Lucky SHD 100 - Your Experience?

[chuckroast]

'Just mentioned this in another thread, but thought I'd break it our for separate discussion:

what was the last camera you used, last film and how was it developed

The longer I use it, the more I like Kentmere 100. Now I am pushing to ISO 400 with excellent results, especially when the Sujet has low contrast. Staircase in the City Museum Düsseldorf, Germany. Central station, Cologne, Germany. Canon 7s, Russar 5.6/20 mm Kentmere 100, ISO 400 Adox XT-3...

www.photrio.com

The old Lucky was a really good traditional film but suffered badly from poor quality control. When I heard they'd reinvented the company and revisited the film, I decided to try some.

I shot my first roll with a Hasselblad and a 100mm f/3.5 lens, exposing at EI 80. Semistand developed it for 30min in Pyrocat-HDC.

The film took the stain very nicely and the negatives look great on a lightbox. Hoping to silver print later this evening.

Anyone else using this stuff in any of the available formats?

 

[chuckroast]

Print scans from the above:

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I have a few rolls of SHD 100 that I recently purchased but haven't used yet. However, I am more likely to reversal process these rolls than develop them as negatives. I was told by the seller that SHD 100 doesn't suffer from the emulsion defects that are commonly found in SHD 400. Did you notice any defects in the roll you developed?

 

[chuckroast]

I have a few rolls of SHD 100 that I recently purchased but haven't used yet. However, I am more likely to reversal process these rolls than develop them as negatives. I was told by the seller that SHD 100 doesn't suffer from the emulsion defects that are commonly found in SHD 400. Did you notice any defects in the roll you developed?

None noted, but again, I only tried one roll thus far.