>>3653622>Calm down with the animosity man.??? take your own advice lmao nothing I said was hostile in any form.
>sorry for liking the look of redscaleThat's cool, buy some cheap Kodak/Fuji colour negative film and invert it yourself to save some money, make sure to overexpose the film by 2-3 stops as shooting it redscale makes the film less sensitive to light.
>Most of the films you listed below ARE repackaged so I'm not really sure what you are proving.The KINO films, CN 800 and X-Pro 200 are all films you can't get anywhere else/are discontinued.
CN 100/400/Earl Grey/Lady Grey as I mentioned are only good if you can get them cheaper than their Kodak/Foma counter parts.
Lomochrome Purple tries to emulate the infrared look of Kodak Aerochrome and does an okay job at it, idk what Metropolis is doing but you can't get the look of either of those films anywhere else.
And all of those films are available in 120 which the original manufactures don't offer them in.
I don't like Lomography as much as you think I do, the only Lomography film I've shot was 3 rolls of CN 800 because no one offers a cheaper 800 speed colour negative film.
I just think people see Lomography film stocks as inferior products just because they're attached to the Lomography name and aren't Kodak, Fujifilm or Ilford. They are DEFIANTLY better than those shitty brand that pre expose the film with patterns and shit like you mentioned.
It doesn't help that all the sample shots taken with their film is either shot one of their shitty cameras, is poorly digi-converted, is underexposed or the film has been cross processed to shit.
Just look at the sample pics on the Lomography 800 page and compared them to pic related
https://shop.lomography.com/en/films/35mm-film/lomography-color-negative-800-iso-35mm-3-pack-expired 
