Please help with developing Lucky film

[ifirdauzi]

In D76 1+3, develop Lucky 400 for 18-25 minutes at 20 deg C.

Jay

Usually I use D76 1:1 for Lucky SHD 100, 9 minutes @20C, first 60 seconds agitation and 10 seconds/minute after that. Try this as first guess, later on you can add or reduce the Dev time to suit your taste

Lucky may not be the best film, but sure it is the cheapest film in my hometown, cost me only 7000 IDR (~0.9 USD)

Example of lucky

Igor

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I souped up a roll of Lucky film in stock D-76, developed for 6 minutes with four agitations every 50 seconds and I think I got a very decent series of negatives from it.

BTW, I haven't scanned it or studied it, but I think it's decent stuff. Not as contrasty as the Gekko film that's going around. Not as good at Ilford either (very rich range of tones). Decent stuff? Yes.

Good luck with your next roll! 🙂

 

[sherm]

Bosk,

I'm coming in on this late, but I was talking with Tom Abrahamson last week and one of the many topics was in fact Lucky film. Tom has been using PCK formula developer with Lucky with some real nice results.


A



Phenidon 0.3 grams (dissolve in 30 ml alcohol)

Ascorbic Acid ( Vitamin C) 20 grams

Water to 500 ml





B



Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk) 100 grams

or

Borax (20 Mule Team) 69 grams



Sodium Hydroxide (Red Devil Lye) 14.5 grams



Water to 1000 ml





Process:

a) 50 ml A/100 ml B H2O to 1000 ml

b) 75 ml A/150 ml B H2O to 1500 ml



TX or 400 ASA 8 minutes (2 inversions/60sec)

Delta 400 professional 8 ½ to 9 minutes (2 inversions/60 sec)





I've included the formula and times that I got from Tom. I have yet to try it, but Tom hasn't steered me wrong yet! All of the chemicals can be ordered from Photographer's Forumalry, which is a great resource for all things pertaining to film development.

Good Luck and please post dome results!!

Scott

 

[ZorkiKat]

Congratulations, Bosk! The highlights don't look blown in your sample. Some detail still shows through them. Did you scan the negative directly or was the sample from a print? Either way, some tweaking in the scan or print can lead to a lot of improvement in the positive. Regarding the amount of developer concentrate in the diluted solution you used, I don't think that it was an issue. If the amount of developer was below what was needed for proper reactions, the first thing you'll see would be bland highlights in the negative.

Jay

 

[ZorkiKat]

Inferior Lucky?

Inferior Lucky?

I don't think so.

I've used Lucky almost extensively when it was available here. It's a good film capable of delivering more than just "decent" results. The only "minus" (if it can be seen that way) feature I found with it was that it did not tolerate processing variations. It would go really contrasty if the agitation or timing were too much. The same could be said of "better" Kodak TMax 100.

Era film had been my staple for years too. Unlike Lucky, this film is far more tolerant of processing variations. It would go in many developers and dilutions, allow different timings, and as a result yield pleasing results. It responded well to attenuated or extended developing for 'zone' effects.

I find that Lucky has slightly better resolution (ISO 100) than Era. But the difference is slight, and may perhaps be due to the slightly snappier contrast of Lucky films. Lucky 100 also has a very clear base, which will make it even appear to have more contrast.

Lucky 100 and 400 meant for scanning, IMO, does better if not developed fully for contrast. The negative will be thinner and therefore will have no blocked or flared highlights which make scanner ccd's go crazy. That's why I prefer D76 1+3 or even paRodinal 1+100.

Some Luckypan SHD 100 photos from 4 years ago. Developed in D76 1+3:

 

[Sisyphus]

I am not expert at processing Lucky film, however, I was told a while ago that Lucky film is actually Kodak's plus-x and tri-x just marketed differently for the chinese. I believe that this is a marketing strategy to be able to sell their film more successfully in China, since the chinese as a culture are very much into the meanings, addresses, lic plate numbers, they name their business, usually lucky blah blah blah or Golden Dragon, etc . . .

I honestly do not know how true this is, but if it is you can process it as if it were. I think you got a lot of good info from other people already though, and if they have had experience processing this film, I would just follow there reccomendation.

Please let us know how it turns out, I would be curious to know!

 

[RML]

I'm not sure if Lucky is the same as Tri-X. Just last week I dev'd a roll of Lucky SHD400 and a roll of Tri-X iso400 together and the difference is very very clear. IMO, the Tri-X looked better scanned. Much less grain/ noise than the SHD400. But I've not (yet) perfected dev'ing my iso400 films in caffenol.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I am not expert at processing Lucky film, however, I was told a while ago that Lucky film is actually Kodak's plus-x and tri-x just marketed differently for the chinese. I believe that this is a marketing strategy to be able to sell their film more successfully in China, since the chinese as a culture are very much into the meanings, addresses, lic plate numbers, they name their business, usually lucky blah blah blah or Golden Dragon, etc . . .

I honestly do not know how true this is, but if it is you can process it as if it were. I think you got a lot of good info from other people already though, and if they have had experience processing this film, I would just follow there reccomendation.

Please let us know how it turns out, I would be curious to know!

Lucky (anglicised "LeKai") did have some cooperation from Kodak, particularly in the colour film, paper, and processing chemistry fields. This was stated in some of their brochures from the mid 1990s.

It is possible that they got some BW support from Kodak too. But the SHD 100 and 400 pans are not definitely Chinese versions of Plus-X and Tri-X. Kodak's films for one have grey masked film bases. Lucky's pan films have very clear bases. There are some similarities too, which made me suspect at first that SHD 100 was a version of Plus X- the resolution, grain, and developing times were very similar. But in as far as the 400 films go, SHD 400 and Tri-X are definitely two different emulsions.

Jay

 

[ZorkiKat]

I'm not sure if Lucky is the same as Tri-X. Just last week I dev'd a roll of Lucky SHD400 and a roll of Tri-X iso400 together and the difference is very very clear. IMO, the Tri-X looked better scanned. Much less grain/ noise than the SHD400. But I've not (yet) perfected dev'ing my iso400 films in caffenol.

The current Tri-X we have now is different from the Tri-X, say from the year 2000, in terms of emulsion formulation. Tri-X has undergone many revisions since it was introduced and the latest is the one which has brought about the most radical of changes. If ever Luckypan 400 was based on Tri-X, it must have been one of the older versions which Kodak have decided to share or pass on to others. 🙂

Have you tried paRodinal? It's does everything Rodinal does.

Jay