Lomography Colour Negativ... has been added to your Cart

Lomography Colour Negative 100 ASA Film

4.8 out of 5 stars 4 customer reviews

Price: CDN$ 12.99 & FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25. Details
Usually ships within 2 to 5 months.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.
7 new from CDN$ 12.99
  • Super-fine grain color negative
  • Ultra-saturated with heavy blacks, cutting whites and insane colors
  • High detail 100 ISO
  • 3 rolls of film included
  • 36 exposures
Back to University Back to University

Frequently Bought Together

  • Lomography Colour Negative 100 ASA Film
  • +
  • Lomography Colour Negative 800 ASA, 3 Pieces
  • +
  • Lomography F136BW3 Films Earl Grey 100 ASA 3pcs
Total price: CDN$ 47.48
Buy the selected items together

Product Details

  • Product Dimensions: 10.2 x 10.2 x 5.1 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 23 g
  • Item model number: 603
  • ASIN: B001DZ9E7G
  • Date first available at Amazon.ca: Sept. 13 2013
  • Average Customer Review: 4.8 out of 5 stars 4 customer reviews
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #51,047 in Electronics (See Top 100 in Electronics)
  •  Would you like to give feedback on images or tell us about a lower price?

Product Description

Only the finest in analog emulsions for your ever-hungry Lomographic camera. Process a roll of Lomo Fine Color 35mm Film for unbelievable colors, huge contrast, small grain, and fine resolution. Each pack includes 3 rolls of 36-exposure Lomographic Color Negative film - your VIP (very interesting photographer) ticket to flat-out-awesome results. Film works happily with all 35mm cameras, including the Fisheye, Fisheye 2, Holga 35mm and Action sampler. Get some analog love. Imported.

Customer Questions & Answers

Customer Reviews

4.8 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See all 4 customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Verified Purchase
Not a bad price for a 3 pack of film. Image quality is great if you have enough light. Will buy again.
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
Verified Purchase
Great film.
One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
Verified Purchase
Very safely wrapped, works to perfection, very good!
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
Verified Purchase
Great budget film!
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 3.9 out of 5 stars 35 reviews
22 of 25 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Great for bright sunny days! April 23 2010
By Karen E. - Published on Amazon.com
Verified Purchase
I bought this film with the purpose of using it with a Diana Mini camera, a lot of people discouraged me of buying it because it's ISO 100 (slow type of film), but since I live in a place where is bright and sunny at least 300 days of the year I decided to give it a try. I was not dissapointed at all, the pictures had vivid colors and there where no grainy photos whatsoever!

I must highlight that this film is best suited for bright and sunny days where it works best, if your intention is to take shots at night without a tripod go with ISO 800 or higher, or if you pretend to take pictures indoors and outdoors use the ISO 400.
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Best consumer film I've used to date June 26 2014
By Austin - Published on Amazon.com
Verified Purchase
Background: I am an amateur photographer (some paid gigs, but I don't make a living out of it) and wanted to do a more in depth review of this film. I shoot 35mm as a hobby and live in the bright sun of Arizona, so I wanted to see how this film worked primarily as an alternative to Kodak Gold 200, the other inexpensive film option. I do not actually shoot on Lomo cameras, and wanted to see how this would work in traditional 35mm SLR's and rangefinders. For this review I am testing the film with my Canon A1 and various lenses (20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, and 55mm f1.2) to see if it works as a general use film, and will update this review later using a Minolta Maxxum 7000 and Contax G1. Personally I do not have an interest in lots of grain, light leaks, or unpredictable results, and will be reviewing the film as it compares to other general use negative films.

Film overview: Lomography themselves do not actually make film. Instead, they rebrand other film types and sell them under their own brand. I have heard that these are usually expired films, which gives them their signature “look” (higher grain, color shifts, unpredictable exposures). The expiration date was labeled on the package as 1/2016. You can tell who the original manufacturer of the film is by checking the 6 digit serial number below the barcode. Mine was 114034, making it a repackage of the Italian film Solaris by Ferrania. That makes this film quite a value, as rolls of that type are normally $7 each, and this package gets you 3 rolls for $8. I will compare this lomo repackage to Ektar 100, Kodak Gold 200, and lastly samples of Solaris 100 that I have found on the web.

Film Performance for Prints:
For my developing and prints I use Costco. Great prices and generally good results. The print quality of this film was surprisingly good. There were no lightleaks that I saw (there was one at the beginning of the roll, but that's an issue with my camera), and the colors were quite good. Reds, greens, and blues are strong, with yellows being slightly muted and oranges seem optimized for skin tones. Overall colors aren't too saturated (though not as much as Ektar), and contrast is strong but with good dynamic range. You get great skintones even when shot at the golden hour, which is nice. Most of my shots had a Skylight filter on them which softened the orange, but they looked great without as well. There is minimal grain that showed up in my shots, much less than with other cheap films I've used. For more saturated prints I recommend underexposing slightly (about 1/3rd to 1/2 stops), as overexposure seems to make colors less saturated. For true to life prints, this film is very good. Very little grain visible, no light leaks, great realistic colors (if not super saturated), good contrast, and predictable exposures. I'm very impressed.

Film Performance Scanned: For scanning the film I used an Epson v500 with the standard scanning utility. The settings I used were 3200DPI, low grain reduction, low unsharpening mask, and high digital ICE. The rest of the settings were default. The saved TIF files were then processed in Lightroom 5 with the prints as a reference for how I want the colors to look, though with some variations in WB and exposure. Scans came out pretty flat (low contrast and saturation), though with very high exposure lattitude. This is good, because it means you can adjust them to your liking. Perhaps the colors don't pop right away as Ektar does, but they are easier to dial in with just contrast and saturation and not extensive white balance and hue adjustments. Even scanned there is very little grain, and here I would say it looks every bit as sharp and detailed at Ektar does. That's very impressive to me, and I am quite happy with the way these scan.

FilmPerformance vs other brands:
I would say that this film is quite a bit better than standard Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia branded 200 film. Although it is a stop slower (advantageous in my case), the prints look nicer and the scans are fantastic as well. Colors are much more accurate here, with oranges in particular being more true to life. I wouldn't say the colors are more saturated, but they have a much nicer look in my opinion. The contrast is similar, but the shadows and highlights have more detail overall (but still good contrasts). Grains are very minimal in comparison to Gold and Superia. The Lomo film scans much better, with less grain and easier to edit colors.

The big competition here is Ektar, to which I would say I still prefer Ektar for prints, because the colors from Ektar are quite a bit more interesting. Think of this Lomo film as more of a Porta 160. Scans though they go pretty close, and if you are creative enough you can get them to be just as good as Ektar. Samples online from Solaris look identical, meaning that this film is just a rebrand and not an expired version of that film.

Lowest price film I've found
100 speed is great for bright scenes and wider apertures
36 shots a roll vs 24 normally
DX coded for digital 35mm cameras, automatically sets film speed
Very true to life colors, great primary colors and skin tones
Prints look great, very good contrast and exposures
Scans extremely well, almost equal to Ektar

For the price, none
Less saturated than other 100 speed films

Side Notes:
For a higher saturated look, manually set your film speed to 125 or 160. This will make the colors pop a bit more, and give you deeper blacks

Conclusion: Overall at this price point I can't fault this film at all. It has bested my expectations, and I will certainly be ordering more in the future. This is the best consumer grade film I've used, and also the cheapest. I much prefer 100 film over 200 because of the sunny conditions I typically shoot in, and it certainly beats out both Kodak Gold 200 and Fuji Superia 200. Overall I think Ektar is still a better film and my personal favorite, but at current prices (~$10 a roll) this Lomo film comes in at less than a third of the price. If you were ever hesitant on ordering this film because of the Lomo name, I would suggest you give it a try and be pleasantly surprised.

I will update this review when used with Contax and Minolta Maxxum glass, but for Canon FD I am thoroughly impressed and will be using this film much more in the future.
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Good for what it is... March 20 2011
By MarcusMCB - Published on Amazon.com
I purchased a three-pack of this film mainly as a curiosity to see if it lived up to its "fine color" description. I shot several rolls with a Canon AE-1 (using the "program" setting as well as a few higher shutter speeds) and results for the most part were pretty nice.

As mentioned elsewhere, you'll need ample light to get the most of your shots. Outdoor shots in bright daylight yielded some great pictures though the degree of color saturation depends largely on what you're shooting. The richer the subject color the more distinct the images will tend to be I've noticed. Backyard shots of our dogs (2 black labs & a German shepherd) against a green yard looked great for example, whereas shots of our kids playing at the park didn't appear any more saturated than shots taken using regular garden-variety film.

For what it costs, it certainly doesn't hurt to try - good light and a color-rich subject will definitely make it worth the outlay.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Lomography 100 produces true to life colors. When shooting ... Dec 31 2015
By E6 - Published on Amazon.com
Lomography 100 produces true to life colors. When shooting interiors with flash, be sure to use a less powerful flash as this film is fast and produce brighter images than usual. Shooting outdoors, exposure is on the mark and colors pop but lifelike. I used a Nikon F5 with Metz 58 Flash on the interior shot and no flash on the outdoor shots.
37 of 51 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars slow film has its place Oct. 17 2009
By M. Clara - Published on Amazon.com
Hey guys, rather than complain and say, my pictures were crappy because of this crappy slow film, use a tripod. Great images aren't free. If you're shooting fast moving subjects, then you're using the wrong film for the job at hand.
Digital spoils us fast, I guess.

Look for similar items by category