Lomography's new Color 92 35mm film vs Color Negative 400 35mm film: which is best?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2024
- Sign up for my FREE photography newsletter mattlovescameras.substack.com/
I hope you enjoy this comparison of Lomography's two ISO 400 colour negative 35mm films: the new Color 92 and Color Negative 400. I shot both of these films side by side in 2 of my favourite 35mm point and shoot film cameras, the Contax T3 and the Fujifilm Klasse S.
The results were surprising, which did you think was better? Let me know in the comments.
MY SUBSTACK NEWSLETTER
Sign up for my FREE Substack photography newsletter:
mattlovescameras.substack.com/
JAPAN ON FILM
Buy a printed or digital copy of my new film photography zine "35mm Japan" mattlovescameras.com/35mm-jap...
Japan On Film videos • Japan On Film
Buy my Japan prints: mattlovescameras.darkroom.com...
PLEASE SUPPORT MY CHANNEL :)
I'd be grateful if you could support this channel by giving this video a thumbs up and leaving a comment.
You can support this channel by sending me a Super Thanks here on RUclips or by buying me a coffee on Ko-Fi:
ko-fi.com/mattlovescameras
Web: mattlovescameras.com
Podcast: mattlovescameras.podbean.com
Lomography: www.lomography.com/homes/matt...
Instagram: / mattlovescameras
Tik Tok: / mattlovescameras
Thanks, I appreciate the editing format you chose for this side-by-side review!
No worries, thanks for watching! 😊🙏
Comparing the two, on the whole, my preference would be for the Lomo 400. But as you mentioned, it’s nice to have the option available and I think there are enough photographers who enjoy a more vintage or expired look that is more muted who will enjoy it!
Thanks Billy! Yes, if this film manufacturer can get their act together hopefully we will see a lot more (and better) colour films!
Thanks! Very valuable information.
No worries, thanks for watching!
thanks for making this!
No worries, thanks for watching! 😊🙏
Gonna give some perspective on these 2 films
1.) Lomochrome Color 92 is more of a novelty film meant essentially to mimic the look of 90’s snapshots. Also if you plan on using an ordinary automatic point & shoot camera with this film, I’d recommend getting DX code stickers (400 ISO) and sticking it onto the film. If you’re a fan of 90’s nostalgia, this film is great for that.
2.) Lomography 400 is a film more for practicality, it’s a good everyday film to shoot with. Sure it may have noticeable grain but that’s how most consumer films are. It’s not sold to have a “vintage” look like Color 92 is.
Both films are great in their own respect and I recommend them both
Hi, thanks for watching! I agree in part... with respect to Color 92.... my understanding is that it wasn't produced to be a novelty film, rather a new colour film from Orwo/Wolfen. Lomography got hold of it and have pitched it that way to the market due to the colour casts, grain, and imperfections. Both are worth shooting for sure!
Love John Mills Himself Cafe. Great pics Matt!
Thanks John! The queue can go out the door quite often with all the public servants during the week ha ha. It was good to see staff in there I remember from 4 years ago!
I love the 400 too! Great comparison and I could see a use for both depending on your shooting situation and goals!!!
Thanks Suzanne! I'm just about to buy some more Color Neg 400 as I think I'm down to just 1 roll left ha ha
Great video, thank you for the comparison - I feel I learned something here about Color 92.
It really seems to be a speciality or niche film with relatively low dynamic range and muted colors, that only works well in certain situations. Color Negative 400 on the other hand is clearly a much more versatile film with higher dynamic range and richly saturated colors good for most situations.
In that sense, I would almost call Color 92 retro or old fashioned.
I think with all, I have seen, I'd try shooting it at ISO 100 and be very mindful not to underexpose it - and I'd probably use it for landscapes with lots of green foliage - or possibly in a studio setting with a ton of lighting on the subject.
Trains depart btw.
Thanks NP! Yes trains depart, couldn't think of what to say ha ha! Great summary, I'm on my way to buy some more 400!
Good review of it Matt. I hate to say it (as I know you had challenges with it) it might be worth comparing Color92 to Wolfen NC500... I recon they might be the same! Shooting some this weekend in Sydney of both, so I will see the difference!
They have to be the same. There aren't that many film manufacturers out there.
@@doozledumbler5393 💯
Thanks James! I'm not sure I can bring myself buy a roll of NC500 after I backed it in June 2022 and it never arrived... I eventually got my money back but it was a stressful experience!
@@MattLovesCameras yeah I remember hearing it on your podcast the other week. :(
Such a bad experience you went through.
It looks to me like the Lomochrome Color 92 was expired film stock. This once happened to me, too with Kodak Gold 200. Generous overexposure partially fixes the problem but I would rather dispose such film stock.
Yes it has that look, I’ve heard that it’s Orwo stock that Lomography bought from China!
I think your right Matt, Lomo ‘92 might just be ORWO film. I plan on shooting the Lomo ‘92 at 200 & see what happens. Lovely photos all in all. You can’t go wrong with Lomo 400 (Kodak or not).
Thanks Christina! Keen to see your results 😊
Wow! Like "Capalaba" Cleveland? Small world. :)
Yes ha ha! There’s tons of shots of Cleveland, Capalaba, Victoria Point and Wynnum in my videos 😁 you must be local too?
@@MattLovesCameras Tingalpa area.
Love Developing Moments at Capalaba Park. ;)
My muse is the abandoned red house at 1912 Mt Gravatt Capalaba Rd.
You came up in my feed. Have subscribed. :)
@@flickeringgreenflame8493 Amazing, thanks so much! Oh yes I know that house ha ha! My muse is a little further up the road - Graham's Tyre yard opposite the 7/11 servo in Wakerly / Gumdale!
@@MattLovesCameras Ah! Yes.
I keep expecting for it to get bulldozed -- it looked like it was going to... but then nothing happened. ;)
If I were to chose a film out of these two, it'd have to be the Lomo 400. 92 is OK, but the grain in some of those pics didn't sit well with me. Didn't do the pics justice. Like you said, warming up the pics improved them, even when they were grainy. I would use 92 when I wanted grain in the pics, but warming them up would be something I'd do. Leaving the flat, blue cast in the pics doesn't sit well when they're also grainy.
Thanks for watching Carl! Yes I think there is no comparison in the quality really, Color Neg 400 wins hands down!
From what I've seen Lomo '92 (aka Wolfen NC400 🤣) looks nice indoors. Out of all the samples I've seen indoor shots are the only ones I've liked. Outdoors it looks too expired.
Yes! A good point I didn't make... is this just NC400 or NC500 by another name? Likely!
I see lots of people comparing Color 92 to NC500, and I see the similarities, but the Color 92 I've shot vs. NC500 are night and day. The NC500 shots look actually expired, act actually expired, and were massively disappointing, even in similar shooting conditions. I get punchier Lomo results than I see online, but I guess it's partially because I camera scan and use Negative Lab Pro, so I have more flexibility on the intake than a Noritsu or Frontier scanner that hasn't seen this type of film yet. But back on the ORWO thing, I would believe that perhaps NC500 ran with an earlier batch of this film and Lomography wanted to do one better and at least improve it a bit more before releasing it. I feel like we'll see iterations of this emulsion through the next ORWO and Lomo runs over the next 2 or so years. Very interesting!
Yeah I’m sorry I bought the NC500, it’s not what I thought it was going to be. I think I’m going to play with pushing & pulling it see if I can find something decent.
@@Minolta_Gal oh no, I'm sorry to hear that Christina 😟
Thanks Jamie! I never got to shoot NC500 even though I ordered 20 rolls in June 2022... sounds like a blessing in disguise! Agree re your thoughts on NC500, and added to the mix is the whole NC500 vs NC400 issue! Loved your pics by the way, suited the film perfectly!
@@MattLovesCameras yeah it’s all good. I think I might see what it does with fall colors. And like I said push it & might pull it to see what it does as well.
@@MattLovesCameras I ordered 5 rolls and got them a while back, but it definitely seems like they've had a hit-and-miss process on getting that stuff out. But yeah ... unfortunately I have not been particularly thrilled with what i have shot. I have some more to give it another chance, though. And thank you!! Definitely excited to shoot a lot more of it, and very interested to see if there's a 2024 formula, too ... :)
I really wish people would stop supporting crap film, just because it's an alternative. The results are what matters, of course, within a price range, but c'mon youtubers. Who cares if the new film is crap? Go waste your own money while I can gift prints easily from Big K emulsions. The person with the print doesn't know the niche, but the print speaks for itself. I love K 400 for it's vintage feel, grain, but still sharp. This 92 crap feels like it was sitting on a hot floor for a couple years. Thanks for your balanced comparison. And lomo 800 is even better. That actually is the standout in the Kodak/Lomo line offering a totally different look than portra, but a useful one in the right set and setting. At almost 1/3 the cost. Sorry, I just get worked up about people pumping garbage stocks just to have an alternative. If there is an alternative, and it costs more, it better shine like no other. But none ever does, and I give enough money to charity as it is.
Well I gotta say I love your passion ha ha! I bought both films with my own money, no freebies here sadly. I'm not a huge fan of the German company behind these new films, but I hope they continue to improve and get better in the coming years. I understand Adox Color Mission is perhaps also a product of those factories, so if they can produce more films like that it would be amazing. The one thing that this film does is show us how good Kodak is! I also shot Lomo 800 in Japan, fantastic film, but sooo expensive now :( thanks for watching!
@@MattLovesCameras I feel the feels. I have 3 rolls of Sillberra 100 in 120. It's aero, but I have it. I know the muted tones I will get and I will shoot accordingly. But kodak doesn't offer that to me, and that is a problem. It's so good in harsh light in the bright sun in the desert. As soon as Alaris collapses entirely, we are stuck doing reach arounds. And that gets old really fast. But it's so much better than crap film. Crap throw away not print is not worth more than toilet paper. If I meter, compose, capture an amazing moment, and the emulsion is crap, then I'm sol. I'll spend $5 more per roll, counting on my skills to be able to print and gift 4 per roll easy being conservative. And they are bangers to hangers. Can't do that starting with crap. Granted, I shoot evocative challenging environmental portraiture. For street and crap, who cares. Sure, go bang a wide shot of some leaf and mountain, or go 28mm in a crosswalk or an abandoned building for the tubes. Not my jam. I care about my prints and how they make people look. You and Lucy are engaging and I do not like either of your work, but I respect your perspectives and what you are doing. That's just personal preference. We need more pressure on kodak. Plain and simple. No one in the next 5 years is going to put out fresh clean stock. Fuji has been dead for YEARS, but there are still people that believe that there are 100 people in a factory in Japan cranking out emulsion that simple isn't happening. It's not. There is no one working these factories. It's a fact. The rest of these stocks is all lomoesk, but I need clean prints. I can goop my lens for free if I want to or pee on it, or dip it in wine. And I am in no way disparaging your work, I just need clean fresh film. And I'll pay for it so I can print it. I print. It's that simple. Ask yourself what is your ratio of shoot to print to sell or gift? I strive for 1/3 or 0.33. That's taken me 3 decades. But I'm so proud of that, and it shows in my patience, tolerance, and hard work. I treat 35mm like large format, not a cell phone. I can't afford crap stocks and I will not support them for the sake of good wishes and crappy photography. Let's be completely nakid honest: film, dev, and a good scan is going to cost you $15 film then $20ish being nice on dev, and a good scan. Every time I click that shutter I know that is always going to be at least $1 per shot. And that is why I don't shoot crap film.
Given that, I also really struggle with this ideal of keeping photography accessible. That is a myth. The top 10% of the world's population (I'm guessing and being conservative) has a cell phone with a camera. The 0.05 has a digital camera, the 0.004 maybe has a film camera. Of that, given the costs, who has money to shoot film? I know, and you do too. It's not accessible and it never will be anymore. We have to realize that if we who might be broke and save up for it and still shoot it, we all need to recognize that we are just privileged. And I guaranty you that 80% of people that shoot film have shitty cars, because that defining lifestyle of, you actually shoot film and you don't care how fast your car goes or is pretty, that they would put on a personality test as a priority like a test and the answer is always going to be let me breathe and take a shot from any old bag, or piece of metal or wood. It's a very basic economic self selecting populous. And I am one of them as you are. But I know the choices I make for each click, how much I get a return on print optimally for that click, and so be it. Sorry, ranting. But fruitful conversation and hopefully engagement for your channel. Tl;Dr: don't shoot crap film. And screw these people selling expired crap for $$$. You're pictures suck, and homage to lomo, but they suck and the test is you won't print and gift or sell them.
Let me know the first time someone prints a 92 and hangs it in the wild without being sponsored. It's never going to happen. Like 99.999% of turquoise. It's a money grab of crap, plain and simple. Shoot digital.
In the last 9 months I've done the 3rd cla on my Nikon and the 2nd on my hasselbad in 25 years. That was almost $2k. I think my leica is good for another 5 more years since the last one in '99. It took me almost a year to save up for that. I don't think there are many people shooting XA's or P&S's that have an actual relationship to their tools. It's OK. It's sad, but, film will never be accessible and this off brand click crap plastic focus way of trying to get people into is is patently wrong. Buy a $150 serviced camera and treat it not like a cell phone, but use it, or shoot instant. Better even, plug the usb-c instax printer into your cell phone, hello, and then make a great gift print. Your channel audience is razor thin.