Shot Lucky C200 New Color Film

Thank you for sharing your real world experience. This does look quite promising, once they sort out the production quality.

LomoSnap said:

I only work in the darkroom, so I don't scan the negative film. These photos were enlarged using Kodak Premier Digital Paper and scanned and uploaded using an Epson scanner calibrated with IT8.


View attachment 403956View attachment 403957View attachment 403958View attachment 403959View attachment 403960View attachment 403961View attachment 403962View attachment 403963View attachment 403964

Click to expand...

Can you explain what you do to produce these pictures for us when you say "These photos were enlarged using Kodak Premier Digital paper?

I think you mean that you enlarge the negative on a scanner then print on Premier Digital paper. You don't use darkroom paper under the negative in an enlarger and then print using RA4 ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

blee1996 said:

Thank you for sharing your real world experience.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, totally great @LomoSnap ! Thanks so much for sharing these. Congrats on the prints; they look very good to me. Well done indeed. This looks like a pretty mature CN film, quite similar to consumer CN film that was sold by the thousands in drugstores and convenience stores in the 1990s.


I like that detail; I used to have something like that in my previous darkroom. It becomes second nature at some point, but it's still nice to have a reference like this. And it works well for you, too, judging by the pleasing color balance you realized on those prints.

LomoSnap said:

The emulsion defects are all over the film, and dense dot marks can be seen everywhere.

Click to expand...

Yet, your prints look relatively clean. I see some small spots here and there - is that what you're referring to? The photo of the curved negative shows what looks like some debris; usually this is the result of particles clinging to the film during fixing, washing or drying.
The only clear defects I can see that are really inherent to the film are these little colored spots:

I would explain these as minor problems in emulsification and/or filtration. Color emulsions are a bit tricky in that the color couplers are oil-like and the gelatin emulsion is water-based, so making an emulsion like this one much like mixing oil and water. We saw similar things in Harman Phoenix.

pentaxuser said:

You don't use darkroom paper under the negative in an enlarger and then print using RA4 ?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what he did. The paper is just called "Premier Digital". All RA4 papers presently in production are 'digital' papers. They can still be used for optical enlargements.

pentaxuser said:

Can you explain what you do to produce these pictures for us when you say "These photos were enlarged using Kodak Premier Digital paper?

I think you mean that you enlarge the negative on a scanner then print on Premier Digital paper. You don't use darkroom paper under the negative in an enlarger and then print using RA4 ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Just as Harman makes black and white paper designed for digital exposure and machine (chemical) development, I expect that the remaining bits of Chinese production of Kodak branded RA4 paper included paper designed for digital exposure.
Those digital exposure silver halide papers are aimed at the part of the photofinishing industry that still uses high volume machines and chemical development, rather than coloured ink.

koraks said:

I like that detail; I used to have something like that in my previous darkroom. It becomes second nature at some point, but it's still nice to have a reference like this. And it works well for you, too, judging by the pleasing color balance you realized on those prints.

Click to expand...

I have this color wheel because I still have a Philips PCS 2000 additive color enlarger in my darkroom and I need to remind myself of the additive/subtractive color process.

koraks said:

Yet, your prints look relatively clean. I see some small spots here and there - is that what you're referring to? The photo of the curved negative shows what looks like some debris; usually this is the result of particles clinging to the film during fixing, washing or drying.
The only clear defects I can see that are really inherent to the film are these little colored spots:

Click to expand...

Yes, I blew it up to 8x10" and it's hard to see the emulsion spots without looking closely. But it's definitely in the emulsion, not the process or drying process, I can see the same spots on the unprocessed film.

pentaxuser said:

Can you explain what you do to produce these pictures for us when you say "These photos were enlarged using Kodak Premier Digital paper?

Click to expand...

I make contect sheet prints of the negative film, and then I selected the photos and enlarged them individually. The enlarged paper I used was called "Kodak Premier Digital paper".
Finally, I used Epson 10000xl to scan these papers for sharing on the Internet.

MattKing said:

I expect that the remaining bits of Chinese production of Kodak branded RA4 paper included paper designed for digital exposure.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Chinese Kodak paper produced by Lucky is all optimized for digital, not so good for darkroom use but usable. I can feel that the color perception in the filter adjustment is different from my experience and expectations of using the original Kodak paper.

I got the news from the sales agent before Sinopromise closed down, and stocked up some original Premier Digital Paper and ENDURA Paper. These photos were made using the original Premier Digital Paper.

Thank you for sharing these. Looks very promising and much closer to a "normal" or mature C41 film than anything currently not coming out of Kodak's factory. As for price, I think the days of truly cheap film are long gone and we all need to accept that.

The colours look nice, bright and vibrant how much was a cassette compared to Kodak/Fuii

BMbikerider said:

The colours look nice, bright and vibrant how much was a cassette compared to Kodak/Fuii

Click to expand...

Now it sells for about 59RMB (~8.2USD), The official channel says it includes basic developing and scanning costs (about 13RMB (~2USD) Yes, in China, film processing services are generally very cheap). But the quality often leaves something to be desired.

My point is that if it sells the film without processing and scanning, and the price is around 40RMB (~5.5USD), it might be a reasonable price. If it is more expensive, Kodak Gold is a better choice.

I have not seen any for sale in UK yet but may be worth a trial.

I have just had a look at one dealer site in UK and they have Lucky black and white in 35mm, Also Shanghai 400 colour negative film in both 35mm and bulk rolls for reloading 35mm cassettes. Perhaps we me get some 'lucky' 35mm colour in the near future

Thanks all for the explanation. It was the phrase digital paper that confused me and made me wonder if this was a non darkroom paper

I also like the look of this film and as the OP says if it becomes available at less that Kodak Gold's price it looks like a winner

pentaxuser

I'm eagerly awaiting this new film. I hope it arrives in Europe soon and will be sold at a competitive price. I love Kodak and the quality of their products, but I think they're going too far with the price increases. This shouldn't be an expensive hobby for the crazy & rich guys, but rather a way to give people the freedom to choose between digital and analog, just like CDs and vinyl, which are still produced and readily available.

BMbikerider said:

I have not seen any for sale in UK yet but may be worth a trial.

I have just had a look at one dealer site in UK and they have Lucky black and white in 35mm, Also Shanghai 400 colour negative film in both 35mm and bulk rolls for reloading 35mm cassettes. Perhaps we me get some 'lucky' 35mm colour in the near future

Click to expand...

Spektrum said:

I'm eagerly awaiting this new film. I hope it arrives in Europe soon and will be sold at a competitive price. I love Kodak and the quality of their products, but I think they're going too far with the price increases. This shouldn't be an expensive hobby for the crazy & rich guys, but rather a way to give people the freedom to choose between digital and analog, just like CDs and vinyl, which are still produced and readily available.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, this sale is for a small-scale production test batch, including internal testing, losses and sales. The total quantity is only about 10,000 rolls. The official batches for mass production have not yet been put on sale. So in the short term, it is unlikely to be supplied to markets outside China.

Well *cough-cough* it certainly doesn't look great but I also don't want to discourage anyone from making new color film products.

I realize this is a test product. There are many reasons for introducing it exclusively to the Chinese market. Ease of communication with early users and the ability to obtain quick reviews. There are no potentially expensive international returns, and there is no need for international marketing activities because the local market is very receptive and responsive.
But once they perfect their product and launch mass production, China is able to literally flood global markets with a product at a competitive price and decent quality. The "Lucky" brand is nothing new to Europeans. If my memory serves me right, until around 2014 Lucky color films were available in European hypermarkets and they weren't the cheapest crap at all.
From the consumer's point of view, competition in the market has always been positive because it forces the monopolist to think twice before raising prices.

Spektrum said:

From the consumer's point of view, competition in the market has always been positive because it forces the monopolist to think twice before raising prices.

Click to expand...

Right. Which is why I support it even though I don't like it. And there's always the hope for improvement.

Spektrum said:

From the consumer's point of view, competition in the market has always been positive because it forces the monopolist to think twice before raising prices.

Click to expand...

This is verging on the political, but not quite far enough to being edited.

Speaking personally, I've seen competition energize markets, and I've seen competition kill them. So like so much, it depends.

MattKing said:

Speaking personally, I've seen competition energize markets, and I've seen competition kill them. So like so much, it depends.

Click to expand...

Indeed. I worry about that. I don't want to see color negative film from Kodak, Harman, and Orwo disappear because the one made in China has a price advantage.

MattKing said:

This is verging on the political, but not quite far enough to being edited.

Click to expand...

Dear Matt, I didn't even think about starting any political topics. I'm tired of it. Wherever I go, I constantly hear political conversations. I come here to relax and, above all, learn something.

I understand the fear that a flood of cheap products could kill the most important player in the market, Kodak.

Just think about it: Kodak will remain in the market as long as there's demand for film for movie production. This demand isn't decreasing. It's constantly growing.
Besides, people won't give up on Kodak just because there's a cheaper alternative. Kodak is the history of photography; it's also a tradition, something ingrained in people's minds from childhood.

My point is that I just want a freedom of choice. That's why I'm happy with every new film manufacturer entering the market.
It's similar with ORWO. For me, a Pole born in the early 1970s, ORWO was probably the only symbol of photographic luxury, because back then, in Poland, taking color photos was a luxury.
Kodak was just a dream. Even if you managed to buy a roll of this film somewhere, which cost half a doctor's monthly salary, there was no place to develop it. I remember I've seen the Kodak logo on the back of photos sent in letters from family living in the US.

Now I mainly shoot with Kodak. I'm interested in ORWO for nostalgia's sake. But I'm not so keen on this film because of the excessive grain.
I know many people here love it. I love Kodak grain.
It's good if there's a possibility of variety.
Perhaps someone will love the new Lucky color negatives, but the important thing is that there's a chance to familiarize with them at all.

People aren't going to abandon high quality Kodak films JUST because another film is cheaper. This film is good to know about but isn't going to damage Kodak's market. And I'm not going to donate my money to Kodak just for nostalgia, just to keep them afloat if another product comes along that's just as good and costs less. But right now nothing readily available is even close. So Kodak isn't even in danger of losing my business anytime in the foreseeable future.

Spektrum said:

Besides, people won't give up on Kodak just because there's a cheaper alternative. Kodak is the history of photography; it's also a tradition, something ingrained in people's minds from childhood.

Click to expand...

I'm having a vision of someone using exactly those boards at a board meeting in Rochester NY in the early 2000's.

Spektrum said:

I didn't even think about starting any political topics. I'm tired of it. Wherever I go, I constantly hear political conversations. I come here to relax and, above all, learn something.

Click to expand...

Well said, I agree!