This roll was something of an impulse buy and I decided to use it in my Holga 120 CFN. I shot the roll back in March and then kind of forgot about it. Fast forward to October and the opening of Analogue Wonderland’s very own WonderLab and it seemed like fate had conspired and the film should be developed by the team I purchased it from.

The images were shot at a local lake on a very dull overcast day. It’s rated at 400 so I figured it was worth a try though I had no real idea how it would perform. When the scans arrived from the WonderLab this week I was both surprised and pleased with the results. I really like the dreamy, misty quality. It’s made for some atmospheric landscape images. I fully appreciate this look won’t appeal to everyone but it’s intrigued me enough to want to try it again. I do like to process film myself, but given some of the other reviewers experiences with processing it themselves, I’ll be more than happy to keep sending my rolls to the WonderLab to process. Thanks very much Marina & team. I love having a closed circle service 😊

Short but sweet review from me today. The film base is quite dark which results in muddy shadows and highlights when compared to Ilford and Kodak black and white films. I developed my role in D-76 in stock and found when scanning the negatives that the files were a bit flat and had to be pushed to get a contrast that I like. The only way I can describe it is all. mids and little shadows and highlights. Personally, I would prefer to shoot either a Kentmere or Foma film as they are about half the cost and I prefer the look of those stocks.

The film is fine I know some people will dig this film, unfortunately, it's just not for me.

This is the first time I have used this 120 film and was keen to give it a try I am happy with the film although the weather was pretty rubbish which left the negatives with a low contrast but I have a roll of 35mm which I will use when the weather is good I developed it in xtol with the same time as for the 35mm as no time was stated for 120mm on the massive dev chart. The picture is only a quick scan on my phone.

The first time I tried this film, I wrecked it with a stupid mistake in developing. This time, I sent it to AG photo for processing, not so much because I was afraid to develop it myself, but more because I have been too busy to do my own processing.

On a recent trip to Dunkeld, I dropped a roll in my little old Afga Isolette, a ridiculously cheap camera -- most of the film I put through it costs more than the camera did. The camera has no meter or gadgets to tell you where to set the dials, so you have no choice but to figure it out according to the light and the film speed, and what you’re trying to achieve. I have ditched the neurotic habit of writing down every exposure setting of every frame. Consequently, I’ve enjoyed my photography more, although I am less certain of good results.

I am pleased with how moody this film is -- the autumnal feeling of a rainy weekend in the Hermitage Forest is certainly preserved in these images. I scanned the negatives on an Epson and made a couple of contrast adjustments in these examples, and added some split toning in the cropped one. I will be back for more of this stock.

This is a difficult film to review: the end results are pleasant and under the right conditions, the film shows wonderful potential with a lovely grain structure and a fantastic cinematic look.

Unfortunately, however, to get there, one needs to be very patient and resilient (or send it to a lab). I have been developing my own film for quite a while. So far, this one has been the most troublesome. Loading it on plastic reels is difficult and frustrating as it tends to twist and turn a lot. I also found that it needs longer fixing than other emulsions. Despite using wetting agent as normal, the film developed drying marks. The biggest surprise was the heavy curling which made the negatives impossible to scan at first (flattening the strips under a stack of books worked well). The film has a dark film base which might limit the tonal range. Of course it is perfectly possible that I just got unlucky with the two rolls I shot and developed so far.

Once dry and flat, the negatives look fine. If you are used to the classic 400 emulsions, don't be discouraged by the dark, yet thin film base; the negatives still scan nicely. That being said, the film definitely has less latitude and flexibility than HP5 or Tri-X and needs good light to shine. But if you find that golden hour sweet spot, the images come out looking great displaying a strong cinematic nostalgia and lovely cubic grain. The sample photo below was shot during golden hour and with a yellow filter attached to the lens (developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 13 min at 20°C; exposed at EI400 with adjustments for filters). The negatives without yellow/orange filters tend to look a bit too flat for my taste.

Despite the pleasant results and the cinematic look, it did not win me over. HP5 and Tri-X are more flexible emulsions, easier to develop, virtually indistructable, and deliver great, contrasty results in almost all lighting conditions. I would give the film 3.5 stars - but in absence of half stars, I will have to award 3 stars.