LUCKY C200 120

[lightfundove]

Photos look great. How would you rate the film's blue and cyan color? Compared to what you saw when you took those photos?、

If I'm guessing right, the image being correctly captured by 65mm camera lens may be a little further away than the viewfinder lens.

I hadn’t thought about that before. I’ll give it a try next time the weather’s nice. The weather’s been great these past few days, but I haven’t had the time.
Anything’s possible—I’ll have to wait until I see the negatives to know for sure.

 

[Child Ship]

Sorry, I was mistaken. I thought it was a local lab in Linyi...

 

[lightfundove]

Sorry, I was mistaken. I thought it was a local lab in Linyi...

No, you're right—it's right next to the Big Windmill Park at Linyi No. 7 Middle School. I thought you were from Taizhou. I clicked on the location below your profile picture, and Google Maps showed Shantun in Taizhou, so I assumed you were from there.

 

[Sanug]

Yesterday I developed my sample film I bought at Ali Express. I had a minor issue at the end of my roll. The sealing paper nearly blocked the film transport. It ended with a broken sealing paper. Next time I will carry some adhesives to be secure.

This was the only issue I encountered. The material has no defects at all, a nice colour rendering and fine grain. The negatives are a bit more dense than the Kodak Gold in the same developing drum. The contrast is higher and the exposure latitude smaller compared with Kodak Gold.

The backing paper has clearly visible black printed frame numbers. People using old cameras with red window will be thankful. The spool and the backing paper looks proprietary. I have never seen a different brand with identical spools and papers.

The film has been home processed in Adox C-Tec C-41 Kit at 38°C. The thick base of the Lucky film dries completely flat, while the Kodak Gold has a thin and very curly base which is annoying when I try to get it into the film carrier of my scanner. The film itself has no frame numbers.

Top: Kodak Gold
Bottom: Lucky C200

Here are my sample images, taken with a Bronica SQ-A and Zenzanon-S lens. Canoscan 8800F, Vuescan.

For comparison, here an image on Kodak Gold.

 

[blee1996]

Thanks you @Sanug for sharing the results, especially compared to Kodak Gold 200. At which ISO settings did you expose your Lucky C200?

 

[Sanug]

ISO 125. Next time I will go with ISO 200. The Lucky C200 does not need any overexposure.

 

[richyd]

I only see some banding that's caused by the scanner:
View attachment 420657
It's also in the first photo, in exactly the same place, and I bet it's actually in every single photo scanned on this scanner. It's in the green channel, specifically.

I have noticed this in all of the scans presented in blue sky areas to some degree including the ones by Sonar - #79. I have just processed a roll and and noticed the same so it must be more than a particular scanner. I'll try and post later.

 

[richyd]

Here are some examples of a roll I have just processed. Home developed and scanned with Epson 4990. Scans well with minimum corrections. Auto with scan, then auto curves in Photoshop. In the blue sky you scan see those vertical, banding rivulets.

 

[koraks]

. In the blue sky you scan see those vertical, banding rivulets.

Thanks for posting that; very interesting indeed. Since the problem appears to not be related to the scanner, the logical conclusion must be that it's an issue with the film. It does still remain limited to the green/magenta layer:

Borrowing this image from @Sanug, a similar issue is visible:

There's a difference in the width of the lighter bands. The horizontal amplitude appears to be approximately the same, but I can't quite tell if they're exactly matched. However, given the similarity, I'd say this is the same phenomenon.

 

[lightfundove]

Yesterday I developed my sample film I bought at Ali Express. I had a minor issue at the end of my roll. The sealing paper nearly blocked the film transport. It ended with a broken sealing paper. Next time I will carry some adhesives to be secure.

This was the only issue I encountered. The material has no defects at all, a nice colour rendering and fine grain. The negatives are a bit more dense than the Kodak Gold in the same developing drum. The contrast is higher and the exposure latitude smaller compared with Kodak Gold.

The backing paper has clearly visible black printed frame numbers. People using old cameras with red window will be thankful. The spool and the backing paper looks proprietary. I have never seen a different brand with identical spools and papers.

View attachment 422233

The film has been home processed in Adox C-Tec C-41 Kit at 38°C. The thick base of the Lucky film dries completely flat, while the Kodak Gold has a thin and very curly base which is annoying when I try to get it into the film carrier of my scanner. The film itself has no frame numbers.

View attachment 422235
Top: Kodak Gold
Bottom: Lucky C200

Here are my sample images, taken with a Bronica SQ-A and Zenzanon-S lens. Canoscan 8800F, Vuescan.

View attachment 422229

View attachment 422230

View attachment 422231


For comparison, here an image on Kodak Gold.
View attachment 422232

Yes, I will also bring a roll of masking tape. I still think the kind we used with saliva before is better, even though it’s not elegant. Your photo gives me the feeling of a magazine cover, but it’s like a magazine that has been faded by the sun, you know, or maybe a certain filter was used. Maybe it’s just that kind of tone.

 

[lightfundove]

ISO 125. Next time I will go with ISO 200. The Lucky C200 does not need any overexposure.

The staff developing the film recommended 160, but my light meter didn't have 160, so I had to estimate.

 

[lightfundove]

Here are some examples of a roll I have just processed. Home developed and scanned with Epson 4990. Scans well with minimum corrections. Auto with scan, then auto curves in Photoshop. In the blue sky you scan see those vertical, banding rivulets.

Image 005 sometimes has stripes, sometimes doesn't, which is really tiring for the eyes.

 

[mshchem]

It would be interesting to see how the backing paper would fare with storage in a warm spot for 30 days. Accelerated storage life test.

 

[ChrisGalway]

This new Lucky colour negative film is a really positive step and I was told (by a Chinese analogue film retail company) that a slide film is coming. And I love that bold numbering on the 120 backing paper, both Kodak and Ilford (but not Fujifilm) have poor legibility.

 

[Sanug]

Yes, but there is a risk of a reaction between the ink of the backing paper and the film emulsion. There is a reason why Ilford/Harman prints the numbers very thin. I hope the chinese manufacturer did some testing concerning the ink.

 

[mshchem]

This new Lucky colour negative film is a really positive step and I was told (by a Chinese analogue film retail company) that a slide film is coming. And I love that bold numbering on the 120 backing paper, both Kodak and Ilford (but not Fujifilm) have poor legibility.

Competition is good for everyone! Hopefully this helps to accelerate affordable analog photography.

 

[ChrisGalway]

Yes, but there is a risk of a reaction between the ink of the backing paper and the film emulsion. There is a reason why Ilford/Harman prints the numbers very thin. I hope the chinese manufacturer did some testing concerning the ink.

Of course.

Fujifilm seems to have cracked this, so it's technically possible ... and also their 120 spools are designed well. I feel both Ilford/Harman and Kodak treated the spool and backing paper as an afterthought and have made the minimum possible effort to improve them.

 

[lightfundove]

Competition is good for everyone! Hopefully this helps to accelerate affordable analog photography.

I feel that the prices of film rolls and film cameras sit at opposite ends of a seesaw.

 

[lightfundove]

This new Lucky colour negative film is a really positive step and I was told (by a Chinese analogue film retail company) that a slide film is coming. And I love that bold numbering on the 120 backing paper, both Kodak and Ilford (but not Fujifilm) have poor legibility.

I don't have a machine with a red window, so I never paid attention to what was written on the backing paper.

 

[lightfundove]

Of course.

Fujifilm seems to have cracked this, so it's technically possible ... and also their 120 spools are designed well. I feel both Ilford/Harman and Kodak treated the spool and backing paper as an afterthought and have made the minimum possible effort to improve them.

Aye

 

[Agulliver]

Good to see the nice, bold printing on the 120 backing paper. I may well buy some in the future just because of that. I do use Kodak Gold in 120 but since all but two of my MF cameras is a "ruby window" type....I like to actually be able to ready the frame numbers....

 

[Sanug]

The frame numbers on the Kodak paper are not that bolt. But still readable. And much better than those on Harman paper.

Anyway, Ilford/Harman recently improved the readability.

 

[lightfundove]

It may be somewhat difficult to print black characters on backing paper, or... printing in a lighter colour can save some costs...

 

[Sanug]

The reason for light colour printing is the risk of ink dye going into the film emulsion. I saw some negatives with visible frame numbers in the image. To avoid this annoying issue, the frame numbers are printed very light by Harman/Ilford.

 

[MattKing]

The frame number problems that Kodak struggled with were particularly strange, because the effect that users had to deal with was that the ink pressed into the emulsion caused the emulsion to be sensitized, resulting in more density in that part of the negative image.
So one ended up with lighter toned numbers and letters in the skies and other parts of the image on the prints.
Film emulsions are designed to be very, very sensitive!