Lomography’s Cine200 Tungsten Film is Cinema Film Repackaged for 35mm Stills


Lomography released yet another unique type of film emulsion. Or rather, it’s managed to repackage an existing emulsion, converting it for use in 35mm cameras.

Called Cine200 Tungsten Film, the thirty-six exposure 35mm canisters are simply treated and re-wound rolls of Kodak cinema film. They main draw with this new emulsion is that it can be developed through the standard C–41 process, yielding interesting results for any daring creatives.


If this sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because a company called Cinestill has done this, before. As you could expect with almost anything from Lomography, the main idea with this new lineup of film is to inspire creativity through experimentation.

Although it may go without saying, to get the proper color balance with this emulsion, you’re going to want to be shooting in some extremely warm lighting situations.


As with previous film stocks Lomography has created, Cine200 Tungsten Film is limited to 4,000 rolls. So, if you’re looking to get your hands on some, head on over to the Lomography Store and secure yourself a roll for $10.

(via Japan Camera Hunter)

Image credits: Photographs provided by Lomography

  • Bryan Haywood

    Looking at the samples that they have on their site… I don’t really see a need for this other than the novelty factor. Maybe the photos on the site are just not that good.

  • docholliday666

    Hope this doesn’t have the anti-static carbon backing – that’ll hose a processor real quick. Remember that one company about 20 years ago that sold repacked motion picture stock? Yeah, that crap. Hmmm. I smell hipsters…

  • Tobias W.

    “As you could expect with almost anything from Lomography, the main idea with this new lineup of film is to inspire creativity through experimentation.”

    As you could expect with almost anything from Lomography, the main idea with this new lineup of film is to make money from hipsters willing to pay a premium price for mediocre products.

    You can thank me for correcting your posts later, Petapixel.

  • Christopher Hugh Hiscocks

    I know, but I only wish I had thought of it first! I guess more people using film can’t be a bad thing, though. Hipster or otherwise…

  • Dave J

    Seattle Film Works. Ugh.

  • docholliday666

    Ding! We have a winner…or somebody who still has a fridge dedicated to film (like myself). SFW was a great way to trash a minilab back in the day. Respool into a Kodak Gold can and take it to the local Walmart…that was fun!

  • docholliday666

    It has nothing to do with film. Lomo=hipster. Even the product page has hipster bait alll over it!

  • Christopher

    Fuji used to give those out for free to test their motion picture film.

  • John Reinert Nash

    Remjet memories…..

  • John Reinert Nash

    Anti-halation carbon backing. :-)

  • Digi•Pixel•Pop

    I wonder which film stock this is, Cinestill use Kodak Vision 3. Anyways, the whole point of using Tungsten film is to shoot it in tungsten light, which is part of why these examples look horrible. With the RemJet removed pre-exposure, you’ll end up with plenty of halation problems.

  • Manuel Lopez

    I would love to run a roll through my F100!!!

  • docholliday666

    It was primarily anti-static for the purpose of preventing static arcs as the film was dragged past the gate at 24/25 fps. Otherwise, there’d be little random lightning bolts in the frames or a base fog build up. I’ve got about 1700ft of T500 shorts and some other 100-200 shorts around here to get spooled up for shooting. It’s that presoak/wash in the Jobo that sucks as it takes forever to be sure that the RJ coating is gone before developing (for stills, that is).

  • Omar Salgado

    Hopefully, the hipster fad is dying. Thanks, God!

  • FelipeGR

    Funny, when I was experimenting with B&W Kodachrome (after Dwayne’s stopped processing it) and I flat out refused to use my Jobo tank for that. I only used the Paterson that cost me like 1/3 of the Jobo. That remjet coating is some nasty stuff.

    Are there any labs that still process SFW stuff (SFW-XL?? Process)

  • Austin Troth

    I would like to buy some, but after shipping it’s $17 for one roll! Would have been great with my thoriated 35mm in AZ giving a warmer palette

  • Austin Troth

    Their 100 speed film is actually quite nice, and the cheapest film I’ve found per shot as well. I was very surprised and impressed by it, much better than cheap Kodak or Fuji

  • John Reinert Nash

    Brings to mind the scene in “Cinema Paradiso” when the film jams in the projector…. (not “safety film,” indeed)

    Thank you for the additional information, and I agree that RJ is one of the fastest ways of destroying a minilab, if not properly removed…..

  • docholliday666

    I’d rather shoot Foma or Adox. Hell, the “house brand” Arista from Freestyle is better than most of the Lomo films. At least there’s consistency in those negs.

  • docholliday666

    It probably is…Vision3 200T. I have 1700ft of Vision3 500 sitting around and have yet to find much use for it. I’ll just remove the RJ afterwards – a good presoak before dev does the trick. That’s some nasty black, chunky water coming out of the Jobo though. But, it ain’t like hipster’s care about quality, “the halation’s cool, because I’m cool”. Tools.

  • Christopher Hugh Hiscocks

    Well, there’s quite a lot to do with film there, too!

  • docholliday666

    I’ll stick to real films, that aren’t gimmicks. Lomo might as well start selling Cokin filters under their own brand, and cheese.

  • docholliday666

    Most of those images look like poorly processed C-41, improper bleach clearing, wrong temperature, etc would do the same.

  • Brian M. Wright

    It is in fact discontinued Fuji 250T motion pucture film. Kodak has nothing to do with it, unless they used Kodak chemicals to saturate the film. Correct the article, because people are reporting this and mentioning Kodak.