Surprise from Lomography X-Pro Chrome Film


Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-includes/SimplePie/Parse/Date.php on line 694

Warning: preg_match() [function.preg-match]: Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 4 in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/lightbox-plus/classes/shd.class.php on line 1384

Warning: preg_match_all() [function.preg-match-all]: Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 4 in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/lightbox-plus/classes/shd.class.php on line 700

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/lightbox-plus/classes/shd.class.php on line 707

Warning: preg_match_all() [function.preg-match-all]: Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 4 in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/lightbox-plus/classes/shd.class.php on line 700

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /var/www/mortendahl.dk/public_html/blog/wp-content/plugins/lightbox-plus/classes/shd.class.php on line 707

I bought my Fisheye together with two three-packs of Lomography film: the Color Negative 400 and the X-Pro Chrome 100. But while the former have produced decent results, the latter has until now been quite a let-down.

The first two rolls of the X-Pro Chrome was shot on a Diana Mini, and while this is certainly a toy camera, it has actually resulted in some usable photos in the past. However, for the two X-Pro Chrome films the results have been very poor, as bad in fact that the negatives just sit here in my drawer without having been printed nor properly scanned (the colours got too weird for me to continue).

To test if it was really a poor film or simply a bad combination with the Diana Mini, I decided to load the last roll into an Olympus OM-1. Not excepting much I quickly finished it and went to the developer, who, as an additional experiment, I asked to make small prints instead of scans (same price). Since I’m always a bit embarrassed to hand over a Lomography film for its low quality, my surprise when picking them up was even better: the photos were way better than expected, especially the vivid colours. It doesn’t renders the sky that nicely, but for the Autumn colours of yellow and red it is definitely not too bad.

As mentioned I asked for prints instead of scans, and this might be the strategy from now on, at least when I feel like saving the 5€ extra it is to have both: obtaining a good result from scanning the prints myself are far easier than from scanning the negatives! It doesn’t allow me to change the exposure of course (Under the Bridge, for instance, could benefit from more shadow detail), but given how much trouble this particular kind of film caused it was no doubt worth it. Plus, it’s nice to actually have prints to hold in your hands or even go as far as putting them into frames.

Bottom-line? When the film comes back in stock I’ll be getting a lot more of it, even if it means making excuses and covering my face when I go to the developer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.