All Comments Search
I got a message from Lomography today that said, “…in recent years we’ve noticed the wider analogue Community grow increasingly reserved about this distinctive and charming format.” They were talking about 120 film.
Indeed, 120 is harder to scan; it has fewer frames per roll and thus is more expensive if you are to count dollars per shot. Having recently done an unpleasant exercise of tallying up the costs of shooting film (analog.cafe/r/film-photogr…), it’s plain to see that MF film is not cheap, particularly in the current inflation-driven environment.
But medium and larger format films are not like 35mm. They have a potential for vastly more resolution and finer grain — which is especially helpful on stocks like Lomochrome Color ’92 (analog.cafe/r/lomochrome-c…). MF cameras also have significantly more pronounced background separation and huge ground glass finders.
Say what you will about Lomography, but since they were founded, the brand has been all-in on film. They’ve supported our shrinking niche for over twenty years and even released some brand-new films, which hasn’t been done by anyone, even Kodak, in over a decade.
Today, they’re announcing discounts, up to 30% off, on their 120 film to encourage more photographers to use this format (and maybe to clear some of their stock, but that doesn’t make the above claims any less accurate).
