My test and review of Lucky SHD 100 New

its on ebay , its like 20 a brick with shipping. Im almost through the brick of it myself. Its ok for the money.

@ Max Cooper if you dont like it send it my way , i love burning thorugh cheap film
 
Its cheap, and I agree on the poor quality control etc. IMHO, a better cheap film would be ERA100, which I use quite a lot nowadays. I started using it after getting an insider tip among the shooters in Shanghai that it beats Lucky hands down (anti-halation layer is there, film base seems a little less flimsier, but could be perception!), but quality control is still an issue.
 
Where can one find ERA100?


I guess I don't understand the draw of lucky shd100; it's $31 shipped for ten 36exp rolls from what I can find on ebay. Ten rolls of 36exp Arista Premium is $25.90 shipped. Is the lucky somehow superior to the arista?
 
Where can one find ERA100?


I guess I don't understand the draw of lucky shd100; it's $31 shipped for ten 36exp rolls from what I can find on ebay. Ten rolls of 36exp Arista Premium is $25.90 shipped. Is the lucky somehow superior to the arista?

Lucky is far superior in every respect.

If you play your cards right you can find ten rolls (35mm - 120) for $21 shipped to your door from Vung Tau.

BTW: What's your call ?
 
Lucky no longer makes film. Era no longer makes film.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-178675534.html

Lucky Film Co., Ltd. (SH: 600153) announced on March 27th that it will shift its core business from color photographic paper and color film roll to non-photosensitive materials. It is the first time for the company to reveal its operating strategy after the equity withdrawal by its important strategic ally, Kodak in November 2007.

It can still be purchased, just as Agfa can still be purchased, because there are remaining stocks in storage. When they're gone, that's it.

And yes, I know that Lucky's website says they make film. They don't.
 
i had a horrible time shooting the way through the brick of shd100 i bought on ebay. i relegated it to testing old cameras i picked up.

the one time i did get 'good' results from it was stand developed in rodinal 1+200 for 120 minutes @ 20ºC

 
You keep posting that Bill, but I don't think its true. I asked the vendors at the camera market in Shanghai, and they said the film is still being produced.

In Shanghai, ERA is 10 RMB a roll ($1.61), Lucky is ($1.30). ERA is better in every respect... its quite fine grained in XTOL, and the tones are great!
 
"Lucky is far superior in every respect."

Superior to Arista Premium? It was my understanding that Arist was re-packaged Fomapan. I've used Fomapan 400 extensively and find it to be way, way better than Lucky.

I have also used ERA 100, and find it superior to Lucky.
 
You keep posting that Bill, but I don't think its true. I asked the vendors at the camera market in Shanghai, and they said the film is still being produced.

In Shanghai, ERA is 10 RMB a roll ($1.61), Lucky is ($1.30). ERA is better in every respect... its quite fine grained in XTOL, and the tones are great!

Produced is not the same word as manufactured. They are playing cute with the words.

If I make widgets and I go out of business, but someone buys all my left-over widgets and puts them in new packages, they can perhaps claim to be producing my widgets long after I stopped making them. They cannot claim to be manufacturing my widgets, because they're not.

The good part is, if stocks still exist and your retailers 'produce' them, then you can still get it. The bad part is, the existing stocks are finite and when they are gone, they are gone.

I quoted the news article that clearly stated that Lucky was no longer going to manufacture photo-sensitive materials, that was a year ago. I have personally dealt with Shantou ERA when I was briefly importing it into the USA a couple years back, and THEY told me that ERA was no longer manufacturing photographic film.

I have no interest in lying. Your retailers have every interest in not telling the truth, they want to continue to sell their existing stocks.

However, I have noted the continued insistence of some to continue to believe what they wish to be true, such as the people who continued to state that Agfa film was being manufactured again, despite the factory having been torn down and hauled off as rubble, or the people who continued to state firmly that Forte was on the verge of reopening its doors. I guess desperate people will believe all sorts of nonsense.
 
You assume that the vendors have a vested interest in lying... I don't see their motivation personally. There was no ERA 100 film in their shops for about a year, and then new film appeared. They also got new shipments of ERA photographic paper.

Also what you quoted was:

shift its core business from color photographic paper and color film roll to non-photosensitive materials

This is not color, its black and white. The shops also have lots of color lucky film in stock too. They also have some AGFA color 400 for that matter 😉
 
You assume that the vendors have a vested interest in lying... I don't see their motivation personally. There was no ERA 100 film in their shops for about a year, and then new film appeared. They also got new shipments of ERA photographic paper.

I have seldom run into a retailer who will hesitate to tell you he can get you whatever you want, regardless of what that is. Moon rocks? Sure, no problem. The astronaut who picked them up? Come back Friday, we have in stock then.


This is not color, its black and white. The shops also have lots of color lucky film in stock too. They also have some AGFA color 400 for that matter 😉

As I said, people are going to believe what they wish to believe. If you think Agfa is still manufacturing film, you may wish to visit the big empty lot where their factory once stood and explain how that is possible. But hey, it's your fantasy. Have fun.
 
There was no ERA 100 film in their shops for about a year, and then new film appeared.
An interesting observation, and one that perhaps needs explaining. But: not inconsistent with what Bill has said; and not inconsistent with some other explanation (eg. someone else has bought the name and produced cr*p film with a name people are used to).

My inclination is to think what Bill has set out is likely correct. Film is a gradually dying trade and producing cr*p, no matter how cheaply, is unlikely to work in the long haul. So why stick at the game with such low margins?

Much better to produce decent film and work with your customer base, even if this means "managing them down", per Kodak, or picking up what your rivals drop, per Ilford.

Or, as in the case (perhaps) of "Lucky" simply abandoning a no-longer-profitable business.

Does anyone really think they were in this for anything but the profit?

...Mike
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom