Does that mean it's underexposed, underdeveloped, or both?
Does that mean it's underexposed, underdeveloped, or both?@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+.
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.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.
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.
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?
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?
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:
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.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.
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.the extremely scratched one is worse than anything I've ever seen from fresh film
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.
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:1021 is coated on acetate base with a bright green Anti-halation layer. Attached is a scrap section of 1021 expired in 2018
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?