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

[M-88]

Hello, I know I'm posting in sort of an old thread, but I ordered some equipment from China and along them - a single roll of SHD 400 in 35 mm format. I understand that it should be shot around EI125-160, but I also wonder how does this film fare with anti-halation? Anything I should know before using it? If it turns out good enough for the price, I intend to buy a 100ft roll, which costs less than 50$

 

[JParker]

Hello, I know I'm posting in sort of an old thread, but I ordered some equipment from China and along them - a single roll of SHD 400 in 35 mm format. I understand that it should be shot around EI125-160, but I also wonder how does this film fare with anti-halation?

The former ones I used before Lucky stopped production about a decade ago had no anti-halation-undercoat (AHU).
You've got therefore halos around light sources and around stronger reflective surfaces.

Which expiration date has the SHD 400 you've got in your shipment?

 

[M-88]

JParker

This is a "new" product, with several sources indicating that it's "Lucky 1023" air surveillance film on polyester base which is cut and packed as 36-exposure rolls. The expiration date is 2027.

Lack of anti-halation layer is the main reason why I refrain from using Foma films. If this new Lucky has no anti-halation layer either, then it will be a very short story for me. I guess I'll know a definitive answer in two weeks or so.

 

[JParker]

JParker

This is a "new" product, with several sources indicating that it's "Lucky 1023" air surveillance film on polyester base which is cut and packed as 36-exposure rolls. The expiration date is 2027.

Lack of anti-halation layer is the main reason why I refrain from using Foma films. If this new Lucky has no anti-halation layer either, then it will be a very short story for me. I guess I'll know a definitive answer in two weeks or so.

O.k., thanks. So the shipment has not yet arrived at you. Misunderstanding by me.
Please keep us updated when you've shot and developed that roll of film.
I am very interested in the results, and I think many others here are as well.

 

[M-88]

JParker

Often when I need to search for information, Photrio pops up as a comprehensive source where I can read responses and draw conclusions on my own, instead of being fed with misinformation by various "content creators". Therefore, I will definitely report back as soon as I have any sort of results. And maybe in the meantime, someone else will chime in?

 

[JParker]

JParker

Often when I need to search for information, Photrio pops up as a comprehensive source where I can read responses and draw conclusions on my own, instead of being fed with misinformation by various "content creators". Therefore, I will definitely report back as soon as I have any sort of results.

Thanks a lot in advance!

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is a shot on Lucky SHD 400 at EI =400 developed in Microphen 8.5m 20C . AliExpress send it airmail , if there was a local reseller it might be a bit more competitively priced.
I had none of the problems reviewed on youtube at this time which seem like user error to me but maybe I was just ,er, lucky.

 

[JParker]

Here is a shot on Lucky SHD 400 at EI =400 developed in Microphen 8.5m 20C . AliExpress send it airmail , if there was a local reseller it might be a bit more competitively priced.
I had none of the problems reviewed on youtube at this time which seem like user error to me but maybe I was just ,er, lucky.

Thanks!

Looks like the real, effective box speed is significantly lower, as there is a lack of shadow detail. The contrast seems also a bit too high.
Lower Exposure Index (I would try one stop lower first) and shorter development time will probably give better results with a more pleasant tonality.

 

[Paul Howell]

JParker



Lack of anti-halation layer is the main reason why I refrain from using Foma films. If this new Lucky has no anti-halation layer either, then it will be a very short story for me. I guess I'll know a definitive answer in two weeks or so.

Foma has an anti halation layher, in MF and LF dark green dye, one of the few films I prewash to get rid as much as I can prior to development.

 

[M-88]

Foma has an anti halation layher, in MF and LF dark green dye, one of the few films I prewash to get rid as much as I can prior to development.

So I've heard, Mr. Howell. But the thing is, I mainly shoot 135 film and there, neither Foma 100, nor Foma 400 had anything resembling anti-halation layer. Haven't tried Foma 200 but I doubt it's any different in that regard. Kentmere films which generally have poor control over halation, are substantially better than Foma.

 

[Paul Howell]

Hum, I shoot both and not noticed any issues with flare, I need to check the data sheets.

 

[Paul Howell]

From the data sheet for Foma 100
The following bases are used for manufacturing the particular sorts of the film: - 120 rollfilm - a clear polyester base 0.1 mm thick, furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing. - 35 mm film - a gray or gray-blue cellulose triacetate base 0.125 mm thick, - sheet film - a clear polyester base 0.175 mm thick furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing.

Your right 35mm does seem to an antihalo base.

 

[brbo]

This must've been asked before... Why doesn't Foma use anti halation layer in 35mm?

 

[Paul Howell]

That is a good question. I stopped using Kentmere and a house branded film that I thought was Kentmere as I thought Foma had anti halation. Here is low desert there can a lot of glare. I did notice the glare with Kentmere and Eastman Double XX movie film, but not with Foma. I used Foma 120 until I got tired of the curle, but still use Foma 200 and 400 sheet film. My next order for my walk around film 120 and 35 will be Kentmere. I still use Tmax 100 and 400 for travel.

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it:
1) all common versions of Foma still film incorporate some anti-halation measures;
2) with some versions of Foma still film, those anti-halation measures are less effective than others; and
3) main line competitors' films often are more effective at controlling halation.

 

[cmacd123]

As I understand it:
1) all common versions of Foma still film incorporate some anti-halation measures;
2) with some versions of Foma still film, those anti-halation measures are less effective than others; and
3) main line competitors' films often are more effective at controlling halation.

Foma 35mm is on a Grey base, proably the exact base used at Ilford. And the 120 does have a back dye that comes off in process. (often turning the developer interesting colors) Perhaps the 35mm also needs an aditional anti-halo technology? the only 35mm film I recall with a soluable dye back was the original ADOX, before that was sold to Yugoslavia.

 

[SMD]

Foma has an anti halation layher, in MF and LF dark green dye, one of the few films I prewash to get rid as much as I can prior to development.

Why is it better to get rid of it _before_ development?

 

[Corn_Zhou]

Hello, I know I'm posting in sort of an old thread, but I ordered some equipment from China and along them - a single roll of SHD 400 in 35 mm format. I understand that it should be shot around EI125-160, but I also wonder how does this film fare with anti-halation? Anything I should know before using it? If it turns out good enough for the price, I intend to buy a 100ft roll, which costs less than 50$

As far as anti-halation goes, this film does have a dark-blue anti-halation layer on the bcak side. You will get some degree of halation if you are photographing point light sources. Otherwise you won't notice any.

 

[Paul Howell]

Why is it better to get rid of it _before_ development?

No good reason, don't like it discoloring the developer, .

 

[M-88]

As far as anti-halation goes, this film does have a dark-blue anti-halation layer on the bcak side. You will get some degree of halation if you are photographing point light sources. Otherwise you won't notice any.

Great, thank you very much! It should arrive next week so I'll finally try it out. Sources of light are usually not among my subjects so I think I should be fine.

I'll post some images once I have them.

 

[M-88]

My roll arrived today. The packaging is decent, almost everything on it is written in Chinese, including the instruction given on the inside of the box

The text mentions "new generation" of Lucky SHD400, apparently to distinguish it from the old one (which was discontinued some time ago). It also recommends D-76 as a developer, processing time is 9 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius. No dilution is mentioned so I take it it's stock solution. I wonder if the time is given for "box speed" which is EI400, or film's actual sensitivity. But we'll find out soon enough. The roll is 156 cm long, which should give me approximately two strips 16-17 frames each. Should be enough.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I only shot at EI=400 (post 32) because it is DX coded at that speed and my P&S camera read EI=400.
Most sources give the true speed as lower than this. How is it priced compared to other films including shipping?

 

[M-88]

This lucky film goes for 3.70$ per roll.
There's also Ilford Pan 400 and Foma 400 among the cheap options, both of which costs 5.20$ per roll.
In comparison, Kentmere 400 costs 7$ and Ilford FP4+ costs 8.50$ which is a bit of an overkill - I can buy both of these cheaper in my own country. I use the service of cargo forwarder, so shipping cost is around 1-1.20$ for parcels lighter than 200 grams.

What really attracts me is a 100 ft roll of SHD 400 which costs 45$. That's cheap.

 

[M-88]

I shot a small snippet of this film, along with FP4+ which was the only other film I had at the moment. I shot both at EI125, for FP4+ it's a box speed, for Lucky it's "somewhere near" its actual sensitivity, apparently. I developed the film in D-76 1+1, for 10.5 minutes. Don't have a light table, so this shot is the best I could get:

Its base is clear, which might be handy for those who do reversal process. While unexposed and undeveloped, it has a distinctive smell which reminds me of the smell of unexposed/undeveloped C-41 negatives. There are no edge markings whatsoever, but there are no scratches or other unpleasant surprises either. Would you say this snippet is developed correctly? Or should I try different processing time? The scans look ok, but they always look ok on my below average scanner.

 

[loccdor]

@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+.