Another brand heard from after a long while.. Lucky Film.

[M-88]

@M-88 there's less shadow detail in the Lucky example. You might have to give it an extra stop of exposure to get similar shadow density as the FP4+.

Does that mean it's underexposed, underdeveloped, or both?

 

[loccdor]

Maybe a little underexposed, but it could also just be a difference in the exposure latitudes or characteristic curves in the films. Maybe Lucky has a longer "toe". See if Lucky is giving you blocked up shadows to your taste in your final images. If not, you don't need to adjust anything. If so, I'd give it another stop of exposure. You usually can't recover much shadow detail through increased development. Some of it is down to personal preference.

 

[SMD]

Somehow Polypan F cames to my mind, seeing that strip of Lucky film.

 

[M-88]

I shot two identical images on Lucky at EI125 and developed one of them in D-76 1+1, for 10.5 minutes, while developing the other one for 45 seconds longer. Then scanned them as positives side by side and did a colour inversion. One that was developed for 11 minutes and 15 seconds is on the left and other than the blown out sky/clouds, looks decent. One on the right, on the other hand - not so much.

I think I'll shoot whatever frames I still have left on the roll at EI100 and develop for 11 minutes. Should give me good results.

See if Lucky is giving you blocked up shadows to your taste in your final images. If not, you don't need to adjust anything. If so, I'd give it another stop of exposure. You usually can't recover much shadow detail through increased development. Some of it is down to personal preference.

The example above is not ideal for telling what is what, but the tree is reasonably well-detailed on the left image. At least it's adequate for my taste. I think it would be beneficial for me to pick a few decent shots once I'm done with this roll and print them in the darkroom, to see how it all translates on paper.

 

[loccdor]

The example above is not ideal for telling what is what, but the tree is reasonably well-detailed on the left image. At least it's adequate for my taste. I think it would be beneficial for me to pick a few decent shots once I'm done with this roll and print them in the darkroom, to see how it all translates on paper.

Nice shot. When comparing the two, it can be helpful to do one normalized comparison (in other words each image is displayed where the darkest value in the image is at 0 and the brightest value is at 255). And also to do a "subjective" comparison (by first doing the normalized comparison and then applying additional curves to each image to put the shadows, midtones, and highlights where they look most pleasing to you). On the second comparison, you can get the images looking pretty similar in tonality, but they will have some differences in graininess and resolution.

 

[M-88]

I tried to make a normalized comparison and unsurprisingly, the frame with less development time ended up being darker. Once I'm done shooting what's left from that roll, I'm going to develop it for 11 minutes, instead of 10:30

I'll also make sure to do darkroom prints of few frames (including the one above). I'll be back some time later, with more results.

 

[M-88]

I shot the rest of the roll at EI100 and developed for 11 minutes in D-76 1+1, 20 degrees Celsius. Here are some scans:

Some of the images turned out okay.

Spoiler: spoiler

I deliberately metered for the highlights to see how much shadow detail would be recoverable. Some of it details was retained even in high contrast scenes. I shot at EI100 and it seems like a reasonable speed for your average camera meter, when using this film. If it were EI200, I think the shadows would be much worse.

Spoiler: spoiler

This photo was taken in contre-jour and I reckon the halation is well controlled. But look at those scratches all over the image!

Spoiler: spoiler

Here's some more samples with scratches. Not only longitudal, but lateral too. Or rather - chaotic. This is disappointing.

Spoiler: spoiler

First two snippets of the same roll, with six frames on each, had no scratches, so I don't know whether I got sloppy somehow, or if this is a quality control issue. In all three cases I used the same camera body so it's not the fault of the tool. What's even worse is that these scratched images aren't sequential, so the scratches are all over the roll. It would be nice to order another roll and load it onto the reel very carefully, in order to omit human error. Maybe I'll do that some time in the future.

 

[JParker]

Thank you very much for posting!
So it indeed looks like SHD 400 is used best at E.I. 100 and developed accordingly.
These scratches.......wow.......have never seen that on film fresh from the factory.

 

[Corn_Zhou]

Thank you very much for posting!
So it indeed looks like SHD 400 is used best at E.I. 100 and developed accordingly.
These scratches.......wow.......have never seen that on film fresh from the factory.

SHD400 seems to be derived from an aerial film which is usually shot at 100. Developing in Rodinal 1+50 for 9mins gives a nice negative. We have this film in China for quite some years (expired military stock) but Lucky released this film to the market only recently.
That said, this film lacks a protective layer above the emulsion side which combined with low quality plastic canisters makes scratches worse.

 

[JParker]

SHD400 seems to be derived from an aerial film which is usually shot at 100. Developing in Rodinal 1+50 for 9mins gives a nice negative. We have this film in China for quite some years (expired military stock) but Lucky released this film to the market only recently.
That said, this film lacks a protective layer above the emulsion side which combined with low quality plastic canisters makes scratches worse.

Thank you very much for the additional info!
So this current SHD 400 is different to the former SHD 400, which was sold 12 years ago before Lucky halted their production?
Or have I misunderstood that?

 

[M-88]

Thank you very much for the additional info!
So this current SHD 400 is different to the former SHD 400, which was sold 12 years ago before Lucky halted their production?
Or have I misunderstood that?

It's definitely a different frilm, different from Lucky of early 2000s. It's a "new" product, but if it's an expired military stock as Corn_Zhou remarked, then I wonder how much longer will Lucky Film be able to supply it to the market?

 

[JParker]

It's definitely a different frilm, different from Lucky of early 2000s. It's a "new" product, but if it's an expired military stock as Corn_Zhou remarked, then I wonder how much longer will Lucky Film be able to supply it to the market?

Thanks! Very interesting.

 

[Corn_Zhou]

It's definitely a different frilm, different from Lucky of early 2000s. It's a "new" product, but if it's an expired military stock as Corn_Zhou remarked, then I wonder how much longer will Lucky Film be able to supply it to the market?

SHD400 is from their latest production run in 2023 and is fresh stock. You can tell that from the unique smell. After this production run they switched to coating a "new" Shd100. My guess is that if SHD400 sells well they will keep making it.

 

[loccdor]

I shot the rest of the roll at EI100 and developed for 11 minutes in D-76 1+1, 20 degrees Celsius. Here are some scans:

Thanks for showing the images. Your slightly scratched images mirror some I've experienced from Shanghai GP3 or the occasional bad batch of Fomapan. But the extremely scratched one is worse than anything I've ever seen from fresh film, I only saw those results from negatives/slides that were extensively handled by families for many decades who weren't aware you have to hold them by the edges.

 

[M-88]

SHD400 is from their latest production run in 2023 and is fresh stock. You can tell that from the unique smell. After this production run they switched to coating a "new" Shd100. My guess is that if SHD400 sells well they will keep making it.

My resources indicate that there are three types of aerial film. One of them is Lucky 1023 and apparently that's what is sold as SHD400. Other two are Lucky 1025 whose sensitivity is ISO25 and Lucky 1021 with sensitivity of ISO160. I wonder if SHD100 is one of these. I saw SHD100 for sale when I ordered a roll of SHD400. I'm going to order one roll of each next time.

the extremely scratched one is worse than anything I've ever seen from fresh film

That was the last frame on the roll and it took me several attempts to cut the film away from the canister while fumbling in the dark with scissors. Since Corn_Zhou mentions the absence of protective layer, it would explain the amount of scratches. I'll be extra careful with my next roll.

If I end up with some spare time this weekend, I'll do darkroom prints. I'll update the thread if there's anything noteworthy.

 

[Corn_Zhou]

My resources indicate that there are three types of aerial film. One of them is Lucky 1023 and apparently that's what is sold as SHD400. Other two are Lucky 1025 whose sensitivity is ISO25 and Lucky 1021 with sensitivity of ISO160. I wonder if SHD100 is one of these. I saw SHD100 for sale when I ordered a roll of SHD400. I'm going to order one roll of each next time.


That was the last frame on the roll and it took me several attempts to cut the film away from the canister while fumbling in the dark with scissors. Since Corn_Zhou mentions the absence of protective layer, it would explain the amount of scratches. I'll be extra careful with my next roll.

If I end up with some spare time this weekend, I'll do darkroom prints. I'll update the thread if there's anything noteworthy.

1021 is coated on acetate base with a bright green Anti-halation layer. Attached is a scrap section of 1021 expired in 2018. "New" Shd100, however, is coated on PET base with a more grey-ish Anti-halation layer and the emulsion seems to be thinner. There is rumor that this thing is T-grained as the base could be pink after fixing but as there is no official datasheet no one could actually confirm anything.

 

[M-88]

1021 is coated on acetate base with a bright green Anti-halation layer. Attached is a scrap section of 1021 expired in 2018

This sample of old 1021 reminds me of Soviet Mikrat 300 film, which was a technical film with sensitivity around ASA 3-6. This is what it looks like, but I know nothing about its base, or any other properties, I only have a leftover from a very old roll:

SHD400 in 35 mm is violet/purple. The cassette is a plastic, tear-apart kind, with DX code embedded into the label paper:

 

[Corn_Zhou]

Okay, here are some samples I get from "New" SHD100 developed in Rodinal 1+50 12mins

Lucky SHD100-Mamiya M645-Rodinal-2-5 by Kelvin Zhou, 於 Flickr
Lucky SHD100-Mamiya M645-Rodinal-2-3 by Kelvin Zhou, 於 Flickr
Lucky SHD100-Mamiya M645-Rodinal-2-12 by Kelvin Zhou, 於 Flickr
Lucky SHD100-Mamiya M645-Rodinal-2-7 by Kelvin Zhou, 於 Flickr

 

[Alan Johnson]

Good pics. As mentioned in post 66 it does look like rather like T-grain.

 

[M-88]

Corn_Zhou

Impressive! What does the sensitivity seem like? ISO 50? 25 maybe?



I tried to print few frames in the darkroom. The results came out not what I expected. Since the film has a clear base, I got too much light on the paper and it was difficult to control the exposure even with the aperture stopped down to f/16. ND filters would be nice, but I don't have those, so I'll need to find a weaker bulb. These two images below show straight print (on the left) and print with grade 3 filter (on the right):

This one is a grade 4 print:

Grade 2 and shadow details are quite retrievable. I don't know how to do split-grade prints, otherwise the image could have looked even better:

Also a straight print:

All in all, this film needs some getting used to, in the darkroom. Not so much with scanning. And yes, it gets scratched very easily - I tried to scratch it and the emulsion is brittle. So it requires extra care.

 

[Corn_Zhou]

Corn_Zhou

Impressive! What does the sensitivity seem like? ISO 50? 25 maybe?



I tried to print few frames in the darkroom. The results came out not what I expected. Since the film has a clear base, I got too much light on the paper and it was difficult to control the exposure even with the aperture stopped down to f/16. ND filters would be nice, but I don't have those, so I'll need to find a weaker bulb. These two images below show straight print (on the left) and print with grade 3 filter (on the right):
View attachment 380038

This one is a grade 4 print:
View attachment 380039

Grade 2 and shadow details are quite retrievable. I don't know how to do split-grade prints, otherwise the image could have looked even better:
View attachment 380041

Also a straight print:
View attachment 380040

All in all, this film needs some getting used to, in the darkroom. Not so much with scanning. And yes, it gets scratched very easily - I tried to scratch it and the emulsion is brittle. So it requires extra care.

I shot this 120 roll of SHD100 at 100. The sensitivity is quite solid I believe.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Nov 24

 

[Prest_400]

Another update on the way of Reflx Labs, regarding the color film they have been working in the reformulation of the color film:

According to a contact from Reflx Lab who recently visited Lucky Film's headquarters in Hebei, China, the new color film is expected to hit the market in Q2 2025. It’s projected to be the most affordable color film available, potentially disrupting the market and addressing the global shortage of color film.

Lucky Color Film Update (Jan 2025)

Lucky Film, a renowned Chinese brand with a rich history in photographic film, also the OEM factory for Eastman Kodak, once held a prominent place in the market. However, the rise of digital cameras nearly two decades ago led to the cessation of their consumer film production. Despite this...

reflxlab.com

I never used any of these films in those days, but recall SHD100 was very cheap and halated a lot (35mm).< which doesn't seem so anymore with online examples I have seen recently. Anyways, might try if/when these become more widely available in Europe.

 

[Agulliver]

As much as I like Kodak Pro Image, Color Plus and Ultramax....and Fuji Superia when it was available....I'd be very tempted by Lucky colour film if it was of sufficient quality and significantly cheaper than Color Plus (for example).

 

[M-88]

I buy goods from Reflx in China regularly, so as soon as it pops up, I'll give it a try. Sadly though, the scratches on Lucky's BW films remain an issue (on both - 36-frame rolls and 30.5 m bulks). Hopefully colour film won't have the same problem, but it remains to be seen.