Lucky SHD

[dfoo]

I didn't check the price for ERA, but looking at taobao it should be the same price as Lucky. I have loads of ERA B&W paper, which is pretty good but fixed grade so I don't use it much.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I didn't check the price for ERA, but looking at taobao it should be the same price as Lucky. I have loads of ERA B&W paper, which is pretty good but fixed grade so I don't use it much.

Era pan cost about 1 to 1.5 yuan more than Luckypan.

Era Bromide was my staple for years when it was available here in Manila. Very Cheap. The single weight normal grade bromide was superb, nice whites, decent blacks. But it developed rather longer (2-3 minutes as opposed to the usual 1 minute for other bromides). The thin fibre based support also curled strongly. But I used an automatic rotary glazing dryer then so the prints came out flat with a nice high gloss.

 

[George Bonanno]

Hideous Curl...

Hideous Curl...

The hideous curl can be cured quite easily by flattening the processed negatives. Patients is the name of the game. We all know (I'm speaking mostly about 120 but 35mm also applies) that Lucky curls vertically and Shanghai curls horizontally. This is most likely due to the way the film is cut. In any case... after the negs are processed, sleeved and cataloged it only requires that the negs be pressed under a few large heavy books or the like for a few days (typically three to five) depending on the humidity conditions at the time of drying, printing and or scanning. It's a simple procedure not to be rushed and has its merits in the rewarding finished positive image.

It amazes me how some photographers take a few days, weeks or longer to expose a roll of Lucky or Shanghai and then demand instant gratification immediately after the roll or sheet is processed and dried. This type of film is very special. Unlike Kodak, Ilford and the like so long term attention is mandatory. Take your time and be patient. It will be flat soon enough for your needs. If not, read a good book in the interim.

I have to disagree with highlight burns. Blocking is due to using an incompatible developer. That's why I mentioned HC110B as a developer. Not one recommended 70 years ago from a dead man. This is the modern world and we have to compromise (adapt). On occasion if one has the tendency to overexpose, a dilution of HC110 1:50 might be correct. We cannot depend on formulas and recommendations from dead men anymore.

On another note, I fail to understand what is meant by "faint marks". I can surly see the four squares before each numbered frames on Lucky (8 exposures), descending five circles before each frame on Shanghai (8 exposures) and "KODAK Film" before all numbered exposures. Examine your discarded backing paper and be aware of the upcoming frame targets beforehand so as never to miss a frame again. Being sloppy with advancing film using a red window is a very bad excuses for missing a frame.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I have to disagree with highlight burns. Blocking is due to using an incompatible developer. That's why I mentioned HC110B as a developer. Not one recommended 70 years ago from a dead man. This is the modern world and we have to compromise (adapt). On occasion if one has the tendency to overexpose, a dilution of HC110 1:50 might be correct. We cannot depend on formulas and recommendations from dead men anymore.

Rodinal is incompatible with an old-style emulsion film? How can that be? It's one of the oldest developers around (100+ years). And it was one of the developers recommended by the Leica side of 35mm photography. And diluted 1+50 or more, it becomes a compensating developer which is forgiving of wrong exposures, particularly on the over side, as well as acting as a 'compensating' (highlight contrast-taming) developer.

We don't have to listen to dead people...🙂 An old reference- or just try the massive developing site- will give a good starting point. Test one roll, and see how it comes out. Then tweak the procedure until something favourable comes out. I have extensively used Chinese films, so I'm no stranger to them. Nor am I dead for that matter...

 

[ZorkiKat]

and here's how the backing paper looks:

and here's how the backing paper looks:

On another note, I fail to understand what is meant by "faint marks". .....Being sloppy with advancing film using a red window is a very bad excuses for missing a frame.[/FONT]

Just try to read the marks THROUGH a dense red lens....no amount of fastidious handling can make them any more visible. Just because we can't read them or having no X-ray vision makes us "sloppy" nor are we making excuses..🙄

 

[George Bonanno]

I use Rodinal (1977 old stock) most often at 1:31. I have eight 500mm (marked 500 CM³) brown bottles left in my stash. At 1:25 it's too aggressive and at 1:50 it's too weak for my taste for normally exposed Tri-x and Plus-x film. Lucky and Shanghai negs exposed normally using Rodinal lack shadow detail. However, developed in HC110B (1:31) the Lucky and Shanghai negs are picture perfect... go figure.

My guess is it's the old stock vs the new stock. I personally think the newer Rodinal stock (in plastic bottles) is a compromise mixture not the same as the original AGFA blue and orange glass bottled stuff. Just a personal observation on my part.

The Massive Development Chart site is nothing more than an insane point of departure. The temps, times and dilutions are bogus for the most part (my personal opinion) uploaded to the data base by who knows. It's an e-commerce site setup for you to buy stuff from.

I've been using Chinese B&W films for a few years too (maybe three) and I truly like them all. But I find them quirky to the published time, temps and developer dilutions. We have to find our own personal standards when using them. They're not the most standardized films on the planet.

I honestly don't have a problem with the markings under the red window. Maybe you and Joao just need to be more observant and or look more keenly at the red window. A keychain white LED might be helpful... maybe... I don't know. But I have no problem seeing the frame numbers coming up under my red windows... I kid you not. I admit I was harsh in using the term "sloppy" but please don't insinuate I'm a liar.

All the best to you ZorkiKat and Joao,
George

 

[ZorkiKat]

I honestly don't have a problem with the markings under the red window. Maybe you and Joao just need to be more observant and or look more keenly at the red window. A keychain white LED might be helpful... maybe... I don't know. But I have no problem seeing the frame numbers coming up under my red windows... I kid you not. I admit I was harsh in using the term "sloppy" but please don't insinuate I'm a liar.

All the best to you ZorkiKat and Joao,
George
[/FONT]

It wasn't my aim to insinuate that you were lying. I apologise if it came across that way.

However, it has been my, Joao's and just about every Lucky/Shanghai user I know here that the numbers are hard to read through red windows.
I've used both Lucky and Shanghai through various red-film window cameras (Seagull, Agfa Click, Ansco Cadet B2, Greatwall) and seeing the numbers through the dense red lenses of these cameras was very difficult. Being called sloppy for not being able to read what was illegible to begin with or being accused of improper use isn't exactly proper.

I too like Chinese emulsions and have been using one type or another since 1985- beginning with the old Era pan, the various Lucky incarnations (pre SHD's), the very much defunct Xiamen, and Shanghai. I literally 'grew up' on Era Pan 100. Add to that the charming yet unpredictable C41 colour negs like Eracolor, Fuda, Tiannu, etc., all of which are extinct now. I've developed the BWs in just about as many developers, D76/D23 (which BTW are the recommended developers by their manufacturers since the old Era days), Microdol, Accutol, DK 50 (does well with Era), Ansco 17, HC110, Rodinal, and paRodinal.

Rodinal/paRodinal 1+50 or 1+100 gives me what I want in BW with Lucky or Era or Shanghai. A bulk of what I do on BW is made with this combination. It works fine with me. And a lot of other people who use the same combination seem to like it too. One may not agree with what we like, but that doesn't make what we do is wrong.

I wouldn't exactly call the data on from the Massive Dev Chart rubbish nor worthless. The data there works, or if they don't lead to preferred results, they can always be used as starting points, as what is generally suggested there. And isn't this the usual way of establishing personal developing/exposure procedures?

 

[john341]

I like Lucky 35mm film and developed in Ilfosol produces really nice negs. Why pay $$$ for "brands" which are no more superior?

 

[gdi]

Another one bites the dust (to continue your music trivia from another thread.)

Fortunately Efke has come out with a new, non-antihalation layered film. They call it Aura. I have just shot my first roll, and I hope to develop it soon.

The Efke Aura is an infrared film - same formula as Maco Aura. It doesn't have an antihalation backing. But the only reason I can see to use this film is for infrared captures with an opaque filter, especially given its $10/roll price!

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Anybody in the States have experience with Lucky film? I'm only asking because I've got a hunch photowarehouse is repackaging it into their house film. If someones got some Lucky film they want to compare I can send a roll or two of the Ultrafine stuff.

 

[tyrone.s]

I'm not in the states but I've used both Lucky and Era. Of the two I prefer the Era for its ability to go on to the cassette pretty easily. The last roll of Lucky I developed took me half an hour (it kept REALLY curling and just would not go on). I was doing this in a dark bag and it really started to drive me crazy - especially when my fingers started to get a little sweaty. The Era 100 went on in a snap (same night). Perhaps I was particularly *unlucky* that night.