New film? Jiangshi 400

[loccdor]

Just got this in my inbox from Film Photography Project. It has not been mentioned on Photrio. Any ideas? Is it a product from the makers of Shanghai GP3?

35mm BW Film - Jiangshi 400 (1 Roll)

JIANGSHI 400 35mm BW FILM35mm / 1 Roll / BW / 24 exp / 200 - 400 iso / DX Coded (400) / Process BW A new, versatile BW negative film with wide exposure latitude made for general outdoor and studio photography. Jiangshi 400 is marketed as 400 iso; however, you may see better results when setting...

filmphotographystore.com

 

[Donald Qualls]

Description of the real speed and emulsion defects resemble reports I've seen on Fomapan 400. "Not widely available in the US" would argue against that, though.

 

[koraks]

The times listed on the sales page are those for Lucky SHD400. Compare:

To:

Im Osten nichts Neues.

Description of the real speed and emulsion defects resemble reports I've seen on Fomapan 400.

But the rendering of the skin tones is most definitely not Fomapan 400.

 

[Paul Howell]

It's DX coded, Foma films are not coded.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

• Test results show best results when shot at 200 iso

This looks like Foma

But agree, skin tones on the test doesn't look like Foma at all, IMHO.

 

[loccdor]

Ok, good to know for lovers of Lucky SHD 400! I've never tried it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am looking forward to seeing photographs using the film.

 

[Yezishu]

The blue base color reminds me of the Lucky SHD 400 and its original type Lucky Aerial Film 1023(real ISO 160). If the film is very thin and has some smell, it can be confirmed.

SHD 400 is one of the cheapest B/W films available in China, but it doesn't have good reputation as Foma. Personally, I haven't experienced serious issues with it (as shown in the attached image, the scratches were caused by my scanning, not from flim). However, many users have reported various quality problems, including scratches, defects, and even mold. These issues might be due to older stock film source that wasn't newly produced, which may also result in lower actual ISO.

 

[Sanug]

My Lucky SHD400 came out as follows. I was not lucky at all. Scrap.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My Lucky SHD400 came out as follows. I was not lucky at all. Scrap.

View attachment 394781

The first suspect it the paper backing, but that would be for 120 film, not the 24 exposure roll of 35mm film.

 

[loccdor]

"Well spotted"!

 

[Sanug]

There is a hint to Lucky in the advertisment text.

Michael Raso from the Film Photography Podcast said: "We’ve all tried it here at the FPP and we feel “lucky” to have discovered this great, new emulsion!"

 

[koraks]

The first suspect it the paper backing, but that would be for 120 film, not the 24 exposure roll of 35mm film.

It's just pinholes in the emulsion due to a coating problem. There's no mystery there.

 

[ags2mikon]

Why? Kentmere 400 is the same price within pennies and is Ilford quality control. I'll pass.

 

[Sanug]

Kentmere is even superior due to its real sensitivity. While Lucky reaches ISO 200 only, you can use Kentmere 400 even at ISO 800. Or use Kentmere 100 at ISO 200. The prolonged development does not lead to hard negatives. Kentmere films are working quite flat.

However, I like every new film manufacturer to come on the market. Even from China. But they must solve their quality problems. It is not a good idea to sell such junk.

 

[Paul Howell]

Why? Kentmere 400 is the same price within pennies and is Ilford quality control. I'll pass.

Same thought, with Kentmere and various house brands of Kentmere not to mention Foma, and the cost of film why spend money on film with such poor QC.

 

[Sanug]

The poor QC is a reason why I avoid Foma 120 films. I had endless issues. I am really happy about the decision of Harman to bring Kentmere in 120.

 

[koraks]

The poor QC is a reason why I avoid Foma 120 films. I had endless issues. I am really happy about the decision of Harman to bring Kentmere in 120.

OK. But this thread is neither about Foma, nor Kentmere.

 

[Sanug]

OK. But this thread is neither about Foma, nor Kentmere.

Sorry for my offtopic.

Back to the topic. The development time for Xtol/XT-3 is way too short! With 6.5 Min. at ISO 400 you may end up with very thin negatives and empty shadows.
I had Lucky SHD400 in XT-3, 1+2, 18 Min. with good density at ISO 200. With 1+1 I would expect 12:00 Min.

Maybe you will be more lucky with a different charge of the material. My defective sample had the expiry date 06/2027.

It is important to fix as long as for a T-grain film. My clearing time was about 2 minutes. Be careful not to fix too short.
The blue colour looks like an anti halation layer. In fact I don´t see any halation. The color disappeared completely in the processing without any bleeding. The film base was nearly clear after the processing.
There are no frame numbers or other information at the perforation.

 

[pentaxuser]

Kentmere is even superior due to its real sensitivity. While Lucky reaches ISO 200 only, you can use Kentmere 400 even at ISO 800. Or use Kentmere 100 at ISO 200. The prolonged development does not lead to hard negatives. Kentmere films are working quite flat.

However, I like every new film manufacturer to come on the market. Even from China. But they must solve their quality problems. It is not a good idea to sell such junk.

I agree with your last sentence but such film will continue to be sold as long as enough people act like a moth to a candle whenever the word "new" is used in the context of film

pentaxuser

 

[Sanug]

Well, I must admit to be curious when a new manufacturer enters the film market. I am aware of the risk and do not use such experimental material for serious purposes. And my investment for the film itself was very low (3 Euro incl. shipping at Aliexpress). Anyway, I was quite surprised about that quality failure.

 

[koraks]

In fact I don´t see any halation.

Now that you mention it; in this regard, the film performs quite well. The QA issue is a pity.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Moto Photo I worked at part time in the late 90s to early 2000s sold Lucky color and Black and White, the few rolls I shot were OK, not great, as noted 400 was a reach, one roll had pin holes in the emulsion. The color was much better as I was told it was Kodacolor as Kodak sold Lucky a 80s vintage coating line.

 

[Don_ih]

If it's the Lucky aerial film that's called SDH400 in a new wrapper, iso160 is optimistic. I have a bulk roll and I'd say proper exposure might be as low as 64. It's fine at 100. I doubt pushing more would do anything except make it horrible.

 

[Sanug]

My SHD400 was fine at ISO 200 concerning contrast, density and anti-halation. Sensitivity was not an issue, but the heavy coating defects.