Lucky Film

[kjsphoto]

Has anyone tried this film? Any thoughts or opinions?

Thanks,

Kev

 

[htmlguru4242]

I've used it a few times. It's a great film, especially for the price. It's got a Tri-X-ish look, though the antihalation layer is not too effective, so you get some haloes.

The tonality is great, though the grain is a bit larger than Tri-X.

Be warned, however, that the film base is rather curly and thin.

Overall, it's a great film. I've used the SHD 100 and SHD 400 in both 120 and 35mm. Both look great exposed at the box speed and developed in D-76.

Have fun with it.

 

[BWKate]

I've also tried it and liked the look of it. When I went to China in April/May of this year I bought some over there and brought it home to develop in Kodak D-76. Another apug member gave me a recommendation on developing and it worked very well. I think it was 1:3 at 12 minutes for the 35mm Lucky 100.

 

[kjsphoto]

Thanks for the feedback! Do you know if they have this film in sheet film or just roll?

 

[BWKate]

I don't know about 4 X 5 sheet film being available in Lucky film. Search the threads in B&W film and you'll find who gave me the developing info. I also googled Lucky film and there is a web site. Just choose the English version if it's an option.

 

[htmlguru4242]

http://www.luckyfilm.com.cn/eng/

That is there (sort of) English section. It's understandable, but a bit confusing. I don't SEE the film in sheet, but it may be there somewhere.

I'd like to try push-processing the stuff just to see what happens.

 

[ZorkiKat]

1+3 in D76, or 1+50 for 11 minutes in Rodinal does great for Luckypan 100.
Do not try to push process it. Cotnrast becomes very high and film becomes difficult to print.

Jay

 

[timeUnit]

Every now and then I have marks in the emulsion looking like coating defects (almost like brush strokes). Other than that it's great for the price. I shoot SHD 100 in 35 mm, and both SHD100 and SHD400 in MF. Don't try to push the 400 version... not pretty. I shoot the 100-version @ ISO 50 from time to time and love the halos...

Here's a few:
http://www.fotosidan.se/pools/view/16/686707.htm (lith print)
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

 

[livemoa]

I haven't used it, my process in black and white is Ilford only. But according to a couple of local photographers the quality control at Lucky is variable... but when it is good it is really good. These guys had only used 35mm, they prefer Ilford or Kodak and would only use Lucky if they could not get Ilford or Kodak.

There is a rumour (and I stress rumour) that it is produced at a factory that was or is part of a Kodak jv

 

[ZorkiKat]

I haven't used it, my process in black and white is Ilford only. But according to a couple of local photographers the quality control at Lucky is variable... but when it is good it is really good. These guys had only used 35mm, they prefer Ilford or Kodak and would only use Lucky if they could not get Ilford or Kodak.

There is a rumour (and I stress rumour) that it is produced at a factory that was or is part of a Kodak jv

I was never disappointed with Luckypan (and even Lucky colour negative) films. I used them a lot when they were available here. There's a lot of Kodak-like qualities in Lucky films. Their ISO 100 BWs remind of a somewhat Plus-X luminosity, resolution, and even grain. The only thing different is the tendency of highlights to create halos. This last trait would be of value to those who shoot with old gear and lenses.

Their colour negative films reminded me of old Kodacolor II with its rather dense brown-orange masking. Many commercial labs don't like printing Lucky colour because of the different 'channels' (ie filter pack settings) required to yield good prints. Some have dismissed this film as bad outright, incapable of making decently-coloured pictures. But I found it otherwise. When I printed it myself or sent it to a more 'patient' lab, the resulting prints had excellent colour. It's a bit toned down, the hues don't scream, but reds, blues, and flesh tones were excellent.

Lucky uses some technology from Kodak. It's on their website.

Jay

 

[timeUnit]

I think one should not regard Lucky films as high quality. It's more of a toy film, and can be lots of fun. Just like a Holga is a great camera, full of surprises. The lack of anti-halation layer is a blessing, something that makes lucky unique. Photos taken on Lucky film can have a dreamy quality that is wonderful.

But comparing to pro quality films like Ilford's or Kodak's isn't fair or relevant, IMO.

No disrespect to ZorkiKat who finds Kodak-like qualities in the film, of course.

 

[livemoa]

I was never disappointed with Luckypan (and even Lucky colour negative) films. I used them a lot when they were available here. There's a lot of Kodak-like qualities in Lucky films. Their ISO 100 BWs remind of a somewhat Plus-X luminosity, resolution, and even grain. The only thing different is the tendency of highlights to create halos. This last trait would be of value to those who shoot with old gear and lenses.

Their colour negative films reminded me of old Kodacolor II with its rather dense brown-orange masking. Many commercial labs don't like printing Lucky colour because of the different 'channels' (ie filter pack settings) required to yield good prints. Some have dismissed this film as bad outright, incapable of making decently-coloured pictures. But I found it otherwise. When I printed it myself or sent it to a more 'patient' lab, the resulting prints had excellent colour. It's a bit toned down, the hues don't scream, but reds, blues, and flesh tones were excellent.

Lucky uses some technology from Kodak. It's on their website.

Jay

Sounds interesting, I might try a couple of rolls some time soon. I have a couple of very old uncoated lenses that might respond well.

 

[ZorkiKat]

"Lucky" examples

Its not fair either to put Lucky films at the bottom of list either. These films can do better than just being "toy" films for toy cameras. I have used Lucky for many professional applications (editorial, cd inserts: shoots which I got paid for).

Here is an example of the Lucky 'glow' in BW. This was exposed through a deep red filter. Camera was a Leica with a FED 50 lens:

It can also be used for portraiture in studio applications. This was published in a local magazine:

An example of Lucky colour film shot outdoors. A warming filter was used over the lens:

And in the studio again. This shot was used for a cd insert:

One doesn't have to be lucky to use Lucky film. Granted that it may require some form of extra handling (especially for their colour emulsions), but the "non-Kodak/non-Ilford" results one gets makes Lucky worth using.

Jay

 

[3Dfan]

I could see it being useful for DR5 due to its allegedly clear base, but DR5 doesn't have a review for it yet.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Is "DR5" a direct reversal process? I can assure you that Luckypan 100 has a very clear base. I have the impression that this film's transparent areas are a bit cleaner than Tmax 100. I've had one roll of Luckypan 100 reversal-processed using modified ORWO instructions and formula. Transparencies came out quite well. I can look for the slides and post a scan.

Jay

 

[Ryuji]

Does the Lucky SHD 100 come on near-clear base in both 35mm and 120 sizes, or just 120 size? (I am thinking towards the former because the latter is nothing new, and I don't know of a Leica that takes 120 film

Do both 35mm and 120 sizes create that type of halation, or only in 35mm?

With little or no anti-halo measure, resolution will suffer, but I can certainly see applications for it...

 

[ZorkiKat]

Does the Lucky SHD 100 come on near-clear base in both 35mm and 120 sizes, or just 120 size? (I am thinking towards the former because the latter is nothing new, and I don't know of a Leica that takes 120 film

Do both 35mm and 120 sizes create that type of halation, or only in 35mm?

With little or no anti-halo measure, resolution will suffer, but I can certainly see applications for it...

I can say that the 35mm version of Luckypan 100 has the clearest film base that I've seen. I can't speak for 120 since I haven't had the chance to use it. The film has some form of antihalo (a prewet bath comes out with some colour), but the film really makes halos around bright areas in certain situations. Halos are not standard feature with every Lucky exposure

Jay

 

[Ryuji]

One more question... Are SHD 100 and Luckypan 100 same film on same base?

Sounds like I should get a brick of 100 speed in 35mm and 400 speed in 120 and test them!

 

[Ryuji]

J&C website seems broken and I can't check their merchandise, but I see SDH100 in 35mm listed on Freestyle website. The picture of the box says "New" but is this still the old crappy halo-prone shit that we are talking about? (Yes that's the only reason I'm trying it!)

 

[srs5694]

I believe that the "new" at the Freestyle site refers to the fact that they hadn't carried Lucky film until recently. I can't promise that Lucky hasn't recently changed their anti-halation properties, though. If you're mainly interested in a film with poor anti-halation properties, you might want to give 35mm Foma film a try. This is also sold as Arista.EDU Ultra (not to be confused with Arista.EDU without the "Ultra") by Freestyle. I can't directly compare the Lucky and Foma films, though, since I've never used the Lucky film. I actually like the Foma films, except for the poor anti-halation characteristics.

 

[Ryuji]

The "New" appears on the Lucky box in the picture, not in the description, so I don't think it has anything to do with the timing of Freestyle offer...

 

[ZorkiKat]

The "new" is to differentiate the current Luckypan SHD 100 from the old Luckypan 100. I couldn't really differentiate one from the other. I was able to use both at the same time. Too bad it's no longer available here.

BTW, Lucky has a clearer base than Fomapan 100. The latter looks more grey/blue.

 

[ZorkiKat]

...official Lucky literature said that "new" Lucky SHD('super high definition) 100 had higher resolution, more latitude than the former Luckypan 100. The packaging was different. The old Luckypan was grey/blue and the newer one has mostly white, grey with a splash of blue and red colour motifs.

Developing times were the same, and the difference between old and new Lucky pan was hard to tell. Yes, the halation qualities is still with the 'new' Luckpan SHD.

This shot was made with the 'new' emulsion- halos still there. Film was developed in D76 1+3 for 13 mins at 20C:

BTW, Lucky was derived from the Chinese 'Lekai'.

 

[Ryuji]

Thanks for the info! New and improved, cut the crap but I still appreciate all those lies, at least in this case!!!

 

[3Dfan]

Is "DR5" a direct reversal process?

Jay

Yes. The site for it is http://www.dr5.com . The site has quite a few reviews for different films. There is an icon for lucky film but the review has yet to be posted.