Topic: Lomography 800 ISO Print Film / 120 Roll

[Late Developer]

Hi there.

Anyone used this film? Results? Tips? How well does it convert to mono?

I found it sat on the shelf of West End Cameras on Tottingham Court Road in London. £6 a roll - not cheap but not as expensive as Portra 800. I have no idea whether it's true, but the proprietor reckons it's made by Fuji. Now, if that is true, why couldn't Fuji keep producing their own branded Pro 800Z / 120 roll film?

Anyway, the cold weather / winter darkness made me curious to see whether this film's any good. I'm going to be shooting it over the weekend and I'll post the results.

[KevinAllan]

You can get 5 rolls of Portra 800 in 120 format, for £31.99 inc P&P from a well known source in Jersey.

My personal preference would be to pay that extra 40p per for roll for a top-rank Kodak product.

Alternatively, pay less for Portra 400 (£20.99 for five rolls) and uprate it to 800, as it has a wide exposure latitude. I have a few rolls of 35mm Fuji Pro 800z in the freezer, and I liked it a lot before I tried the new Portra, but now it's hard to find the motivation to use it.

If the Lomo film is made by Fuji, it could be based on Superia 800 rather than Pro 800Z

[Late Developer]

In the past I have shot a few rolls of Portra 800, but since the  new Portra 400 came out and was followed up by many reports of a wide exposure latitude, I'd be happy to shoot Portra 400 at 800 if I needed the greater speed.

Portra 400 is £20.99 for a five pack, including P&P from 7dayshop; my personal preference would be to pay less for a top-rank Kodak product, and uprate as needed, rather than pay more for an unknown film

Hi Kevin. Agreed - but as it's completely unknown to me (and might be re-branded Fuji Pro 800Z - examples of which I've seen down the years and really liked) I thought I might just give it a go. I haven't pushed Portra 400 but I have tried Portra 800 (in 35mm and liked it a lot).

[the lowest fidelity!]

ill keep this really simple:

LOMOGRAPHY branded film SUCKS! it is one of the worst films out on the market today. its incredibly thin to work with. when you are trying to reel it on the tank reels you have to be incredibly careful not to get "half moon" bends in it. Also, it just flat out sucks in general. i've never bought this film or shot it personally, i have only developed a few rolls for a friend. I know its def NOT fuji film re branded.  Fuji film is pretty thick and extremely easy to get onto film reels for developing...

LOMOGRAPHY products suck.

[SLVR]

I shot the 800 on 35mm. Seemed fine to me. Scanned nicely and had decent color for what i got it for.

[Steven.]

ive never had an issue with lomo films either but then again my expectations weren't very high. ill say that their lady grey 400 is a great b/w film to use. i mean i would still take hp5 or tri-x or neopan over it anyday but i wouldnt feel bad if i had to use it.

[Late Developer]

Thanks for the feedback so far.

My back's been giving me grief for the last couple of weeks, so I haven't shot the stuff yet - but there's always this weekend. I won't be processing it (it'll be off to a colour lab) so I'll see what comes out.

I'll reserve judgement and hope to be pleasantly surprised - but my suspicion is that I'll probably still end up preferring Kodak Portra 800. From what I've read, pushing Portra 400 provides good results so, unless the Lomo stuff offers something the others don't, I'll not be buying much more of it.