Luckyfilm shd 50. Has anyone heard anything about this film?

[Warmaji]

One late night I found myself scrolling on reflx lab's website and came across this filmstock I can find any information on.

SHD50 BLACK & WHITE 35MM 100FT BULK ROLL

Made in Heibei, China by Lucky Film Fresh date Film Format: 35mm black and white negative ISO: 50 (we recommend shooting at iso25) With this bulk roll, you can respool 19 rolls of 135 film (36EXP)

reflxlab.com

They only offer it in bulk rolls last I checked, and I have found a single thread on the rangefinder forums and one person experimenting with it a bit on threads, I believe. There's nothing I can really find on it, and honestly at some point in the near future I might just buy it to figure it out.

 

[jlin]

One late night I found myself scrolling on reflx lab's website and came across this filmstock I can find any information on.

SHD50 BLACK & WHITE 35MM 100FT BULK ROLL

Made in Heibei, China by Lucky Film Fresh date Film Format: 35mm black and white negative ISO: 50 (we recommend shooting at iso25) With this bulk roll, you can respool 19 rolls of 135 film (36EXP)

reflxlab.com

They only offer it in bulk rolls last I checked, and I have found a single thread on the rangefinder forums and one person experimenting with it a bit on threads, I believe. There's nothing I can really find on it, and honestly at some point in the near future I might just buy it to figure it out.

I bought it before tariffs kicked in, 50 some dollars, from Aliexpress. Shot it at ISO 6-12. Use C41 developer to tame high contrast.

 

[koraks]

That's interesting; despite the liberal exposure, it seems that shadow detail is still rather scant.

 

[jlin]

That's interesting; despite the liberal exposure, it seems that shadow detail is still rather scant.

it got worse from there.

 

[koraks]

If that's indeed exposed at EI6-12 and metering wasn't exclusively based on the highlights, it seems that the ISO50 rating is rather overoptimistic.
There's an odd light spot/edge in the bottom right corner of the second example; what's the story behind that?

 

[jlin]

If that's indeed exposed at EI6-12 and metering wasn't exclusively based on the highlights, it seems that the ISO50 rating is rather overoptimistic.
There's an odd light spot/edge in the bottom right corner of the second example; what's the story behind that?

it is time to check light leak in my old Canon Ftb, no such light spot when I used the same film in Olympus OM1

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Could be interesting for reversal. @jlin is the base tinted or clear?

 

[koraks]

it is time to check light leak in my old Canon Ftb, no such light spot when I used the same film in Olympus OM1

Could it be related to scanning/digitizing? If it were a light leak, I would have expected shadow detail to be locally enhanced as the leak would have acted as a fogging exposure. I see no sign of this.

I know it's a lot to ask, but is there a possibility we can get to see a photo of some of the negatives against a light table? This helps to determine how much shadow density there actually is in the negatives. Future users of the film can use this to their advantage. Thanks in advance!

Could be interesting for reversal.

Interesting thought for sure!

 

[jlin]

Could it be related to scanning/digitizing? If it were a light leak, I would have expected shadow detail to be locally enhanced as the leak would have acted as a fogging exposure. I see no sign of this.

I know it's a lot to ask, but is there a possibility we can get to see a photo of some of the negatives against a light table? This helps to determine how much shadow density there actually is in the negatives. Future users of the film can use this to their advantage. Thanks in advance!


Interesting thought for sure!

good point! getting ready for work, will check the negatives later,

 

[Alan Johnson]

Ordered a roll of this to investigate for my interest in high resolution 35mm.
I am not happy with Adox HR-50 (white specks on dark areas) or King Mono 50 (Manufacturers mark intermittent in the centre of the width) as replacement for the discontinued Adox CMS 20 II.

 

[chuckroast]

Ordered a roll of this to investigate for my interest in high resolution 35mm.
I am not happy with Adox HR-50 (white specks on dark areas) or King Mono 50 (Manufacturers mark intermittent in the centre of the width) as replacement for the discontinued Adox CMS 20 II.

I don't know if it is available in 35mm, but I have gotten very fine results with Lucky SHD 100 in 120 format, semistand developed in Pyrocat-HDC.

 

[xiaruan]

In China, the SHD50 film is not officially sold by Lucky (the manufacturer), but rather by some distributors, and it does not carry the Lucky branding. Based on testing by enthusiasts, this film should be shot at ISO 25 and developed in ultra-soft tone developer to achieve normal tonal results. Therefore, some speculate that it might be a copy film produced by Lucky, which distributors have repackaged and sold as SHD50.

 

[jlin]

Could it be related to scanning/digitizing? If it were a light leak, I would have expected shadow detail to be locally enhanced as the leak would have acted as a fogging exposure. I see no sign of this.

I know it's a lot to ask, but is there a possibility we can get to see a photo of some of the negatives against a light table? This helps to determine how much shadow density there actually is in the negatives. Future users of the film can use this to their advantage. Thanks in advance!


Interesting thought for sure!

ok, checked the negatives. It was my scanning issue, not camera light leak. thanks for catching that.
also. the film base is clear.
Finally, earlier samples were from a roll underexposed, iso 12-20. Here is an example from a better exposed roll, iso 6.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

the film base is clear.

Thanks for checking and confirming. Clear base makes the film more interesting for reversal processing.

 

[koraks]

Here is an example from a better exposed roll, iso 6.

Thanks for the follow-up; I must be honest - I don't see much difference with the former ones in terms of exposure.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

It could be the developer. I'll wait to see the results from @Alan Johnson's CD4-LC developer which seems to work very well with similar films.

 

[koraks]

It could be the developer.

I'm not too sure about that. Whatever developer was used here, it did produce an image. If there would have been exposure in the shadow areas, surely it would have resulted in silver density. If there really is a significant difference in exposure between the frames, you'd see that reflected in differences in shadow detail. I suspect that it has to do with how the scenes were metered.

 

[jlin]

Thanks for the follow-up; I must be honest - I don't see much difference with the former ones in terms of exposure.

The reason I think the last one was better exposed was because the negative was much darker in the sky. (The difference between the two rolls is quite obvious, one is much thinner than the other overall.) I did try hard to adjust the curves, using photoshop, of the first two images. You are right in that the dark areas don't look different. Your insights? Maybe iso 6 is not worth the trouble? Still playing with this film and inputs appreciated.

 

[koraks]

How did you meter these scenes?

 

[jlin]

How did you meter these scenes?

I eyeball the scenes and go with the high keys. These are all late afternoon scenes and inherently high contrast.