to give accurate colors the same as the Gold films, or is it like aged film that has gone south?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Most likely it’s proimage 100.