As the saying goes, “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” When it comes to Lomography’s range of color films, this saying rings true. The traditional color films: CN 100, 400, and 800 are pretty standard in their renditions. The more artsy films–Turquoise, Purple, Metropolis, and Color ’92 are a matter of individual taste. Accordingly, some reviewers laud them while others find them less to their liking. I like to try new things from time to time, so I bought rolls of Metropolis and Color ’92 to see if they would click with me.
These films are not cheap. At about thirteen dollars per roll, they cost about five dollars more than UltraMax or Kodak Gold and a few dollars less than Portra 400. My guess is they are intended to fill a niche by acting as a source of inspiration. Curiosity, more than a need for inspiration, drove my purchase. However, as Fats Waller would say, “One never knows, do one?”, so I decided to see what I might be missing.
My experience did not start well. Somehow, I mangled the film when loading my Minolta XG7, and it ripped and crinkled badly. So, the first few frames were lost before the shutter was ever pressed. After the XG7 had been loaded for a while, and a few shots taken, I read more reviews and decided to shoot the remainder of the roll at ISO 200, one stop overexposed. Subsequently, I loaded the roll in my Minolta AF-C and took it along while out shooting with two other cameras.
Since I had read about the issue this film has with low-light and high contrast scenes, I shot a few of those to see for myself. Otherwise, I choose scenes with as much color as possible. Overall, it took a couple of weeks to finish the roll.
I use CineStill chemistry for color development, and I did not pull during development. When I removed the negatives from the tank, I panicked. They were so dark, I assumed they were underdeveloped. Soon after, I found a post on Analog Wonderland that reassured me that dark negatives are typical for this film. Once the negative dried, it had an odd look, like cracked glass, making me think reticulation had ruined the negatives. Fortunately, nothing was wrong; that is just how the negative looks.
Images
Overall, I was surprised by how well LomoChrome Color ’92 rendered scenes. While it does have a lot of grain, when shot at 200 ISO, it is nowhere near overwhelming. In fact, in a few frames, it is barely noticeable. As others have said, low light and high contrast tend to bring out the grain.
All images were scanned using the Epson v600 scanner and Epson 2 software. I use Apple Photos for image management and minor editing. From the scanner, all images had a strong blue cast, which was removed using the White Balance function in Photos. Aside from balancing the color, few other changes were made, except for minor tweaks to brilliance, brightness, and contrast.
Color is more challenging to comment on, except for blue. Blues and greens were beautiful while yellows and reds seemed more muted.
Impression
Lomography touts this film as having “fascinating blue hues, vibrant reds and delicate pastel undertones” and “film grain for a hint of ’90s nostalgia.” I would say this pretty much describes the film’s character. Without a doubt, it has a distinctive look. It is difficult for me to form a specific opinion about this film—some images I find compelling. For example, I like the image of the lake and trees, which, to my eye, looks like a 19th-century oil painting. Conversely, the image of the statue looks quite flat, and the yellow in the background is quite dull. Since my focus is mainly on garden, landscape, and still-life images, this film renders with too much grain and unpredictable colors for my needs. However, I could see why others might like it.
My goal was to try something new, and having done so, I’ve enjoyed the experience. And I genuinely appreciate that Lomography is continuing to bring new films to market for us to try.
