# I HATE LOMOGRAPHY FILM GRRRRRRR!!!!



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

At first I thought it was a fluke. But apparently this is how they are supposed to look! Apparently this company thinks all photos are supposed to look like garbage 




img055.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr




img056.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr




img058.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr




img059.jpg by tsmcdona, on Flickr


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> At first I thought it was a fluke. But apparently this is how they are supposed to look!


Yes, they look like that intentionally.

Lomo branded film is rebadged film from other manufactures (Lomo doesn't make film), but I think it's expired, or badly stored or something.  I think most of it is Shanghai or Lucky film - the same stuff that I've heard the dollar stores sell as Memories brand film - not sure though, I've never seen that.


Anyway, it's not very good film to start with, then they "do something" to it to make it even worse, lol!  Some people love it.  Even their redscale is not just regular film but redscaled - there are ' defects' that appear to be from being exposed to high heat.

They probably cook all of their film in the oven, lol.


Was this 120 film?  I can see numbers (and dots) in some of them.  That is another "feature" of Lomo film - the markings on the paper showing up in the pictures.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2014)

why does it look like there's numbers embedded into the prints?


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Braineack said:


> why does it look like there's numbers embedded into the prints?


The numbers and dots are on the backing paper of 120 film, something about the paper or ink quality in Lomo film makes them show up in the pictures...


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

Yes, 120 film. And these are scans, not prints. Now I have 7 more rolls of useless film


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> Yes, 120 film. And these are scans, not prints. Now I have 7 more rolls of useless film


You can sell it on eBay or something.  LOL - you'd probably get more for them if they were expired.

Crappy film makes the pictures "more real", man.


----------



## vimwiz (Jan 7, 2014)

> Lomo branded film is rebadged film from other manufactures (Lomo doesn't make film), but I think it's expired, or badly stored or something.  I think most of it is Shanghai or Lucky film - the same stuff that I've heard the dollar stores sell as Memories brand film - not sure though, I've never seen that.



I think there may be some truth to this, i got a very similar colour palette and grain when I baught the dirt cheap £1 Agfa/Fuji 200 film - see below

http://24.media.tumblr.com/bf33530c3cde8d83dee05c0c29862965/tumblr_mxg23fgJHU1t17dhvo4_1280.png

Althoug it was a bit more even and had less noise than the OPs, whilst still having a kind of "retro" feel. The OPs  almost like it was deliberately ruined.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 7, 2014)

Umm, why did you buy Lomo film ?


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 7, 2014)

Nice stuff! I need to buy myself a case


----------



## Braineack (Jan 7, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > why does it look like there's numbers embedded into the prints?
> ...



sucks, that last portrait of the couple would have been really nice...


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

dxqcanada said:


> Umm, why did you buy Lomo film ?



Bc it was cheap and I didn't know better :/


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Nice stuff! I need to buy myself a case



Hey, turns out I have some for sale! It makes the pictures look like totally vintage! 



Braineack said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm a sexy model


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

If you know any hipsters, I'm sure they would love to have it.  Keep an eye out for people shooting with a Holga.  

That does suck though - 7 rolls left?  Ouch.  That stuff ain't cheap either.  (Well, I guess it is sort of cheap for 120 - still, for $5/roll you coulf get Fuji Acros or something, which is actually good film.)

You could always keep it for sacrificial rolls for camera testing or whatever...  Being in Charleston though, it shouldn't be _too_ hard to sell it.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

I may keep it and learn how to respool it onto 620 rolls. I want to shoot a few rolls through my duaflex, just to see if it works. It's just been decorative till now.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> I may keep it and learn how to respool it onto 620 rolls. I want to shoot a few rolls through my duaflex, just to see if it works. It's just been decorative till now.


I've always kind of wanted to try to redscale a 120 roll, but it seems like it would be a pain in the ass to get it taped back onto the paper straight, and in the right place - all in the dark.

You "only" have to unroll it, take the film off the paper, flip it over and tape it back on, then roll it back up.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

dxqcanada said:


> Umm, why did you buy Lomo film ?



Yes why did you buy that bloody rubbish ? Fuji superia is cheap and good


----------



## gsgary (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> I may keep it and learn how to respool it onto 620 rolls. I want to shoot a few rolls through my duaflex, just to see if it works. It's just been decorative till now.



Get a pair of nail clippers and take off the edge of the 120 spool down to the film and load it in your 620 easy


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> Yes, 120 film. And these are scans, not prints. Now I have 7 more rolls of useless film


All you need is love ! And Holga. And a bit of fantasy and inspiration. And maybe a cross processing. Courage to break rules and standards Courage to let be surprised. 
Too bad those pictures are screwed up, they look nice.


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> Tiller said:
> 
> 
> > I may keep it and learn how to respool it onto 620 rolls. I want to shoot a few rolls through my duaflex, just to see if it works. It's just been decorative till now.
> ...


 What are you talking about, guys ? How to respool 120 onto 620 ? Taping back to paper ? Pain in the ass ? Eh...


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Get a pair of nail clippers and take off the edge of the 120 spool down to the film and load it in your 620 easy


Wont work in most 620 cameras.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 7, 2014)

I've used some of their 35mm film and it turned out about the same as basic Kodak or Fuji or whatever. I don't remember what I shot w/Lomography film but obviously it wasn't noticeably different - if it would have turned out this bad, yowza I think I'd remember! 

I don't think I've gotten any of their 120 but I have used their 110 film, in B&W. It turned out the way you'd expect using a vintage 110 camera with a dinky little lens but the quality of the prints weren't this bad... Maybe it was the developing?? What camera were you using?

If you shoot any more of it maybe try The Darkroom in San Clemente, I've used them for 110, sprocket rocket, 360 spinner, etc. If you aren't familiar with  Film Photography Project | An Internet Radio Show & On-Line Resource for Film Shooters Worldwide you could take a look at their site - I think they had something about respooling or maybe I'm just thinking of them selling respooled film.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

From what I've seen, their 120 film is much worse than 35mm.  I've shot some of their 35mm film, and like you found it to be "usable" (I hesitate to say "OK"...lol).  It still seemed to have heat damage though.

I was half joking when I said that they probably cook it in the oven, but it may actually be true.  

Their cameras are fun (but very overpriced) though.  And I did like their redscale film.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> I may keep it and learn how to respool it onto 620 rolls. I want to shoot a few rolls through my duaflex, just to see if it works. It's just been decorative till now.





gsgary said:


> Get a pair of nail clippers and take off the edge of the 120 spool down to the film and load it in your 620 easy



That's what I was going to suggest. Just trim the edges of the 120. It's a lot easier than I thought it would be. As long as you've got a 620 take-up spool, it should be fine. Might not work in every 620 camera as timor suggested, but it has in every camera I've tried it in.

As for Lomography film, it is rebranded from a lot of different sources. Not sure if this is totally up to date, but here's this site: Lomography Rebranded Film Guide ? Geek Josh  It actually doesn't list any color 120 film so it probably is outdated but it's a start.

The visible backing paper points to Shanghai. Had the same thing happen to me with a roll of Arista 120 that I bought from Freestyle, so it's not just Lomo.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

Yeah, crappy film, but the 'pictures' part turned out pretty well. I dunno...I think it has a certain hipster-y look to it. I do not find any of these objectionable, really, at least on these types of family photos.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Yeah, crappy film, but the 'pictures' part turned out pretty well. I dunno...I think it has a certain hipster-y look to it. I do not find any of these objectionable, really, at least on these types of family photos.



Thank Derrel, but it's just not the look I am after. I try to stay away from the "hipster" side of things as a general rule.


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Might not work in every 620 camera as timor suggested,


That's depended on the chamber width. 620 is narrower by about 2 mm. This might be enough for the spool to sit really tight if at all. My Imperial Reflex is to narrow.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

"Perhaps monseur would prefer something weeeeeth a nice Ektachrome look, no?"  (overheard at a fancy French developing lab...)


----------



## timor (Jan 7, 2014)

Tiller said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, crappy film, but the 'pictures' part turned out pretty well. I dunno...I think it has a certain hipster-y look to it. I do not find any of these objectionable, really, at least on these types of family photos.
> ...


Well, circles and numbers from backing paper for sure no good, but the grain and colours seems nice and not so hipsters.


----------



## terri (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Tiller said:
> 
> 
> > I may keep it and learn how to respool it onto 620 rolls. I want to shoot a few rolls through my duaflex, just to see if it works. It's just been decorative till now.
> ...




Whoa whoa whoa, THIS^^ is from Arista film, Lenny?      Freestyle is always pimping this stuff as good student grade.   But these results would flip out anyone, especially a student who would certainly think they'd done something wrong.   Wow.   

I actually like the first image that was posted - needs a little spotting, but it's far from awful.   The others are suffering much worse.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 7, 2014)

Wait a second...the dots and frame numbers...surely this is from a light-leaking camera, perhaps one that has a cheezy red-window advance system, or a "toy" camera, one that's nowhere near light-tight. Right?? I mean, something like a Diana or Holga or other Lomo-type _plastik wunderkamera_, not a medium format rollfilm camera like a Mamiya or Rollei or Yashica...


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

Yup, it was Arista. I bought three rolls - one was fine and the other two had the backing paper markings. From what I learned on another forum, the Shanghai films used really crappy backing paper that leached onto the film somehow. The good news is that this was over a year ago and apparently Freestyle has since gone to rebranding Fomapan instead of Shanghai, at least for their 120 film. I don't know about the 35mm Arista, but I never had problems with the 35mm. In fact, I always thought it was quite nice.


----------



## limr (Jan 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Wait a second...the dots and frame numbers...surely this is from a light-leaking camera, perhaps one that has a cheezy red-window advance system, or a "toy" camera, one that's nowhere near light-tight. Right?? I mean, something like a Diana or Holga or other Lomo-type _plastik wunderkamera_, not a medium format rollfilm camera like a Mamiya or Rollei or Yashica...



Whose, mine or Tyler's? Mine was taken with a Lubitel, so I guess it's kind of a toy, but I only ever got these markings from those two rolls of Arista. Never happened to any other roll, and I've put quite a few through the Lubitel.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Wait a second...the dots and frame numbers...surely this is from a light-leaking camera, perhaps one that has a cheezy red-window advance system, or a "toy" camera, one that's nowhere near light-tight. Right?? I mean, something like a Diana or Holga or other Lomo-type _plastik wunderkamera_, not a medium format rollfilm camera like a Mamiya or Rollei or Yashica...


It's the film.  Not sure how, but this Lomo 120 film (and probably the film it 'really' is, whatever that might be) just 'does that'.  Cheap Chinese film and paper.  I don't know if it's the ink or the paper, but all Lomo 120 films are like this.  Do a search on Flickr...


----------



## terri (Jan 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Yup, it was Arista. I bought three rolls - one was fine and the other two had the backing paper markings. From what I learned on another forum, the Shanghai films used really crappy backing paper that leached onto the film somehow. The good news is that this was over a year ago and apparently Freestyle has since gone to rebranding Fomapan instead of Shanghai, at least for their 120 film. I don't know about the 35mm Arista, but I never had problems with the 35mm. In fact, I always thought it was quite nice.



Good to know - thanks babe!!!


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 7, 2014)

35mm Arista was always Kodak.

100 was Plus-X and 400 was Tri-X.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

Mine was with my Mamiya 645 Pro.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 7, 2014)

If anything, thanks for the warning. I'm not interested in that "hipster" look either, though I will say the photos look well done on your part. Great lighting and proper exposures, good composition, interesting, everything's right but the film, really.

Edit: also impressed with what the lens did there. Very nice.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jan 7, 2014)

Shanghai film only works properly if you're on a vacation in China.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 7, 2014)

What speed film did you use? were these all from the same roll? Just wondered if you were in and out of bright sunlight and indoor light and no adjustment was made for that was made during development.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 7, 2014)

It was ISO 100. I always made a correct exposure according to my external light meter. Interestingly, the inside ones do tend to look more "damaged" than the outside ones.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 8, 2014)

Tiller said:


> It was ISO 100. I always made a correct exposure according to my external light meter. Interestingly, the inside ones do tend to look more "damaged" than the outside ones.



Inside before or after going through the camera?  If after, they would have been on the outside before, which kind of makes me suspect that they may really be heating the rolls up, lol.  The inner layers would have had more protection.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 8, 2014)

No I meant inside like indoors. The shots I took indoors look more damaged than the shots that were taken outdoors


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 8, 2014)

Ah.  Maybe over expose the crap out of a roll and see if you can get it to look ok, lol.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 8, 2014)

I'd expect 100 ISO wouldn't be light sensitive enough for indoor light, so if anything I would expect those frames to be pretty dark and grainy. Maybe they tried to adjust and well, it didn't work... Probably better to use 100 speed film outdoors and 400 indoors, buy some good ol' Kodak - and try another lab! lol

The so-called lo-fi look associated with Lomography is from using plastic cameras with plastic lenses, or vest pockets and midcentury cameras that have maybe two shutter speeds and a couple of apertures; I don't think even film shot with one of those should turn out this badly, something seems to have gone awry with the developing or you got a bad batch of film or _some_thing...


----------



## timor (Jan 8, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> 35mm Arista was always Kodak.
> 
> 100 was Plus-X and 400 was Tri-X.


Only Arista Premium. Arista Edu Ultra is Foma, and Foma has problems with 120 films. My batch of ISO 100 was good, but batch of ISO 200 I've got was bad, some water damage. Freestyle new about it, yet they were selling it. :meh:


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 8, 2014)

vintagesnaps said:


> The so-called lo-fi look associated with Lomography is from using plastic cameras with plastic lenses, or vest pockets and midcentury cameras that have maybe two shutter speeds and a couple of apertures; I don't think even film shot with one of those should turn out this badly, something seems to have gone awry with the developing or you got a bad batch of film or something...


I've shot lomo film in new, modern cameras, and it comes out more or less just like this.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 8, 2014)

Hmm... Maybe Lomo B&W film would be good to practice developing... Is it cheap enough? I'm going to screw it up, so might as well not invest much in film.


----------



## Tiller (Jan 8, 2014)

^ I found a 12 pack of expired Agfa B&W film at Goodwill for $1, so I've got that covered


----------



## timor (Jan 8, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> Hmm... Maybe Lomo B&W film would be good to practice developing... Is it cheap enough? I'm going to screw it up, so might as well not invest much in film.


What's the point ? Such an practice will be useless as you still will not know, if your development system works well.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 8, 2014)

When I've used their film it didn't turn out at all like this, but I've used their 35mm and 110, now I'm curious to try a roll of their 120 color.


----------



## GeekJosh (Jan 9, 2014)

limr said:


> As for Lomography film, it is rebranded from a lot of different sources. Not sure if this is totally up to date, but here's this site: Lomography Rebranded Film Guide ? Geek Josh  It actually doesn't list any color 120 film so it probably is outdated but it's a start.



Hi, I'm Josh I run the website you linked to with the list of Lomo films. It has been a while since I updated that list but as I don't tend to shoot Lomo film myself I largely rely on the Lomo crowd to update me when there are any changes. If anyone spots any errors or has anything they'd like adding to the list, feel free to let me know and I'll update it.

Thanks!

Josh


----------



## timor (Jan 9, 2014)

Looks like Ferrania is willing to restart production. Maybe it will be back in Lomography line up.


----------



## limr (Jan 9, 2014)

GeekJosh said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > As for Lomography film, it is rebranded from a lot of different sources. Not sure if this is totally up to date, but here's this site: Lomography Rebranded Film Guide ? Geek Josh  It actually doesn't list any color 120 film so it probably is outdated but it's a start.
> ...



Hi Josh! 

Thanks for stopping by. I kind of figured it wasn't totally up to date but it's the only thing I could find that was at least sort of centralized. There are random Flickr discussions here and there, but I didn't feel like searching them all.

I'm not sure if you have any regular "contacts" in the Lomo crowd, so you might want to confirm, but it seems you might have some rebranded Shangai to report.  I just looked on their website and they added three color emulsions in 120 that aren't on your list. There's a 100, 400, and 800 ISO.


----------

