Lucky - Chinese film

[Ricoh]

I’ve just taken delivery of 7 rolls of Lucky SHD 100. The film expired in 2009, an eBay find.
I mentioned this to someone I know and he cautioned about the potential for fungus infestation and possible transfer to the camera and lens, as there’s no indication how the film was stored. The cardboard boxes of each individual film are unopened and I suspect the film is inside protective canisters. Hence low risk, would you agree?

As for ISO rating I’ve read articles on how to expose expired film, eg whether to make a 1 stop allowance per decade, but the article debunked this for B&W, saying it’s applicable to colour film only.

 

[philslizzy]

2009 is recent by expired film standards. 1 stop per decade applies to both b&w and colour.

I'd shoot it half a stop over - rate it at 80. I used expired film decades old in total ignorance of the 1 stop per decade and got perfectly good results.

I havent heard about the fungus problem. Even if it did have fungus, it's unlikely to spread to the camera and lens during the short time the film would be in the camera. I imagine it would be a completely different type of fungus.

I have used Lucky 100 and its ok but nothing special. Use it with confidence. Sounds like your friend is an expert on these things.

Regards fungus on film, in 50 years I've only encounterd it once:
I found an unused film in Poland, фото was the only name on the film cannister. I rated it at 50 and developed for FP4. Got great results - except that the film had been fungused up. It all came out in the developer and I got a blizzard effect on my pictures. BUT most importantly, the film didn't damage my Olympus Trip 35 in the least.

Some pics from that roll

 

[Out to Lunch]

I've never seen 'Lucky' but ten years ago, I bought two bricks of Infiniti Uxi 100 in Vietnam. Since then, I've not seen that film again. Cheers, OtL

 

[Rayt]

I tried Lucky film but didn’t have much luck with it.

 

[Ricoh]

Thanks for replying, guys. I purchased the film because it’s reputed to have an ineffective anti-halation layer, or none at all. I like bit of halo now and again so the seven films should keep me going. Just hope it lives up to the claims.
Philslizzy, some interesting effects in your shots almost as though shot under water. Chemical accidents can add to an image, sometimes, can’t they!
BTW, I opened one of the Lucky boxes to find the film is housed in a plastic canister (as usual) and there’s no evidence of fungus, as far as I can see.

 

[David Murphy]

It might be decent film. I shot some Lucky B&W a few years ago and it came out fairly well. It was a very low cost film then (I think they had color and B&W at the time). The B&W film was very curly however after developing , and a little hard to flatten for easy scanning. If that happens, placing the negatives inside heavy books for a few days will help flatten it. I've found that cheaper films tend to curl. The older Ultrafine B&W films were like that, although the stock they've been selling lately has improved - in several ways.

 

[Tim Gray]

I shot a few rolls of this about 10 years ago (still have some in the freezer). I kind of liked it. I developed it with Diafine just so I didn't have to worry about it - shot it at box speed. It's relatively grainy for the speed, but fun. The lack of anti-halation is not that bad and also can be fun sometimes.

 

[Retrotech68]

I tried Lucky film twice. On the first occasion, about twelve years ago, I found it to be half-decent after shooting two rolls but as Tim Gray has pointed out, also felt it to be a bit too grainy for the speed (100).
Around 2014 I tried other two rolls from a different batch and experienced disappointing results... Iffy CQ might have been a issue though, but I haven't shoot enough rolls to confirm this. Also found the emulsion to be VERY prone to scratching.
I am curious to see how much the current stock has improved...

 

[Colin Corneau]

Lucky seems to be neither terrible nor exceptional -- your basic bargain-basement B&W film. I'd say know its limitations and characteristics, and shoot to match those and you'll be happy.

I did shoot Shanghai film in 120 about a decade ago and it was quite interesting. I'd heard of QC issues (especially with its paper backing) but I guess I lucked out because I had none of those.

 

[Ricoh]

I purchased the out of date Lucky film (7 x rolls 135) because of the imperfections, particularly, I hope, a useless halation layer.

 

[css9450]

I did shoot Shanghai film in 120 about a decade ago and it was quite interesting. I'd heard of QC issues (especially with its paper backing) but I guess I lucked out because I had none of those.

I've had no problems with it either. What I gather is that most of the old QC issues with it have been resolved. It still has the strange "construction paper" backing paper which isn't a confidence builder; I always worry it might rip or leave paper dust on my film. Hasn't happened yet fortunately.

I did find one roll where the film wasn't taped to the paper. Not a big problem for that roll, though, since I was unrolling it in the darkroom to slice it down to 127 size anyway. It would have been an issue if I'd loaded it into a 120 camera though!

 

[Retrotech68]

I did find one roll where the film wasn't taped to the paper. Not a big problem for that roll, though, since I was unrolling it in the darkroom to slice it down to 127 size anyway. It would have been an issue if I'd loaded it into a 120 camera though!

Yikes! So, they must yet resolve some QC issues...

 

[zenza]

I love the stuff in 135. Wish I could find it for reasonable prices. The lack of anti-halation layer is neat.

 

[Pentudlian]

I did shoot Shanghai film in 120 about a decade ago and it was quite interesting. I'd heard of QC issues (especially with its paper backing) but I guess I lucked out because I had none of those.

I took a 2012-expiry roll of Shanghai 120 out of the freezer the other day. The first number in the frame-counting window was 2 ... I wondered why the backing paper was torn irregularly 🙄