Lomochrome Color’92 Pushed +2 Stops to EI1600

Lomochrome Color’92 (see full film review here) is Lomography’s new colour film, which the brand developed “from scratch” with its European manufacturing partners. Probably ORWO.

Color’92 appears related to Lomography’s earlier original colour film release, Lomochrome Metropolis. Both films use an emulsion, coating, base, and film canisters that aren’t made by Kodak or Ilford — which is rare for colour film.

Lomography has recently released an update to their Color’92 formula, branded “Sun-Kissed.” The photos you see in this article aren’t that. Instead, they’re taken on firey-hot walks across the French-Canadian city of Montréal. (The story of how I got there is in this write-up about pushing Kodak Pro Image 100 +2 stops… both of those films shared the same development tank and chemicals.)

In the shade, the temperature hovered at 33℃/92℉, whereas the sun-lit stone that garnished sidewalks could quickly cook an egg. It felt better to hide under a tree, underground, or under the cover of night skies. To get all that on one roll of Lomography’s Color’92, I decided to push it +2 stops until it became an ISO 1600 film. This way, I could shoot it in full sun at 𝒇16 with 1/2000 and in some of the darkest spots of the city, like the Métro and poorly-lit old city statues at night.

These are the samples, thoughts, and advice after the fact.

In this article: Lomography’s keystone film product. The experiment. Metering. Colours. Grain. Is it worth it? Support this blog & get premium features with GOLD memberships!

Lomography’s keystone film product.

Color’92 is not like the other colour films. From a technical standpoint, it’s grainier than all Kodak colour films and has a relatively poor colour reproduction standard. It’s very noisy in the shadows and the hues that the film produces when scanned seem flat and limited.

But as you probably know, photography isn’t always about realism and fidelity. Film photography thrives on choice and creative opportunities. Color’92 is one of those rare opportunities. It’s the antidote to the severe discontinuations of film stocks during the transition to digital in the ‘10s — a practice that still looms today as Fujifilm continues to cut its laughably slim portfolio of original film stocks.

As far as I’m aware, Kodak and Fujifilm were the only remaining colour film manufacturers since the ‘00s until Polaroid began making a colour integrated film in the ‘10s. Everything else was rebranded, repackaged, or (at best) pre-processed Kodak film.

The sad state of colour film changed in 2019 when Lomography introduced a fresh line of colour film, Lomochrome Metropolis. But as this video series reveals, making colour film is exceptionally difficult; for example, Kodak facilities that are responsible for the vast majority of it are comprised of numerous multi-billion-dollar buildings run by scientists, managers, or all kinds of professionals. It’s no surprise, then, that a young business with limited expertise and no film-finishing facility of its own did not supersede the 130-year-old behemoth in emulsion quality. Even Harman Phoenix, a product of a 145-year-old film factory we know as Ilford can’t compare to Kodak’s established expertise. Yet: both Harman and Lomography are investing cash and expertise in their technology.

None of the above is meant to say that Color’92 isn’t as good as Kodak films. It has its charms and applications. For example, the photo of the gossiping ladies above is delightfully warm thanks to the film’s tendency to add red casts in the shadows and the grain gives it a fuzzy look that I think is more appropriate than anything Portra could render in its place.

The experiment.

There isn’t much to pushing colour film other than holding it in the chemicals for a couple of minutes longer. But there’s some prior planning.

First, it’s never clear how well a film would respond to being pushed. I wanted to push Color’92 exactly two stops to match my Kodak Pro Image roll and avoid drawing a new bath for each roll. I also knew that this film was grainy and wondered if it would get worse, so I looked for samples online. Someone posted +2 push results with the Sun Kissed version of this film, which looked good, so I went ahead, trusting that my results would look comparable.

Metering.

The meter on my Canon A-1 was broken and I don’t love pulling out a separate meter (even if it’s just an app) each time. So I relied on the Sunny 16 rule for all these photos. I got pretty good at it over the years and even developed a course on reading light without a meter.

The ISO 1600 film is a little trickier to calculate exposures for than, say an ISO 400 film, but after a bit of tinkering with the Sunny 16 Calculator app, I was able to figure out a few positions that worked well. The full sun called for 𝒇16 and 1/2000s, and the “LOVE” shot above was 𝒇2.8 with 1/15s.

Colours.

I use this method to invert most of my scanned colour negatives on this blog. It’s consistent and easy to understand, which helps me feel confident describing the differences between films in terms of colour rendition.

In the case of Color’92, there’s the usual tendency to add red or green cast in the shadows I spoke of in the review. Most of the phtoos had me fight it a bit with the Color Balance adjustment layer in Photoshop. But some photos show no editing.

Though I wish there was a bit more colour variance on this film, I was happy to find that Color’92 is really good at artificial lighting. Whereas modern digital editing flows can counter the green cast on film, it can still surfaces in unexpected areas and can be impossible to fix completely. Color’92 doesn’t seem to have that problem. It renders night scenes faithfully to human perception (thanks to the already limited colours in subdued light) and any green cast caused by artificial lighting can be easily swiped away in post.

This film, particularly when pushed, excells at night photography. It’s very grainy, but what film isn’t at ISO 1600?

Grain.

The grain on Lomochrome Color’92 is chunky. It’s very noticeable on all formats, especially in the shadows and even in the middle-grey areas. The grain is multi-coloured, thus it’s difficult to hide. But of course, if you’re shooting this film in medium format and post on Instagram, the grain may become invisible — but it’ll definitely be seen on larger screens and in print.

Is it worth it?

I think that Lomochrome Color’92 is perfect for pushing to EI 1600. This adds a bit of contrast and possibly makes the film granier — but those changes are barely noticeable. What you get instead is a high-speed colour film that works exceptionally well under artificial light with a look that can be desirable for a variety of projects and personal use. Last but not least, it’s cheaper than CineStill 800T and Kodak Portra 800.

❤ By the way: Please consider making your Lomography Lomochrome Color’92 film purchase using this link  so that Analog.Cafe may get a small percentage of that sale — at no extra charge for you — thanks!