Lomography Potsdam Kino 100 Black and White 120 Film Review and Sample Photos

I'll admit the cool name attracted me to this film, but so did the incredibly low price of just $6.90 per roll. The only film cheaper in cost at my local shop is the Kentmere at just under $6.00 per roll.
So before even loading the film, this brand had already scored two positive points. It could only get better from here ... right? Well, maybe not.

A little more grain than I would expect with 100 speed film, but that could be due to the development in Cinestill DF96. I'm only basing my opinions and decisions on using the film in this developer, as it's my developer of choice. I'm fully aware (for the skeptics) that there are much better developers out there, but I choose to shoot the film I like, using the cameras I like, and the developer I like ... regardless of popular opinions or thoughts of others. It's my hobby, and the idea is to use the film/developer that works for me, not someone else.

Thin film (in a physical sense):

I have a major dislike for flimsy, curly negatives. Unfortunately that's a category this film falls into. It's incredibly springy, and has no sturdiness/strength to it at all. There are those who would say the final image is more important than the handling of the negatives, but I disagree with that. Again, I'm shooting for me, and one of the battles I choose not to fight is the frustration of trying to get the negatives into the sleeve holders, and on the scanning track.

Film that curves/bows badly is difficult to scan properly if it doesn't lay flat. The other issue is if it's flimsy, it will go into what I call the 'springy' state that also makes it difficult to handle when scanning.

By comparison, which is not what this article is based on, Kentmere, while not the best quality film out there by any means, has excellent negative strength/consistency. Meaning, it is easy to get on the development spool, dries typically flat and is easy to get into the sleeves and on the scanner.

DEVELOPING:

This film requires a much longer development time than other black and white film I'm used to working with.

Unlike 120 film, when developing 35mm film, I try to develop my film two-rolls at a time, and usually different brands or different speeds, so I can guage whether the development was just bad, or if one turns out better than the other it makes for easier comparison in development time/etc. But since this is 120 film, I only have the single tank so no exact comparisons are available.

Using Cinestill DF96 makes it more difficult to accurately develop this film (again, much like Fomapan) because the process both develops and fixes the film in one bath (hence called Monobath developer). This is great for speed, but the developer time is difficult to impossible to control, as it automatically switches from developer to fixer on it's own, based on some sort of formula that I'm not really sure about (or care about as I typically get nice results).

So with the Cinestill DF96, this roll came out under-developed. It was easy enough to fix this in the scanning/editing process, just add more exposure and you're where you are suppose to be, but I'd prefer a developed film that is already at its max development stage, even though the DF96, like most other developers, allows for pushing/pulling development by either adding temperature or agitation.

FINAL IMAGE RESULTS:

As mentioned above, I had to add a lot more exposure and contrast to this film for the final images. I was surprised at the amount of grain (again, likely a result of the developer/time), but at the same time, it did have nice, rich blacks, and was incredibly sharp from corner to corner (even with a zoom lens wide open at 55mm on my Mamiya M645). I was very happy with the sharpness and 'character' of the blacks, and could see this as a very nice street photography film.

CONCLUSION:

But for me personally, the thin material of the negative is enough for me to shy away from this film in the future. If someone gifted me this film, sure I'd shoot it, but to pay for it out of my own pocket, even as inexpensive as it is ... I'd have to pass. There are a few other brands that can give similar results in the same price-range, but also have a better emulsion and strength to the physical negative.