a few beginner questions about film

jando · Mar 31, 2014

So I have my camera and all I need is film to start. As I'm just starting all this I'm trying not be too adventurous and experimental. I saw photos that I liked shot with lomography colour negative 400. But I'm not sure about it. I've been thinking about Kodak Gold and Fuji Superia. So is different brand film but like in this case all colour negative 400 the same thing? Ignoring if they are expired (or not) and how they've been stored.

Questions:
1. So can I get Kodak or Fuji instead of lomography if I was trying to go for similar results as the photos I saw and liked?
2. I saw there's Kodak gold ULTRAMAX, Kodak Gold MAX, Kodak Royal? What's the difference?
3. On the lomography box (3 rolls) it says 36 exp, does that mean per roll or per box?

Thanks!

compur · Mar 31, 2014

Lomo photography is all about what would normally be considered poor image quality. That is, images made with cheap, poor quality lenses and crude cameras. Their films tend to share this idea and are, frankly, the worst quality (by normal standards of image quality) that the Lomo people can find for use in their cameras. The Lomo idea is to distort reality via grain, color shifts, etc. rather than to duplicate reality as is normally done with conventional photographic standards.

35mm films marked "36-exposure" means 36 per role.

BTW, I don't mean to knock "toy camera" photography which I do believe is a valid form of art. However, I'm not crazy about the way the Lomo people exploit it.

AlanKlein · Mar 31, 2014

What kind of camera do you have?

Derrel · Mar 31, 2014

The film MANUFACTURER typically has a good page or two of on-line information and technical knowledge about each film stock.

http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFiles/Content/Consumer_Products/Films/E7023_UltraMax400.pdf

jando · Mar 31, 2014

compur said:
Lomo photography is all about what would normally be considered poor image quality. That is, images made with cheap, poor quality lenses and crude cameras. Their films tend to share this idea and are, frankly, the worst quality (by normal standards of image quality) that the Lomo people can find for use in their cameras. The Lomo idea is to distort reality via grain, color shifts, etc. rather than to duplicate reality as is normally done with conventional photographic standards.

35mm films marked "36-exposure" means 36 per role.

BTW, I don't mean to knock "toy camera" photography which I do believe is a valid form of art. However, I'm not crazy about the way the Lomo people exploit it.

A well put opinion! I personally prefer that grainy, etc. look but it can get a bit extreme, I like it subtle. This applies when I'm talking more about personal, everyday photographs. I explained all of this more in my other thread in which I was looking for a camera.

AlanKlein said:
What kind of camera do you have?

Minolta SR-1 50mm f/1.7

MartinCrabtree · Mar 31, 2014

The general use color negative films have amazing latitude and as such are very forgiving. I've been using Fuji Superia 800. This image was shot on an overcast day with very flat light. From my first time out with my Nikon F5. A sub par scan from a "Pro" lab kinda beats it up a bit,i.e. it's not really that grainy. The only post is sharpened a bit and small boost to color via Nikon's ViewNX2.

Honestly I don't think you'll see much difference between them so I'd use cost as the determining factor. They're all pretty good with the exception of the "Lomo" stuff referred to above.

limr · Mar 31, 2014

Lomography doesn't make its own film - it repackages other brands and sells it under their name. Many times the film they repackage is low quality, like Shanghai for example. Other times, it's film made with old emulsion formulas, so it might be Kodak UltraMax, but an older version of the recipe that has since been updated. So the good thing is that it was a decent quality film to begin with, but it's also going to be old, possibly expired or about-to-expire film.

So in other words, it's a crap shoot. I've bought some Lomo color 100 ISO that was fine - colors weren't particularly vibrant, but I kind of like that as long as the colors are rendered well. But I've also seen some real crapola shots from other batches of Lomography color films.

I'd stick to the name brands. If you're looking for something less expensive, check for deals on Kodak Gold 200. I think it's either being discontinued or updated, so a bunch of about-to-expire film seems to be on sale. It's still perfectly good. UltraMax is a different emulsion formula - I prefer the colors from the Gold films. Better vibrancy.

Kodak vs Fuji: That's totally going to depend on preference. I tend to find the Fuji colors to be a bit cool for my tastes, but I can work with it. I prefer the Kodak Gold.

Shot with Gold 200:

Shot with Lomography Color 100:

I can't remember but I think this was Fuji Superia:

As for ISO, remember that the faster speeds (400, 800) are better for low light situations. If you are planning to do a lot of outdoor photography with more sunlit situations, you might consider 100 or 200 instead of the 400.

And of course, don't forget about black and white

3Js · Mar 31, 2014

I'm not to familiar with color negative film but I imagine it is similar to transparency fim (slides) and that each family has a particular color temperature. You'll need to figure out which is to your liking.

For example Ektachrome was fairly cold while Kodachrome was fairly warm. A lot of people switched to Fujichrome when it first came out because it was somewhere in between, considered more natural.

minicoop1985 · Mar 31, 2014

I've had horrible luck with Lomography color 100 (got some rolls in a lot I bought). That being said, their redscale stuff (literally film that's turned around and fed through backwards-I'll post one) is actually pretty awesome. The Lomography company irks me a bit, but at least it's inspiring people to get back into film, even with non-crappy (read: old SLRs, good medium format stuff) cameras. Does make the prices rise, which is good and bad for me... lol

Lomo Redscale 100, pardon the dust-one of my first scans.

Lomo Color 100. I hate how the colors rendered. Not just washed, but a little green.

Those little ghostly marks in the same spot are marks on the glass in the scanner. Took me way too long to realize that. :lol:

Those two were done with my Hasselblad.

This is more my speed in terms of image quality and color rendering. Shot with Portra 400 in a Franka Rolfix equipped with a Schneider Radionar.

vimwiz · Mar 31, 2014

Lomo film sucks. Bad. Its rebadged chinese £1 film deliberatelty outdated or overheated to look "cool" i.e. crappy.

Kodak UltraMAX 400 is excellent. FujiColour 200 is similar, slower but cheaper, Agfa Vista+ 200 is very cheap and okay (a bit retro in terms of colours, if you want something more like the lomo, yet decent)

Example of how sharp the cheap FujiColour can be:

(and thats a lo res scan of a print, not the neg)

minicoop1985 · Mar 31, 2014

And don't count out Kodak Ektar. That's my go-to film for real shoots. Don't have any examples scanned, but I've got a roll waiting to be developed and another waiting to be burned. And a roll of 35mm too.

gsgary · Mar 31, 2014

This is 13 years out of date Ektar 100, i have also got a roll of the same age Ektar 1000 that should be fun

vimwiz · Mar 31, 2014

or shoot b&w and develop at home. (Ilford!)

What camera you got?

Derrel · Mar 31, 2014

I shot a lot of Kodacolor Gold in its various incarnations, in the 200 speed, and "down-rated" it to ISO 125, which ensures a generous degree of exposure. I shot maybe a mile of Kodak VPS, but that has been updated and upgraded to the much newer Kodak "Portra" family.

The difference between "amateur" color negative film and "professional" is that the amateur oriented film is shipped "green", with around a year to 18 months of ripening planned for the film after it hits dealer shelves. The "pro" films are shipped at peak date, so their color and performance is OPTIMAL right as shipped, and they are shipped cold, and sold cold, and are supposed to BE KEPT REFRIGERATED to keep them at their peak. Also, some of the "pro" color negative films have emulsion types that are what you might call "low-contrast", allowing the photographer to shoot pictures that have bright tones and dark tones, and not have a really high-contrast, garish rendering. Think "white wedding gown and black tuxedo"...there are also higher-contrast, more "snappy" pro emulsions.

The manufacturer's data sheets can tell you thinks like the degree of contrast, and the level of saturation the film provides when exposed normally, and developed properly. Many "amateurs" used to prefer the rich, jazzy color and relatively high degree of contrast and SNAPO! found in the Kodakcolor Gold and EKTAR series films; many pros who shot portraits and wedding preferred lower-contrast films with more subtle, naturalistic color. For ocean scenes with greenish seawater and blue skies, I always preferred Fujicolor to Kodacolor. I thought Fuji really

The difference between good film and average film can be negated by crappy developing and printing. One needs to find a lab that offers good, and consistent processing and related services: proofing/scanning/printing/packaging of negs and prints. My impression is that today's average color print develop and print utterly sucks compared to what was available widely back in "the film days". The high-end work is as good or better, but less commonly encountered in every single city; you might want to ship film off for processing and scanning. If you want to be able to SEE and enjoy the differences in color negative films, you need a lab that can consistently develop them RIGHT.

Some people like the "vintage color" look;some people want crappy, LOW-fdidelity artsy looks; some want neutral and real looks; others expect high-fidelity, high-resolution, and optimally 'classic' looks; so...opinions vary all over the spectrum.

cgw · Apr 1, 2014

Hard to go wrong with Fuji Superia 200/400. It's probably the most widely available film in N. America and most surviving Noritsu/Fuji minilabs use Fuji paper. Ilford XP2 is a c-41(color)process b&w film with huge latitude that's worth a try, too.

Sorry but many "Lomo" shots posted online are not SOOC scans but rather manipulated to boost contrast/saturation/hue. It was part of the Lomo con and probably helps explain why their stores mostly vanished in N. America.

Get your film processed and scanned. Skip the prints, check-out/manipulate shots you like, and only print what suits you.