I've only used this in 120. The first roll I tried about 2 years ago came out well, nicely balanced colours and white whites. There may be some examples I posted near the beginning of this thread I think or another one. On one frame, in the middle, there was some yellow banding which I thought may be from the pocessing. I have experienced light piping with polyester films but this showed more as a light leak from the edges to the centre, so is not even across a frame.

I tried another roll a few months later to test a newly purchased old folder camera which happened to have light leaks, but the film came out fine in terms of colour balance.

I recently tried the film again with another roll of the same batch, now stored for over year showed some yellowing, the processor commented that it just looked warm. And indeed, after scanning, some correction brought the balance back. What I liked was that in a deep shadow area where a Fuji film would have had a blue/purple cast, this film maintained the shadow balance.

The next film I sent to another processor to see if the processing made a difference but they developed as a B&W film!

Last month I got a new lot of 5, no batch number, just labelled RDC2001.These films were marked as a Lomography type on the end of roll sticker. All the frames on this show a yellow cast, more than just a warm colour temperature. I would say that some frames where the exposure may have been a bit over were a bit clearer (I forgot my light meter and had to guess).

It seems that the yellowing may be due to degradation in storage. The Aviphot 200 pdf file you can find and mentioned above makes note of storage conditions and prompt processing after exposure. I don't know how different that is from any other film.

I'm really disappointed because with the demise of other emulsions this looked promising. The first roll I tried had nice neutral balance, clean colours, good sharpness and I liked how it dealt with underexposed shadow areas. I thought the film is a bit grainy compared to present 100 ASA film but in medium format is not really noticeable. I wouldn't use it in 135. It's a shame because when you look at the technology that went into making the film, built in UV filter for instance, and the results I got with the first roll, it all looked good.

Speaking of which I did try, 2 years ago, a roll of the CN200, C41 version in 135 and 120. Both came out with pleasing colour tones, I really liked it as a negative film but usually shoot transparency. The 135 was just too grainy for me but I liked the 120.

So I also bought a 5 roll lot of the CN200 in 120 size and tried a roll last month. Interestingly and unfortunately this film also shows the same yellow cast as the slide film pehaps to an even more pronouced affect, and the solid blue sky areas came out patchy and uneven, you wouldn't think it was the same film I tried 2 years previously. I don't want to use this one again.

It is interesting that these films are now marked as Lomography as I guess the the colour shifts that now appear to affect these films would be the sort of effect those users are after. For me it just means I have wasted around 35 Euro on sub standard film.