Tag Archives: Lomography X-Pro Chrome 100

First AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 (in C41)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my on-going hunt for a Lomography X-Pro Chrome substitute I’ve heard the AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100 mentioned on a few occasions, and it finally became time to try it. It has done a decent job, and moreover illustrated that a step might have been missing in my process so far.

As you never really know which film is actually inside the Lomography canisters (rumour has it they were using old Kodak film in the beginning and has since gone through several manufactures, including unknown Chinese brands) it is also non-trivial to tell if it’s actually a negative or a positive film — and apparently it isn’t just me who’s confused: for the first time my developer charged a special cross-processing feed, even though I’ve given her Lomography films before that were supposedly also meant to be cross-processed. But this time I’m absolutely certain that I have in my hands a bona fide cross-processed film!

As mentioned, I think the film has done a decent job. Scholastique (from Above) for example is exactly what I was hoping for, and also like the toning in House.

However, most prints are quite a bit off in terms of colour balance, as for example Behind the Park, In Time, and Cornershop. For some it works out nicely, e.g. Scholastique (In the Rain) and Goth Metro, while for others I felt the need to cheat and colour correct in Photoshop afterwards: Pearl of the Quartier, for instance, was shot seconds after Scholastique (from Above) using exactly the same exposure yet completely green.

I’ll be asking my developer the next time if it’s really a question of exposure or not, but at this point my suspicion goes in direction of the printing process simply not being as standardised as I believed it was. More specifically, that asking the developer to either scan the film or make prints is still not enough to achieve the “real” colours of the film.

First Lomography X-Pro Slide 200


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As disappointed as I was when I learned that the X-Pro Chrome from Lomography was not out of stock but in fact out of production, as surprised was I when an email popped in about a month ago saying that their other slide film, the X-Pro Slide, was now back in stock. I soon after grabbed a copy from the store, shot it, and went to pick up the prints today.

So I’ve gotten wiser since my surprise with the X-Pro Chrome. I now know that X-Pro stands for “cross processing“, and that this means using different chemicals during development than those originally intended. Handing in the Lomography film the other day was hence less shameful since I now understood what the woman behind the desk was saying and could respond with “you’re absolutely right, it’s a slide film for E6 processing, but would it be possible to have it developed in C41 anyway, for effect?” — won’t dwell too much on whether that’s cool or nerdy though.

I was a bit suspicious about the outcome for at least two reasons. Firstly because I’ve since learned that the X-Pro Chrome might have been a repackaged Kodak film of unmatched quality, and secondly because both the seller and various online galleries hinted that the photos will have a strong citrus tint. In the end though, they turned out much better than expected and I’ll probably head to the stores for some more soon.

Again I like the vivid colours, especially the orange/red shades as in Dissidi, Red and White, Child’s Play, and Fake Roof. The blue sky in most of them is not amazing, but looking at the negatives it might have been because I over-exposed too much. Lastly, what happened in Weird Red remains a mystery for now, as no extra filter was used nor was the lighting different.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.