China Lucky film merger

[georg16nik]

In such transitional times, one should be grateful for ANY film on the market.
Personally, I haven't shot Lucky or Shanghai, whatever .. but I have started decades ago with very cheap films think ORWO, Svema, Tasma etc, so, I would say that there is no bad film. Good cameras and good films and papers etc doesn't help create outstanding art. In fact, the facts are that the more advanced and technological the tools are, the more crappiest the art is.

If most photographers are as good as cheap films.., there might have been a lot more sense for film popularity.
So, the question is:
How good are You under pressure?
How good are You when Your favorite Kodak and such are threatened?

What is more important for You?
mediocre dumb, B&W shot on Kodak film
or
soul uplifting, spectacular shot on Lucky or else film?

 

[Klainmeister]

One thing about Chinese film is when you shoot a roll you'll want to shoot another roll and an hour later.

Thanks for this. Warmed the cockles of my heart.

I like the low-fi look for 35mm since I don't expect much from the format anyhow (just my prerogative, not a judgement on the amazing photographers that use it), and it's so damn cheap, why not!?

 

[dugrant153]

One thing about Chinese film is when you shoot a roll you'll want to shoot another roll and an hour later.

LOL. And after shooting that first roll, you feel tired from all the MSG.

 

[railwayman3]

In such transitional times, one should be grateful for ANY film on the market.
Personally, I haven't shot Lucky or Shanghai, whatever .. but I have started decades ago with very cheap films think ORWO, Svema, Tasma etc, so, I would say that there is no bad film. Good cameras and good films and papers etc doesn't help create outstanding art. In fact, the facts are that the more advanced and technological the tools are, the more crappiest the art is.

If most photographers are as good as cheap films.., there might have been a lot more sense for film popularity.
So, the question is:
How good are You under pressure?
How good are You when Your favorite Kodak and such are threatened?

What is more important for You?
mediocre dumb, B&W shot on Kodak film
or
soul uplifting, spectacular shot on Lucky or else film?

A good view....expensive equipment and top quality materials don't make a great photograph, and owning them does not make one into a great photographer.

It's as if someone had complimented Turner on his command of art, then asked what make of brushes and paint he used!

I've used one or two Lucky C-41 films just out of curiosity, and with good processing and printing they are quite acceptable. (I'm convinced that there are no bad films, but, over the years I have seen a lot of very bad processing, right across the spectrum from minilabs to even some so-called "professional" labs!)

 

[tjaded]

That is probably the single most accurate thing I have read in years!

What intrigues me is that people will happily part with thousands for the best lenses but quibble at the price of quality film.

 

[tomalophicon]

I would never pay thousands for a lens. That's just ridiculous.

 

[Athiril]

What intrigues me is that people will happily part with thousands for the best lenses but quibble at the price of quality film.

I'd continue to use Shanghai film regardless if it was priced the same as other brands.



As for Lucky, they used to have an E-6 line at one point, discontinued some time ago.. don't know when, never got to try it.


Perhaps this merger gives them a chance to produce some aero films? That'd be nice, though who knows if they'd release it, or if they even need that this day and age.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'd continue to use Shanghai film regardless if it was priced the same as other brands.



As for Lucky, they used to have an E-6 line at one point, discontinued some time ago.. don't know when, never got to try it.


Perhaps this merger gives them a chance to produce some aero films? That'd be nice, though who knows if they'd release it, or if they even need that this day and age.

This is a bit of an aside but I've asked elsewhere without, so far, an answer, so I'll ask you: How does Shanghai compare for reciprocity failure, delicateness of the emulsion and quality control with Foma? The prices are about the same and those seem the main problems with Foma.

And no, I don't really care about cheaper. I can afford to shoot as much Kodak or Fuji or Ilford black and white film as my available time permits as it's my time that's more limited. But it's nice to have choices.

 

[fwank]

It's just I don't understand why people buy this junk. Is a roll of Kodak film really so expensive? Is it really worth saving a few dollars on things like this? I don't get it.

you must not be broke . sometimes i hesitate to spend $5 on bacon.

 

[OzJohn]

A little while ago I came across this brief article in Shutterbug about a new RA4 product that Lucky have developed: a double-sided colour paper. The main purpose seems to be to facilitate the printing of pages for photo books and albums:

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/f...sed-materials…and-inkjet-materials-too-page-2

Like most folk here I am delighted to see any new analogue product being developed. I'm intrigued as to how you would expose the reverse-side image on this paper. While it would easy using an enlarger, the paper is no doubt designed for digital exposure rather than by projecting light through a negative. I'd expect double-sided exposure to be near impossible on existing automatic printers like Noritsus and Fujis. Also roller processors, which all of these machines employ, don't generally do a great job if the paper is fed in upsidedown so there would be doubts about development quality on the reverse side.
There must be a new type of printer required to produce these prints in volume.

For the stated aim of producing book pages, one wonders about the viability of such a product given that the market for photo books is pretty much owned by a few companies like HP. Perhaps the growing affluence and huge population of China alone will ensure success. OzJohn

 

[AgX]

Perhaps this merger gives them a chance to produce some aero films? That'd be nice, though who knows if they'd release it, or if they even need that this day and age.

They did produce aero films. Actually they once produced the full range of halide materials. As Kodak, as Agfa-Gevaert.

 

[AgX]

A little while ago I came across this brief article in Shutterbug about a new RA4 product that Lucky have developed: a double-sided colour paper. The main purpose seems to be to facilitate the printing of pages for photo books and albums:

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/f...sed-materials…and-inkjet-materials-too-page-2

Like most folk here I am delighted to see any new analogue product being developed. I'm intrigued as to how you would expose the reverse-side image on this paper. While it would easy using an enlarger, the paper is no doubt designed for digital exposure rather than by projecting light through a negative. I'd expect double-sided exposure to be near impossible on existing automatic printers like Noritsus and Fujis. Also roller processors, which all of these machines employ, don't generally do a great job if the paper is fed in upsidedown so there would be doubts about development quality on the reverse side.
There must be a new type of printer required to produce these prints in volume.

For the stated aim of producing book pages, one wonders about the viability of such a product given that the market for photo books is pretty much owned by a few companies like HP. Perhaps the growing affluence and huge population of China alone will ensure success. OzJohn

That was the RA-4 innovation (about 1 1/2 years ago) I referred to above.
The most ignored innovation by the way at last Photokina.

There is a special minilab printer for that paper.

By that they try to gain the photobook market for halide paper.

However, they seem not to get hold within the large industrial photobook market, as there the step-over into large-volume inkjet machinery and out of chemical processing has already taken place.

 

[Athiril]

This is a bit of an aside but I've asked elsewhere without, so far, an answer, so I'll ask you: How does Shanghai compare for reciprocity failure, delicateness of the emulsion and quality control with Foma? The prices are about the same and those seem the main problems with Foma.

And no, I don't really care about cheaper. I can afford to shoot as much Kodak or Fuji or Ilford black and white film as my available time permits as it's my time that's more limited. But it's nice to have choices.

I haven't used it much in reciprocity situations, but when I have it holds up really well in it's own right. It also very strangely pushes without dropping shadow detail, too far and you get weird marks in the picture though.

It's a really enjoyable. Fomapan has done nothing but irritate me, however I wish to try Fomapan 400, it has a really high far red peak sensitivity with almost a straight line drop off.

Similar to Delta 400, but more extreme, and with lowered blue sensitivity.

Here's a chart I rigged up with some films for comparison of spectral sensitivity distribution. Fomapan 400 is about as opposite to Tri-X as you could get. While Plus-X has a steep drop off at the blue section.. it's about the same as a reverse of Fomapan 400 sensitivity.

Spectral Sensitivity Comparison by athiril, on Flickr

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dan;

I would be interested in how you got this graph on an equal energy basis. They are not easy to do unless you have a spectrosensitometer.

PE

 

[jmxphoto]

Lucky B&W film is unique in the market, and based on this news I'm considering buying up a couple bricks. You'll notice when you develop lucky B&W roll film that the presoak is clear. There is no antihalation coating on the film. This means that strong highlights tend to bloom which I think it neat. It's sort of old-time dreamy looking. On the down side it's pretty low contrast. First time I ever reached for the 5 filter was on a Lucky frame. FWIW a completely different company makes Lucky enlargers. I have one but don't use it much anymore. Part of me wants to print some lucky film on the lucky enlarger!
One of my Lucky film shots:

-edit-
@3.49/roll for a 10 roll brick on ebay shipped, it's the same price as Fuji Neopan Acros before shipping. So it's not the awesome deal it once was (I got 20 rolls expired that I'm still working on for just under $2/roll).

 

[AgX]

The absence of colorisation of processing baths does not necessarily mean that there is no anti-halation layer.

 

[Roger Cole]

Correct. I believe it's sensitizing dyes, not anti halation, that cause the color change in the developer or pre-soak.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It could be acutance dyes or trimmer dyes in the coating.

PE

 

[Athiril]

Dan;

I would be interested in how you got this graph on an equal energy basis. They are not easy to do unless you have a spectrosensitometer.

PE

I just normalised the highest peak sensitivity to 1.

They're comparable to their peak sensitivity of 1. It's a relative value and not an absolute value.

It allows comparison of spectral sensitivity distribution.

 

[AgX]

Not necessarily for graphs made by means of wedge spectrometers...

 

[Brac]

In reply to a earlier query raised in this thread, the Lucky B&W film is not the same as Shanghai GP3. They are entirely different films made by different manufacturers.

 

[InsuredDisaster]

Lucky 100 was some of the first BW film I shot on. Stuff was interesting and I got some good shots with it. I'd buy it again.

 

[Ian Grant]

Luck New 100 was based on Tmax technology accordong to the joint Kodak and Lucky Press release at the time, published in the British Journal of Photography and the financial pages of the UK newspapers However at some point Lucky reverted to their own emulsions again and later the partnership with Kodak was dissolved.

Ian