Testing The Exposure Limits Of Lomography 400 120 Film + Comparison With Portra 400

[@Solertcore]

Do the 35mm Fuji C200 and Kodak Colorplus 200.

[@BraeHunziker]

It's great to see Lomography offering high-quality products at an affordable price. It's also rad that they're creating new films and pushing the envelope within the analog world here in 2020. Thanks for the video Kyle!

[@KyleMcDougall]

I agree Brae. Thanks for watching!

[@RonnyKohlmann]

Great video as always. People often don’t know that Lomo film is actually just rebadged Kodak emulsions. Lomo 800 = Kodak’s 800 disposable camera emulsion, my fave stock atm. Lomo 400 = Kodak’s officially discontinued Kodacolor VR 400 emulsion from the 80s

[@PhilKnall]

I'm really happy we have Lomography to keep these alive in OEM form, especially in 120 where there's no 400 options! Would love if Kodak brought out Ultramax in 120.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I keep hearing multiple things. Some people are saying 400 is Kodak Gold.

[@djtoman4112]

@@KyleMcDougall Could that be possible? Kodak never offered Gold in 120 format, as far as I know. I've tried every emulsion out there, and in recent months have had sort of a "homecoming" to Kodak Gold for 35mm film. Would love to find a 120 equivalent.

[@eladbari]

There's a lack of stock for LOMO 800 for like a year now. At least for 35mm film. So, maybe you stocked up on this film?

[@bobbyanaya946]

@@djtoman4112 it’s possible. Film comes in a large stock sheet before Kodak cuts it into 35mm film. I’m not sure if it really is Kodak film, but its possible Lomography could have gotten their hands on those large stock sheets and just cut them into 120.

[@yunipena]

Lomo 800 in 120 is probably my favorite color film now. I love the colors and especially the price compared to Portra 800.

[@gonzalovillar83]

I like it too but I always have to overexpose at least 1 stop to get vibrant images.

[@chriswarzenski8652]

Where are you buying it? Every place I've seen has been out of stock for months, including Lomography's site.

[@DevonChristopherAdams]

Lomo 800 is my go to also, but I shoot it at box. I have friends who tell me when it goes on sale, so I stock up!

[@seandalt]

Would love to see one of these on portra 800. Loved the one you did on Portra 400 and this one as well

[@filipradic5065]

Video quality is better than what we have on TV in Croatia, fantastic! And your t-shirt is very cool :)))

[@F9FCJ429]

My stress test is when I shoot neon laced motels, signage etc at night. Trying to maintain color in the actual neon tubing while also trying to have some context, I really am pushing the film to the limits. When I begin developing and scanning my own film I quickly realized how good the Lomo stocks are. It didn’t come through when the labs did the scans because the labs tend to scan on auto pilot and auto pilot wasn’t getting everything the negative actually recorded. It didn’t take very much tweaking at all using the Negative Lab Pro plugin in LR to get both background context and color in the neon.

[@MadisonBeach]

Have just picked up a 35mm roll of this in 800. Looking forward to it hopefully becoming my new favourite (cheaper) 800 film. Great video.

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. Definitely going to be ordering some of the 800 now!

[@_buttertigers]

Awesome video as always Kyle! Lomo 400 and 800 are some of my fav films to shoot, super cost-efficient and always great results.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I have to try out some 800!

[@flipflopsleica]

The word on the Analog Street is Lomography Color Negative is a Kodak film stock.

[@KyleMcDougall]

That's what I hear.

[@thedondeluxe6941]

Love these exposure limit tests! Please do more of those :-) The Lomography 400 is a really nice film stock imo. I just got back a bunch of rolls I had kinda forgotten about the other day, and the scans really surprised me. Like the colour palette quite a lot. The 800 is great too, but fairly different to the 400. If you haven't tried the 800, you're in for a treat!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Haven't tried the 800 but I definitely will. I'm enjoying the look of their films.

[@zakkku1008]

dude! i've been waiting for this video since the 400h video.

[@KyleMcDougall]

🙌

[@richardg6109]

These videos are very helpful. Thanks, Kyle.

[@shereenw4323]

Thanks for another one of these exposure test videos. It’s fun to see how far you can be off with these different films, without having to actually do it myself to find out!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you enjoyed.

[@ZachParksPhoto]

Good stuff, man. I don't shoot enough Lomo 400, but I love me some Lomo 800.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks dude! 🙏

[@Bonsees]

great vid! Love the lomo colour negatives. Would you do their 100 and 800 ISO versions as well?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’ll keep it in mind for the future.

[@Bonsees]

@@KyleMcDougall awesome :D

[@seanc5718]

Great video, but one suggestion on these exposure tests. You should show the negatives on a light table also since the scanning process is going to try and compensate for the over and underexposed areas.

[@quercus21]

Interesting mate. I never considered lomo 400 but will pick some up for sure.

[@CynthiaDerrick]

My all-time favorite consumer grade film! Good review.

[@georgebirddrums]

Would love to see you test out the new cinestill d9 dynamic chrome developer with Ektachrome. Just looking through some old family photos on elite chrome 200 and they look gorgeous

[@KyleMcDougall]

Something I’ll keep in mind for a future vid. 🙂

[@Iggie1970_1]

Thx for testing the Lomo 400 Kyle. Actually very convenient, because I just used a roll in a Lomography Bel-Air camera. I am very curious to see the results. Stay safe.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@sonygoup]

Hmm I like these videos so much. Thanks for keeping on doing these bro.

[@KyleMcDougall]

You bet. Glad they’re helpful.

[@jasonzecchin4539]

Honestly at 4 stops over I was really expecting everything to be blown out, but this all held up remarkably well! How cool's film! Try shooting digital at 4 stops over and you're not getting anywhere near this latitude

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, it was surprising to me as well. :)

[@MrEmosewa101]

Love your content man!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@CorySchadt]

Love watching your vids, keep this up!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Cory.

[@rudygauer7979]

How did you know that I just found an unopened box of this in the basement and was really interested in how it was going to turn out. Thanks!

[@mattl347]

Good to see another film test Kyle 👍 I've not tried Lomo 400 but Lomo 800 is quite a nice emulsion to use, which yields quite a nice warm pallette. Based you your results here, the 800 does have quicker fall off compared to 400, over and under, so a bit less forgiving. I will definitely try some 400 some time. Cheers

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Matt. Yeah I was definitely impressed with the 400.

[@thebrouhaha1]

Really like these tests! It would be really interesting to continue this idea under different lighting conditions. ex how portra 400 handles golden hr vs pro400h. I'd expect the colours to saturate more noticeably. just a thought.

[@maxiuxoxo]

I love the 800 version of this film- rated at 320 it looks wonderful

[@myretrograde]

Thank you for this, Kyle!!

[@AbduStudio]

Great video! Could you please try some consumer 35mm stocks and maybe Velvia/ more slide films?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Plans for that in the future.

[@andydreadsbmx]

Only thing that sucks about this film is that currently(May 28th, 2020) Portra 400 is about $8.47 a roll and Lomo 400 is about $7.96 a roll so not much difference in price, both prices for 120.

[@artistjoh]

Lomography Color Negative is great value for money, especially the 400. Excellent latitude and good colors, and a sweet price.

[@dchristianrobert]

*Great test! Was wondering how Lomo 120 looks. But being only .60 ¢ cheaper per roll, I'd still choose Portra over Lomo any day.*

[@treenalll]

Congrats on creator on the rise!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. Had no idea that was a thing until today.

[@treenalll]

Kyle McDougall Yeah, it’s pretty cool.

[@abelsilvan]

I love this video series! very useful information. Good to know we have pretty good film in the cheaper spectrum. It would be awesome to see on exposure test video for Kodak ColorPlus, my favorite color film!

[@bhupindersingh3923]

Your awesome keep it going

[@SamJessop]

Would love to see Ultramax 400 vs Superia 400 for 35mm, and Portra 800 vs Lomo 800 in 120.

[@mamiyapress]

I would love to see a test on Ilford XP2 in 35mm and 120, thanks.

[@PhilKnall]

Enjoyed this test! Lomo 400 is my go-to film at the moment :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Phil. Seems like a very capable film.

[@commisar44]

I think it would be interesting to test out the exposure limits of some of Ilford’s films such as HP5+ and Pan F+.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Have plans for that in an upcoming video.

[@Kevb69]

Great review and video, thanks 🙏 Just wondering if you’ve tried Fomapan and tested that?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. I don't really ever shoot B&W, but have had a lot of people asking about testing some.

[@Kevb69]

Kyle McDougall thanks maybe something for the future?

[@F9FCJ429]

One bit of warning for those new to Lomo films: The backing paper is not up to the task of protecting the edges of the film. If you have any kind of sunlight strike a glancing blow on your exposed rolls, the edges will burn. They’re not kidding when they say load in subdued light, I’ve learned my lesson the hard way and now the film is loaded and unloaded inside the vehicle and transferred to a black bag immediately.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Tim. Seems like I may have learned this the hard way with a roll that I recently shot.

[@F9FCJ429]

Kyle McDougall It’s a rite of passage. It’s also evident on one of my favorite transparency films. Rollei CR200. Back when I had labs do my scanning and developing I wondered what those weird patterns at the top and bottom of the frames were. Once I started doing it all at home it was obvious exactly what was happening.

[@SinaFarhat]

Thanks for the info!

[@alexcarrillo5510]

Kyle would you say that the Lomocolor400 is actually repack, and respool of Kodak Ultracolor400? Since I found out that Lomo Color films are from Kodak possible from the Kodak UK, and sent to the Lomo store in Austria...???

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Alex, I know people have spoke about it potentially being from Kodak, but I have no proof of it.

[@Morinaka25]

Lomo buys Kodak Gold master rolls to make Lomo CN, so it's basically the only way to get Kodak Gold in medium format and 800 speed which is usually only ever in 35mm disposables. By the way, what lab do you use now you are in the UK? My one just can't handle over exposure, but yours seems to handle it no problem.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I've heard that before, but never knew anyone who could actually confirm it. I'd be ok with Kodak Gold in 120. I've used two labs so far, both great-Silver Pan, and AG. This film was developed/scanned at AG.

[@Morinaka25]

@@KyleMcDougall Lomography aren't going to press release it, but people who have access to company reps or just ask them directly all say they get the same reply, "it's kodak gold". Apparently in the past it used to be Ferrania stocks but they switched when they got out of film business.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cool. I’m down with Kodak Gold. Always enjoyed that film.

[@photohiker81]

Very ingesting, thanks a lot

[@ChefAlexSocci]

loving these series, would love if you could pick up some Kodak pro image 100 to test!

[@KyleMcDougall]

It's on the list.

[@nonek11]

Hey I love your video about most of your film exposure test. Can you do Lomography Purple for your next exposure test? That would be a nice test to see!!!

[@David-jn6hf]

Please do lomo 800 next!

[@eladbari]

What I dont understand is how come you shoot at different stops and still get the same kind of exposure? Are these image manipulated back in photoshop to match a centered exposure? I would expect to see a real dark image at -3 stops underexposure.

[@KyleMcDougall]

The only thing changing is the density of the negative at different exposures. When the film is scanned, the software is trying to create an image that looks as 'normal' as possible.

[@eladbari]

@@KyleMcDougall so is it darker on the actual negative and the scanner accommodates for that?

[@thomasjohnston4183]

Great video!

[@linusziegler7086]

Was just wondering about this

[@JustinEspejo]

Hey Kyle! loved the video! I'm looking at getting the CN400 but as I'm very new to film photography, I'm still getting used to the idea of pushing/pulling overexposure/underexposure in the world of film. my question is, when you say that the photo is +1 overexposed, does it mean you shot the CN400 at 800 and developed at 400?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, you got it. The film was developed at box speed.

[@JustinEspejo]

@@KyleMcDougall thanks! Appreciate it! Starting to understand it more! 😄

[@CoanBread751]

Would love to see a budget shoot out of Superia 400 and Ultramax 400

[@elscotitojedpa]

great video! keep it up. which monitor is that? thanks!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. LG Ultrafine 5K.

[@Secondcropcreative]

If you ever do 35mm I'd love to see the limits of Kodak Pro Image 100

[@buchsg]

My two cents, I think your overexposure test is more testing the scanner than the film itself, as you know overexposed negatives are very denses so the scanner need to be powerful enough to pass trough... i would be very curious about a test under the enlarger to see the result of under and over exposure on paper

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Gregory, I agree that different scanners will achieve different results. At home on a flatbed I'd say anymore than three stops over and things would start to get a bit weird with colour. That being said, these tests are meant to give people an idea of what they could expect from a lab. Not the be all end all of tests.

[@robifleming]

Love these videos! I’d love to see a test done with cheap old Kodak Gold 200!!

[@KyleMcDougall]

I've had a lot of requests for that. Maybe I'll do some 35mm soon.

[@ChangLiuPhotography]

great video as usual, wondering where did you get the lomo400, It seems like they are out of stock everywhere...

[@KyleMcDougall]

Found this on ebay over here in the UK.

[@abjallen]

So pretty much impossible to mess this up going over.

[@mishoradanov5585]

Great video! It'd be really cool if you did the same with some of the cheapest 35mm film stocks such as Kodak ColorPlus 200 and Fujicolor C200. :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely have plans for that in the future.

[@mishoradanov5585]

@@KyleMcDougall Awesome!

[@milesmonroe65]

Cinestill 50d has an unusual and nicely muted palette. It would interesting to see how it holds up to this kind of test. The more popular 800t would also make good video. Thanks for making these, Kyle. Very useful and reassuring.👍

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you find them helpful! And yeah, I do have some Cinestill, both 50d and 800t in the freezer.

[@smoothsounds801]

Check the Kodak spec sheets for Vision 3 film. Cinestill is based on this movie film stock minus remjet. It’s made to be digitally rendered in post for the movie industry. Think of it as Log for digital. It’s going to be flat. The dynamic range is insane. I’ve shot it over exposed 2 stops by mistake and over cooked it during processing and I could pull a lot of info out of it.

[@RM.TokyoPhotographer]

I kinda wish Kodak would release a Gold version of 800 speed film for medium format more like the budget option for Portra 800....i mean there should be a great load of demand :D #kodak

[@alexiscosar8980]

Man I need one of those Contax T-shirt !! Oh and great video too of course 😅

[@KyleMcDougall]

Have had a ton of people ask about it!

[@TheMPhotography]

Quite impressive. And your lab did not retouch the images when they scanned them?

[@dchristianrobert]

I believe he scans his own films. Only used the lab to process the film.

[@KyleMcDougall]

These were lab scans. And yes, I didn’t touch anything, these are straight from them.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Lab scans for this one.

[@TheMPhotography]

@@KyleMcDougall I was more wondering if they did not adjust the exposure while scanning. Sometimes labs adjust brightness so the clients don't get wrongly exposed scans. If they didn't retouch then the results are really impressive with this film and I definitely need to check it out.

[@ChristopherVisser]

1. I love Lomo's color negative films. 800 is my fav, but 400 and 100 are also great. I tend to shoot between 1 stop over and normal and great results. 2. What lab are using for these tests? And are they using a Noritsu or Frontier? 3. Are you down to just the Yashica Mat for medium format these days? 4. That Contax Zeiss shirt is 👌. I need one, lol. Great video as always, Kyle!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Just used a new lab for this test because of time constraints. Not too sure if it’s noritsu or frontier. Not down to just the Yashica Mat, just all I have with me right now in the UK! Thanks for watching man. 🙏

[@MFfuji29]

Rookie question, when you are saying +1 stop or +3 stops, are you talking about switching the shutter speed and keeping the aperture and ISO the same throughout? (What I assume), or are u switching the ISO or aperture? Thanks!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Switching either the aperture or the shutter speed. Basically anything to increase the amount of light hitting the film. The ISO has nothing to do with that other than changing what reading the meter gives me. Not the same as digital obviously, where changing the ISO on the camera changes the sensitivity of the sensor.

[@grahamhutton3129]

Hi Kyle. I've just bought a three pack of this 120 lomography CN 400 film for a little project in a Holga camera. Was this a good idea as I now read lots get issues with the backing paper printing through into the image. Is this the case? I wanted to try a cheaper film and something new from Portra 400, but now maybe I shouldn't of ? Thanks. Graham

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’ve always had great results with the Lomo 400 and have never noticed that issue.

[@FreXxXmeister]

Additional question, how do you meter for these shots, which area? That would help to interpret these results I think. I've seen your metering video, which was great.

[@KyleMcDougall]

This was super simple. Just an incident reading in the sun... which basically was what you would expect on a sunny day.

[@tiansili]

can you try ultramax? in europe its 2x cheaper than portra 400 and everyone says it sacrifices latitude which in my experience is not true.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll keep that in mind for the future.

[@ricomichel]

@Kyle McDougall Hi Kyle, very interesting series! I'm wondering how much of this success is down to the lab? Are these images the straight scans? Because I don't think I'd get half as good results from my lab, which is a pro film lab, in business in Montreal for 30+ years. Thanks!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hmmm... I've used a number of different labs for all of these tests so far and they've all been very consistent.

[@ricomichel]

Thanks! I wondered because these scans are obviously adjusted individually. Do you need to specify high-end scanning (like with an Imacon) or the less expensive minilab scan would yield similar results? Thank you so much :)

[@eccentricsmithy2746]

Anyone notice the clouds haven't moved in any of the shots?

[@michabutkiewicz702]

Are you going to make similar tests of b&w films some day?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep. I don't shoot much B&W. But I do have a roll of HP5 here.

[@michabutkiewicz702]

@@KyleMcDougall Can't wait to seeing it reviewed by a professional :D

[@ZenzaburoBronica]

could you do pro image 100?

[@Topsyrm]

Hi Kyle, when you say with Portra you lean towards over exposing by 1 stop to get extra shadow detail, do you mean over expose but develop normal or over expose and under develop?

[@KyleMcDougall]

You got it. The first one. Over expose and develop normal.

[@FreXxXmeister]

Lomo 400 is my favorite in 135 and 120 as well! Saturated, but not too much. Found 100 a bit boring but good, 800 is great and also... ISO 800! Sadly these films are not exactly cheap here in Japan... But nothing really is. Kyle, which CN200 from Lomo did you shoot? I'm only aware of the 100/400/800 stocks and special films plus BW.

[@KyleMcDougall]

May have mistaken things... it was a while ago, and most likely 400 but in 35mm.

[@dannywar101]

Can you test fomapan 400

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll keep this in mind for the future.

[@erichstocker4173]

Generally Kodak designed consumer films to be MORE forgiving than professional stock. They were designed to handle poorer storage and exposure by users. Often the colors were not quite a true or punchy but that is expected because of the environment or use. I don't think consumer films ever were less forgiving than professional ones. A professional is supposed to know what he/she is doing; a consumer is not normally expected to know but they were still supposed to get decent prints.

[@technol-bismol3778]

Kodak Tri-X 400?

[@kylelowry6436]

🔥

[@Flinches]

Hell yeah!

[@wilberpantaleon]

GOATTT

[@jeric3857]

you should definitely believe someone who wears a fuji and a contax shirt