Lucky Film + Strange Result

I pretty much use Ilford exclusively but just through sheer curiosity I purchased two rolls of 120 Lucky 100 iso film. Upon developing one there was nothing on it- nothing, no frame numbers or brand name or photos. One clear strip of backing. I did not put the fixer in first. I mixed fresh HC 110 B and tested the fix (Ilford mixed 1+4). Everything seemed fine.
When I saw the result- nothing- I was fascinated, and am now looking for the reason. When I poured out the chemicals in-between steps they where clear enough with no trace of emulsion in them.The camera shutter and transport work fine- I just looked. Interesting
I have now loaded the second roll in another camera (Yashicamat). I opened the back to look and see if the film made it through loading, and that the film was on the right side of the paper (them, not me loading it backwards) and if there was emulsion on the film. All looked fine. I know this ruined those frames and fogged others, but that will be something on there. I will mix fresh fix for the second roll.
As I've said, I did not start with the fix.
Never in 30 years has this happened.
Jeff

A couple of years ago I tired a few rolls of Lucky, no frame numbers, no antihoilits (sp?) layer, very clear film base. If your developer is good my guess it is your camera.

Lucky film has has been the opposite of it's name for me.

My Lucky film (bought a year and a half ago, processed a month ago roughly) has frame and film type markings along the edges. I developed it in HC-110 B as well.

My guess is that you made some sort of processing error.

Ah, but what processing error?
HC110 for 7 min. agitation 10 sec every minute, stop, then Ilford fix, that I used on film the other day. Fixing time determined by using twice the amount of time it takes a piece of film to clear in a separate container. All chemicals and water precisely the same temp. Nothing other than clean chemicals/water poured out in between steps. Nothing discoloured or sludge. The developer is only used "one shot" and has worked for other film from the same bottle.
The shutter and transport work fine on the camera I shot it with (Super Ikonta 533). I just checked.
I'm not sure it wasn't the film. Not saying it is for sure, just not sure it's not. Very curious to track down why. I'll develop the other Lucky film tomorrow.
Like I said this is the first time I've seen this in 30 years, and have developed tons of film . I tend not to have sloppy , chemicals are lined up in order, and caps do not come off until it's time. I am careful and methodical.

You need to do a developer test, by snipping a wee tiny bit of film from a roll and developing it in the developer in daylight. If it turns black, your developer is probably OK, if you get very little developing activity, I would replace your developer.

I have used Lucky in 35mm, and it produces very nice negatives, with a bit of bloom from the highlights, which can be used as an effect in some types of photography.

I know this is a bit of a stretch...but you said your problem was with 120? It could be remotely possible, if you are not too familiar with your camera that you got the film loaded backwards, so the backing paper actually faced the lens instead of the film? You may be a seasoned veteran at 120 photography, but it never hurts to mention all the possible reasons you got no images.

I appreciate all the possibilities. I am a seasoned 120 user. Mamiya RZ, Super Ikonta, Ikonta, YashicaMat and Rollei. The film went in the camera correctly and unwound and went on the reel perfectly. I will do a clip test before I process the whole roll.
I'll know better tomorrow what happened. I find the whole thing very interesting.
Thanks for all the comments.

Paul Howell said:

A couple of years ago I tired a few rolls of Lucky, no frame numbers, no antihoilits (sp?) layer, very clear film base. If your developer is good my guess it is your camera.

Click to expand...

Even a complete camera transport failure, should not affect the frame numbers, which are printed on the film in the factory, this means one of three problems:

1) Processing error, fixer first, improper developer mixing, etc.
2) Total developer failure, expired, contaminated, etc.
3) Manufacturing defect in the film.

I find it most interesting that everything poured out clear - no anti-halation dyes in the used baths. This points to a manufacturing defect to me.

I was commenting on 35mm not 120 - I have some 120 Lucky 100 but I haven't processed any yet. Shanghai GP3 has edge markings, but I can't state for certain that Lucky 100 in 120 does.

For what it's worth - if the film was exposed correctly, and developed correctly - it would not come out blank from the fixer without even base fog or edge markings.
How could it be blank, then? The film could be lacking an emulsion, I suppose. Is the gelatin there? I don't think that a former Kodak company would have quality control that poor.
If the film wasn't exposed in the camera - there would still be base fog from developing and edge marking.
If the film wasn't developed at all - meaning a problem with your developer, the film should come out clear as if you had dunked it directly in fixer.

I don't see any other possibility than the film either lacking an emulsion, the developer got f-ed up somehow and didn't leave a trace, or the fixer went in first. What other ways are there to completely clear a film strip?

I should add that if the quality control was up to snuff, the Lucky 400 film is really a nice looking film in Pyrocat developer. Gorgeous grain and a nice tonal scale. The negatives made for some very nice prints indeed.

Poohblah said:

I find it most interesting that everything poured out clear - no anti-halation dyes in the used baths. This points to a manufacturing defect to me.

Click to expand...

Lucky doe NOT HAVE anti-haliation dyes. That is one of its unique characteristics, therefore no dyes will come out in the used baths.

PHOTOTONE said:

Lucky doe NOT HAVE anti-haliation dyes. That is one of its unique characteristics, therefore no dyes will come out in the used baths.

Click to expand...

Ah. well then, carry on.

I hear all of you, and I might be one to say that the fix went in first, except that it didn't.
Maybe there is/was an issue with the developer. I kind of doubt it as I've used the concentrate from this bottle a short time ago and it was fine. The film was very clear. The first thing I thought when it came off the reel was,"there's no emulsion!". All the replies are very interesting.
I will know better tomorrow when I process another roll. I'm not new and you're not dealing with a chimp. I am pondering banging off a roll of FP4 and putting them in the same tank. I will do a clip test of the Lucky film to test the developer.
Thanks again to everyone.

PHOTOTONE said:

Lucky doe NOT HAVE anti-haliation dyes. That is one of its unique characteristics, therefore no dyes will come out in the used baths.

Click to expand...

Lucky films do have an anti-halation layer but it's not up to the standard we are used to with modern films. I did some tests 3 or 4 years ago with 120 Lucky film and found it wasn't nearly as bad with regards to halation as people, particularly John at J&C, were making out. The previous films did have no anti-halation layer.

The New Lucky B&W films are based on Kodak Technology and are closely related to Tmax emulsions, Kodak & Lucky released a joint Press release a few years ago announcing the co-operation agreement. If the anti-halation properties were improved the Lucky B&W films would be up alongside Tmax & IlfordDelta films in terms of quality.

Ian

Dear Ian,

I know you are absolutely steeped in knowledge, and you know we support all monochrome manufacturers but no monochrome LUCKY films we have ever tested have CONTROLLED CRYSTAL GROWTH ( Core Shell )
technology, not that that is not a reason to use them.

SIMON ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited

I just wanted to add that the Lucky I've shot (35mm) had edge markings.

On a side note, the only films that I process which turn the water colors are P3200 TMZ (pinkish). I never dump out a tank full of colored water/chems. So just because you didn't see any dyes wash out, doesn't mean there is a manufacturing defect.

Simon, we can't disagree with Ilford's testing of Lucky films.

However Lucky now state "The use of a new type of silver halide grain emulsion" the films were released a year or so after Kodak had publicly stated they were sharing Technology with Lucky which including T-grain technology, that would be somewhere around 2003/04 then Kodak took a 20% stake. Lucky used to say that their SHD films were produced under license from Kodak. Kodak split from lucky around the end of 2007 and sold their stake in the company.

There was a test report at the time of Lucky New SHD 100's release, (probably in the BJP in 2004, I'm sure I kept it), which concluded that the film shared much in common with Tmax 100, fine grain, sensitometry, sharpness etc it but lacked good anti-halation properties. When I tested the film myself I found it behaved like Tmax rather than a conventional grain film like Plus-X/FP4, it had similar dyes making it look similar to Tmax as well.

Since the release of Lucky New SHD 100 there have been numerous conflicting reports of the film almost as if there were two different films were being sold. The film I tested had reasonable anti-halation properties, I only had problems with backlit shots, others users say their imageshad a mushy softness all the time and that there is no anti-halation at all, and it has significantly larger grain than Tmax 100.

While it's great to have choice not all films are easy to recommend.

Added this:

These were the sales comments from a highly respected UK retailer/importer (& Ilford stockist) about Lucky Films on his company's website in 2004:

LUCKY 100

A budget priced film, with leanings towards Kodak new technology. The Lucky corporation is Chinese, and having a considerable chunk of the Asian market did a deal with Kodak in 2003 to share markets and technology. This has resulted in newly revised emulsions for their black and white films, which should prove not too far away from TMax.

Their recommended developer is D76, with a time of about 6.5 mins at 20 C. Users comments from the net often recommend rating at 80 ISO.

Ian

The Lucky SHD 100 I've shot (bought a couple months ago) is pretty grainy. It also doesn't look like TMAX, at least 3200. It's very pale in color, a light gray. I have some shots that show some halation.

I developed the other roll of Lucky and it came out great. Same HC110 same Ilford fix. The film was the same batch so rationally it had to be me. Can't imagine what, and will spend more time than I should thinking about what and how it happened. The negs are still wet but look great.
Thanks for all the responses.
Jeff

I'm glad you got a good roll.

It is an interesting film.

I've really enjoyed playing with Shanghai GP3 too. I've gotten some nice images on it.