processing foreign film

[kanthony]

i have four rolls of film from china left over that i just found, and need to process them. i am not sure of how long to develop these rolls. does any one know where i can find charts for developing chinese film?
thank you

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Are they B&W? Is this "Lucky" brand film? You might be able to find a chart for it. Try the "Massive Dev Chart" at www.digitaltruth.com and Google the film brand and a popular developer like "D-76" or "HC-110."

If not, it's probably a traditional B&W film, so find something of similar speed, for instance if it is a 400 speed film use a chart for Tri-X or HP-5, test with one roll, and then use your results with that roll to estimate the time for the subsequent rolls.

 

[kanthony]

thnx. it is b&w and it is "lucky" film. all of it is 100 speed. i appriciate your response.

 

[Bob F.]

There is www.luckyfilm.com - warning: pitifully slow server, and not a lot of info, but probably worth a look.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Ian Grant]

If it's the latest Lucky 100iso emulsion, treat it as if it's Tmax 100, they have bought into Kodaks expertise. There was an short article in the BJP last year.

 

[jandc]

If it's the latest Lucky 100iso emulsion, treat it as if it's Tmax 100, they have bought into Kodaks expertise. There was an short article in the BJP last year.

We tested Lucky 100 and 400, 35mm and 120, as we were thinking of importing it into the US. While many have speculated it's like Tmax and the rumors are out there it behaves nothing like Tmax. It acts like a conventional B&W film with an inadequate anti halo coating causing problems with point light sources.

 

[Ian Grant]

We tested Lucky 100 and 400, 35mm and 120, as we were thinking of importing it into the US. While many have speculated it's like Tmax and the rumors are out there it behaves nothing like Tmax. It acts like a conventional B&W film with an inadequate anti halo coating causing problems with point light sources.

They weren't rumours.

I will have to try and find the BJP article which was from a press release, this indicated that Lucky would be mamufacturing T-max type emulsions under license from Kodak. I'd think the Press Release was by Kodak rather than Lucky.

In fact somewhere I have a Test report on Lucky 400 ISO B&W film saying how identiaclly it resembles Tmax, I only get the BJP regularly and it wasn't there, so I'm sure the test article was in a B&W Photography magazine I bought just before Xmas.

It is possible they tested pre-release materials, however I don't think so as Lucky new tecnnology films are available here in the UK.

 

[jandc]

They weren't rumours.

I will have to try and find the BJP article which was from a press release, this indicated that Lucky would be mamufacturing T-max type emulsions under license from Kodak. I'd think the Press Release was by Kodak rather than Lucky.

In fact somewhere I have a Test report on Lucky 400 ISO B&W film saying how identiaclly it resembles Tmax, I only get the BJP regularly and it wasn't there, so I'm sure the test article was in a B&W Photography magazine I bought just before Xmas.

It is possible they tested pre-release materials, however I don't think so as Lucky new tecnnology films are available here in the UK.

Lucky films are available in Europe and the UK. Since they are available there try it and see for yourself.

The fact that some magazine ran a blurb saying Kodak and Lucky were cooperating (which is true) doesn't mean the production product for sale is Tmax like film.

We tested it last January(2004) with film Lucky sent us to evaluate prior to placing an order. So unless something has changed in the last year I have to disagree with you on this.

The 400 film gave a speed of around 250 at best and was also a conventional film.

 

[Ian Grant]

We tested it last January(2004) with film Lucky sent us to evaluate prior to placing an order. So unless something has changed in the last year I have to disagree with you on this.

I think we are both right.

The British Journal of Photography is not a publication for the amateur market & the press release about Kodak & Lucky indicated that Kodak saw licensing their technology as a way of gaining income from the lucrative Chinese market.

Now checking a little the agreement dates from 23/10/03, so the film you tested January 04 was definately not the new emulsions released during the latter part of 2004.

To quote Dan Carp, March 04: "We made a strategic investment in China's Lucky Film Company, to expand our presence in emerging markets, and as part of our strategy to keep increasing our manufacturing share in film."

Kodak were expecting to payout $100 million last year after taking a 20% stake in Lucky: http://www.pressi.com/int/release/76894.html

So any resulting new films would have to be capable of matching the best available from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc.

Quoting one highly respected UK supplier: "With a name like this there is little doubt of the origin - 'Lucky' is a Chinese made black and white film in 100 and 400 ISO, in 35mm and 120 formats. Performance on tests so far indicates make-up along the lines of TMax, which wouldn't be surprising as Kodak are suppplied the technology."

I'll buy 10 rolls tomorrow in 120 to test.
http://www.made-in-china.com/produc..._Sensitive_Product_Lucky_New_SHD400_Film.html

 

[Jeremy]

Any chance we could talk them into running an order of Lucky TMY in sheet sizes?

Just a thought....

 

[jandc]

I am looking at the boxes of Lucky 100 and 400 left over from our testing. They are both labeled "new improved". Before we get real excited abut this being TMY let's see what happens in testing the stuff available in Europe. I find it hard to believe that the legendary bean counters at Kodak would put TMY out as a second brand cheaper product at the potential expense of the name brand product. I can't think of one instance when Kodak has done something like this, unlike Ilford, Agfa, Forte etc.

 

[Ian Grant]

10 rolls of Lucky 100 & 400 in 120 now ordered, may take 3-4 days to arrive.

As Kodak now have a 20% stake in Lucky and are supplying technology etc, it is not unexpected that the new Lucky B&W emulsions are new technology, and quite different to the older films. As the emulsion, film base and antihalation layer have been changed these are effectively completely new films.

While no-one has said they are Tmax films as they share the same technology it is likely they have many similar characteristics, and are comparable to Tmax, Agfa APX100 and Ilford Delta films in quality.

Martin Reed of Silverprint writes: Performance on tests so far indicates make-up along the lines of TMax, which wouldn't be surprising as Kodak are suppplied the technology.

So I'll test a couple of rolls as soon as they arrive.

 

[jandc]

"While no-one has said they are Tmax films"

This is what everyone seems to be expecting from the film as indicated in the posts above. My point was don't hold your breath thinking this was going to be cheap Tmax.

Please check the film with light sources in the photo. The antihalo of the film we tested was not very effective. I'd be curious to see if it has changed.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I thought one of the things Kodak was going to provide was help with QC for Lucky. I'd be suprised if Kodak has managed to make a lot of changes with Lucky already. Remember Lucky makes more then B&W film.

I guess no chance of Lucky colour sheet film?-)

 

[jandc]

I had these pictures taken of fresh new production Lucky SHD in Germany this morning. The thiness of the emulsion and virtually no antihalo layer is exactly like the film we tested last year. Compared to Tmax there is no comparison.

 

[Ian Grant]

If I turm my Tmax (just opened) over it looks the same as the Lucky.

Your image shows a rear views of Tmax & Lucky, it's totally irrelevant, the Tmax looks like its leader has had quite a bit of latent exposure as its gray, its salmon pink and thin from a newly opened carton and wrapping. Anyone on this forum can test this for themselves.

Only using the film will actually give us an accurate opinion and you told me to try it, which I am doing at your request and you know I've ordered the film in both 100 & 400 ISO versions which should have been despatched today.

 

[jandc]

If I turm my Tmax (just opened) over it looks the same as the Lucky.

Your image shows a rear views of Tmax & Lucky, it's totally irrelevant, the Tmax looks like its leader has had quite a bit of latent exposure as its gray, its salmon pink and thin from a newly opened carton and wrapping. Anyone on this forum can test this for themselves.

Only using the film will actually give us an accurate opinion and you told me to try it, which I am doing at your request and you know I've ordered the film in both 100 & 400 ISO versions which should have been despatched today.

So you can read a printed page through your Tmax film? I just pulled a roll open and I can't. Even from a freshly exposed pink area.

I really do appreciate that you are doing a test of the film. I am awaiting your results. However, that does not preclude me for posting additional information.

The two leaders were sitting out for the same amount of time. But the Lucky is not opaque.

We can clearly see that the anti halo layer of the Lucky is nothing like Tmax. So we have a piece of evidence that the technology is different. The anti halo layer in Tmax is a big deal with regards to it's performance. That is the point the pictures I posted were making.

I don't really care how this comes out. I don't sell Lucky and except for sheet films I don't sell Tmax. If you prove that they are close cousins and that Lucky is 80% of Tmax great. I'll order a 100,000 rolls of each and sell it. If you find what we did that is also fine.

What I know is that when we tested the film labeled as "New SHD 100 and 400" it was lousy. I also know that the sales in Europe are well below expectations. There are hundreds of thousands of rolls sitting in warehouses in Europe aging. If it was really a cousin of Tmax at 2 Euro or less a roll, one of the cheapest films in Europe, I would think it would have taken off after a year.

 

[fschifano]

A friend of mine recently returned from a trip to mainland China and brought back 20 rolls of 120 Lucky SHD 100. I shot a couple of rolls of this stuff and it's not bad, though nothing I'd get too excited about. First off, there is not much information out there about developers for this film save full strength D-76. I made an educated guess and figured that 10 minutes at 68 deg. F in D-76 1+1 would do. I was right. Most of my frames printed well on my diffusion enlarger with a grade 2 filter. Those that didn't needed anywhere from 1 1/2 to 3. The anti-halation quality of this film is indeed lacking. That much was obvious as soom as I hung the negatives to dry. Strong backlighting resulted in the familiar "halo" effect, much as what you see in images made on Kodak HIE. The other characteristic of this film is that it naturally wants to curl up into a tube once dry. TMX and TMY dry nice and flat, so you know they're not using the same base as Kodak. There are no edge markings on the 120 film. The grain structure, when viewed under the focusing microscope, reminded me a lot of TMX as did the overall look of the final prints. The film is very sharp. If they improve the anti halation quality of this film and can sell it for a low price, they could have a winner. If you deliberatly want the halo effect without the bother and expense of using something exotic like microfilm or infrared, then this stuff is ok too.