Do you feel Lucky?

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 14, 2008.

  1. Seriously, anyone have any comments on their film? I saw their ISO 100
    color film in a store today. I probably should have bought it, but did not.
    (It wasn't a camera store).

    Is their black and white film any good? Is it worth persuing?

    Thanks,

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dunno.

    Buy a roll, shoot it, get it printed. And look at the negatives; you'll
    probably be able to ID the manufacturer. (I bought some off-off-brand
    color negative film a few years ago for about a buck a roll that turned
    out to be made by Agfa. There are only a few manufacturers out there.)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Aaaargh, should have put brain in gear before engaging mouth. It occurs
    to me you're talking about Chinese film, correct? (I was assuming
    American, German or Japanese.)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 14, 2008
    #3
  4. Geoffrey S. Mendelson

    Peter Irwin Guest

    I bought 10 rolls of Lucky SHD-100 B&W film a few years ago.

    The best thing about the film is that it came in reloadable
    135 magazines which are better than the ones I've seen for sale
    lately. They might even be as good as the ones Kodak used to
    have before they started crimping the ends. These are well made
    and they come apart nicely in the darkroom when I give the knob
    a firm tap on the table. (The ones from Maco are not nearly as nice.)

    The film base is very clear, not grey. Grain is pretty fine,
    normal for a conventional 100 speed film - much finer than
    Svema 100. The emulsion seems to get scratch marks much more
    easily than modern capitalist films. I've never had a problem
    with Kodak, Ilford, Fuji or Agfa.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Sep 14, 2008
    #4
  5. I dunno; are you film?

    Oh, you meant "whose film"?
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 14, 2008
    #5
  6. Ah, comrade, if you're getting scratches, the problem is your capitalist
    camera, not the people's film.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 14, 2008
    #6
  7. Right.
     
    Jean-David Beyer, Sep 15, 2008
    #7
  8. What's on second.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 15, 2008
    #8
  9. They are not. And it´s the main flaw I found with these films.
    A friend of mine demonstrated that you could read a newspaper through
    the undeveloped film

    Worse is the photographic result - the lack of a anti-halation coating
    (AHU) contributes to halos and an overall unsharp appearance of the
    negativ under certain lighting conditions - like with a glaring piece
    of chrome or metal or the sun within the frame.

    Kodak pulled out of the Joint venture with Lucky some time ago.

    Gruss,
    Roman
     
    Roman J. Rohleder, Sep 16, 2008
    #9
  10. Hmm; sounds like while the film may not be good for typical pictoral
    rendition, it might be suitable for arty shots that exploit such flaws.
    Would be interesting to see what the results are shooting such a scene
    with bright spots.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Sep 16, 2008
    #10
  11. I was thinking that too. If I wanted a shot that looked like a digital
    shot, I would use a digital camera. I for one, want the "look" of film,
    and if this gave me an interesting look, I'd want to try it.

    That's why I loved Ektar 25, it portrayed the late afternoon November light
    in Philly far better than anything else.

    Here the light is always that sharp and clear, and I miss it.

    If the Lucky film would do something interesting with highlights, I'd love
    to try it.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 16, 2008
    #11
  12. Thanks, that's why I brought it up. We've discussed this and I stated
    my love of it before they announced it. I'm saving my pennies for
    it as soon as it gets here, if it does.
    No. LG is a Korean Company. Lucky is Chinese and totaly unrelated.

    http://221.194.46.195/eng/index.html

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 16, 2008
    #12
  13. Geoffrey S. Mendelson

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Early plate "backing" had to be washed off. Many people
    continued to buy unbacked plates for quite a while after
    backing came out. Unbacked plates were fourpence cheaper
    for a dozen 4x5 plates in 1915, but I think not having to
    wash off the backing was the real reason unbacked plates
    remained popular.

    Kodak NC film was claimed to be "non-halation" on the packaging
    either from its inception (around 1904) or very soon afterwards,
    but I think that may have been a reference to the properties
    of the thin support rather than an actual antihalation layer.
    Verichrome (c. 1932) definitely did have an anti-halation layer;
    Kodak showed pictures of a neon sign at night which made the
    difference obvious.
    I looked at some Lucky SHD-100 negatives to see if I could see
    signs of halation. The only thing that was obvious when examining
    the negatives with a loupe was that the area aound the sky showed
    a bit of grey spreading outside the frame. This sometimes seems to
    happen a bit even with decent films, but the Lucky film is probably
    worse in this respect. None of the pictures on the roll included
    light sources other than sky. I did see the tiny scratches in the
    sky that I had complained about earlier - this might be a batch related
    problem, but I still found it annoying.

    I think that some special purpose films such as Eastman 5302 and
    5360 may have no antihalation layer. They look the same both sides:
    5302 looks like white translucent plastic and 5360 looks like red
    transparent plastic. I seem to recall that you can expose either
    side, though you obviously want emulsion-to-emulsion for contact
    printing.
    For all its faults, the Lucky film curls no more than usual.
    The Lucky film is grey and somewhat translucent and looks the same
    colour from both sides. If you put undeveloped film on a newspaper
    you could probably just manage to read through it. If you had a light
    behind the paper it would be easy. Transparent suggests to me
    something like 5360 which looks like nearly clear red plastic - so much so
    that I had some trouble believing that it was actual film when
    I first saw what looked to be clear film under a red safelight.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Sep 18, 2008
    #13
  14. I went back to Home Center and found the only 4 rolls of Lucky film they
    had. They are the ISO 200 color film. More importantly they have the name
    and phone number of the importer on them. I'll try to call them next week
    and see if they import black and white film.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 18, 2008
    #14
  15. Thanks, it would be appreicated but difficult. About a year and half ago,
    all of the post offices in the world got together and raised their rates.
    What they did is went from slightly more than their cost, for example,
    $6 for up to 4 pounds airmail, to 1/2 of what the courier services charge.

    So the per pound rate seems cheap as it's $35 for up to 12 pounds,
    but no one sends 12 pounds. If you send 4 pounds, it's still $35.

    Add into that a customs clearing fee ($10) now tacked unto packages,
    and the chance it will be x-rayed, or gamma ray scanned in a shipping
    container, it's not a good bet.

    Just about the only thing that would work is to have it brought back by
    someon in their carry on luggage, as no one knows if they x-ray or gamma
    scan checked luggage.

    I'm not really in that bad a shape, although the non digital department
    of most camera stores is a handfull of rolls of c-41 film, there is a
    good chance that the new Ektar film will at least make it to one store
    here and I can telephone order it.

    It's the wierd stuff like Lucky film where I have to call the importer and
    ask if they brought any in, because there is no way I can buy enough
    to make it worthwhile for them to get it for me.

    There is also the problem of paying for it. I don't have pay-pal, and
    international money orders were replaced with Western Union money transfer
    which the minimum fee is $35.

    If anyone happens to be coming here in the next few months and wants to
    bring a few rolls of film, I'd gladly pay them for it. :)

    On the other hand, although it's pricey, there is no lack of digital
    cameras, memory cards, inkjet paper and so on. It's often that way in
    life, what you don't want is always in good supply.


    Thanks,


    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 19, 2008
    #15
  16. They would open each box, take the film out of each casette and inspect it
    for drugs, explosives or porn.

    It's probably not worth it, a couple of 100 foot rolls of 35mm would last
    a long time. Or 2 20 packs.

    Thanks,

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 19, 2008
    #16
  17. Hi,
    some time ago I got some rolls of SHD100 as 120 and some SHD400 as
    135-36.
    The SHD100 I used for testing my camera, just because it was quite
    cheap - but what I found out: The lack of a anti-halation-dye can give
    quite interesting shots.
    For example (from the test-roll, so this is not an ideal picture, but
    it shows what I mean)
    http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online.de/jens/tmp/mf2_07.jpg and
    http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online.de/jens/tmp/mf4_14.jpg
    (Developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 12min iirc and quite inoptimal scan...)

    The SHD400 I have not tried so far, but the first one is ready to be
    developed, but what I expect are quite similar results but with the
    grain of a 400ASA-film.

    For me the Lucky is a quite nice film if I need this effect, otherwise
    I would prefer other films...
    Sadly there is afaik no one in Germany (and in Europe?) importing
    those films and the Austrian dealer (fotoriegler.at) has sold his last
    Lucky SHDs according to a friend.

    Jens
     
    Jens Schinkel, Sep 21, 2008
    #17
  18. Yes, I agree, the shots are very interesting. Thanks for posting them.
    The second one (the railway station) looks like it was shot in the 1930's.
    I like the look of the second one. The effect of the film, the development
    and the scan is something that from a technical point of view, we got rid
    of long time ago, but from an artistic point of view might be just what we
    want or need.

    I'm sure if I went around the old city (of Jerusalem) with a camera loaded
    with it, not only could I produce some interesting shots, I could sell
    them to tourists if I were careful to keep modern cars and signs like
    "cell phones sold here" and "Internet cafe" out of them. :)

    Oh well, I expect I will have similar luck here too. I wonder if their
    color film produces similar results.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Sep 21, 2008
    #18
  19. So we see the different point of view, some others said they won´t use
    Lucky films because their lack of an anti halation dye, but sometimes
    I would like to have other films also lacking this dye for the
    effects.
    And for this things Lucky would be my film of choice, if you use this
    weakness for your pictures - ok, the ones I posted may not be the best
    examples, but anyway...
    For more "retro" I also own an old Agfa Isolette and Adox Golf. But
    this is another story :)
    Yep...
    Technically imperfect but it looks good.
    This is also why I like APX400 in Rodinal, the grain is quite nice -
    I´m not so fanatic about finest grain possible using microfilms...
    You own some good saw? This should solve the problem with those
    signs... *duck and away*
    Otherwise I´d agree...
    Give it a try?
    I don´t have an idea about the color films...
    Jens
     
    Jens Schinkel, Sep 21, 2008
    #19
  20. Cost, cost, cost.

    I suspect that Lucky SHD may in fact be a movie-stock derived film. In
    cinema production oder cinema copy the lighting situation is
    controlled, there is no such thing as an unintended flare or glare -
    and thus less problem with a weak AHU, which is a costly thing if done
    properly.

    Orwo UN54 responds in a similar fashion - but not as bad as the Lucky.

    Jens´ pictures of the railway station demonstrate the negative effects
    quite nicely.

    Now take in account that the SHD100 was sold by the european importer
    as an affordable alternative for APX, FP4 and PlusX and aimed at
    beginners - imagine what degree of frustration has come with using
    this material. :-/
    A behaviour for which the Lucky is well-known.

    Gruss,
    Roman
     
    Roman J. Rohleder, Sep 22, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.