Shantou Era film dealer

[RicardoD]

Jan,

I am curious as well on the development aspect even though I only develop in Diafine now. I think the consensus for Diafine was shoot at ISO 400. But if it doesn't turn out I can always venture into other developers as I get my courage up.

My boss brought ten rolls of ERA film back to the USA for me from his last business trip. I will be shooting with those rolls for a while with my Bessa R.

Lucky 120 film was also recommended to me to try out which I understand is very different from their 35mm stuff.

 

[jan normandale]

Ricardo, here is a link to his site showing development charts for Shantou Era film

http://www.mattocksphotography.com/era.html

 

[picturetaker]

Has anyone shot Era at 400 or above and had it developed commercially? I am still not sure about developing my own even though costs would definetly come down. Here in Canada, to bring in Era will cost about 11 cents a shot. Tri X runs at 20 cents. Has anyone done a comparison at 400?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I hate censorship any shape/ form, but this isn't a true public forum.

People's feelings get hurt more often than the ability to comprehend humour and the inability to differentiate between a personal attack and an opinion.

It's sad to see Bill go. Too many good people have left over the past few months.

And more will if blind "zero tolerance" takes effect.

If only people would complain for the right reasons, rather than for ego cosmetics...

 

[wlewisiii]

Has anyone shot Era at 400 or above and had it developed commercially? I am still not sure about developing my own even though costs would definetly come down. Here in Canada, to bring in Era will cost about 11 cents a shot. Tri X runs at 20 cents. Has anyone done a comparison at 400?

I've got a roll in my Contessa that I'm shooting at 400, but that's to soup in Diafine. I'm not sure a 2 stop push would be a good thing at a commercial lab. I'd definately appreciate hearing your results.

William

 

[Socke]

That's funny you mention that, Socke. The missing anti halation layer is actually what drove me to try out the Lucky SHD film. 🙂

I have seen some beergarden shots in very contrasty light, a girl sitting at a table beneath the trees with sunray like a spotlight on her hair.

That's where Lucky "shines" 🙂

 

[Avotius]

People...pick up all the era you can. In the last two years here in china its been harder and harder to find because the company downsized a lot and now NO LONGER MAKES FILM!!!

Also their darkroom paper are extreemly hard to find here. The matte is near impossible to find here and the gloss is going fast.

I dont want to start using Lucky, I hate that film.

 

[Avotius]

Has anyone shot Era at 400 or above and had it developed commercially? I am still not sure about developing my own even though costs would definetly come down. Here in Canada, to bring in Era will cost about 11 cents a shot. Tri X runs at 20 cents. Has anyone done a comparison at 400?

ive shot it at 400 and 800 but never developed it outside, I always did my own when I pushed film because I never trusted anyone else to do it. Basically it likes an extra stop of developing kinda like ilford when you push it.

 

[Avotius]

Jan,

I am curious as well on the development aspect even though I only develop in Diafine now. I think the consensus for Diafine was shoot at ISO 400. But if it doesn't turn out I can always venture into other developers as I get my courage up.

My boss brought ten rolls of ERA film back to the USA for me from his last business trip. I will be shooting with those rolls for a while with my Bessa R.

Lucky 120 film was also recommended to me to try out which I understand is very different from their 35mm stuff.

I have a lot of the lucky 120 here, it is a little different from the 35mm stuff but still very easily scratched and damaged. Here are two shot from lucky 120 shot taken with a hasselblad 501 and 80mm zeiss lens:

 

[Krasnaya_Zvezda]

So long, Bill, hope you change your mind... you were a font of interesting info and opinions. Wish I could someday sit down with you and knock 'em back until we solved all the problems of the world... Vaya con Dios, amigo.

 

[RML]

I have seen some beergarden shots in very contrasty light, a girl sitting at a table beneath the trees with sunray like a spotlight on her hair.

That's where Lucky "shines" 🙂

Guess what kinda shot I saw? 🙂

But I'm very much a novice when it comes to developing my own B&W film and scanning the results does not help. I need a few prints to see if I really did get the huge grain I see in the scans or whether I did a much smoother job.

 

[hermie]

Being new here I'm not sure if I should ask this but I am confused.

Why would I buy Chinese film when Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are desparately trying to hang on?

Haven't they earned any customer loyalty?

 

[jan normandale]

I think people use different film for the fun of trying something. It's sort of like drinking something new besides Budwiser. BTW how is loyalty buying film from the three sisters who are competitors ;- )

 

[Avotius]

Being new here I'm not sure if I should ask this but I am confused.

Why would I buy Chinese film when Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are desparately trying to hang on?

Haven't they earned any customer loyalty?

I love ilford film very much but here when a roll of era costs 6 rmb ($ .75 cents) and a roll of ilford hp5 costs 34 rmb ($ 4.25) you have to remember that at the end of the day ya got bills to pay. Plus my monthly budget is only 150 dollars for rent, utilities, food, and all of that so whats a guy to do?

 

[ZorkiKat]

Has anyone shot Era at 400 or above and had it developed commercially? I am still not sure about developing my own even though costs would definetly come down. Here in Canada, to bring in Era will cost about 11 cents a shot. Tri X runs at 20 cents. Has anyone done a comparison at 400?

When we were and school and couldn't afford Kodak Tri-X, we "pushed" Era to EI 400 by developing it in D72 or Dektol. D72 BTW was a "universal" developer so it could be used for film with the proper dilution. I think our working dilution was 1+4 or 1+5 and developed the film for about 5-6 minutes. Contrast was higher, but not as much as what other films would have if developed in D72. The resulting pictures were not exactly what you'd get with TriX or other real ISO400 film, but Era at EI400 in D72 got the job done. We were shooting for our school paper and there were instances when ISO 400 was the only thing which would work. Pushed Era often saved the day. 😀

The old-style emulsion of Era made it tolerate more processing variations as JimG said. It also tolerated various developers more compared to the newer emulsions then. These variations never seemed to matter since the resulting negative was always very printable- unlike say if TMax 100 was dunked in warm Dektol.

Jay

 

[ZorkiKat]

I like this photo! I prefer Era over Lucky though, Era has a better texture, Lucky seems to be a bit flatter than Era.

Era has that 50's texture. Mushy and longer contrast, somewhat like Super-X developed in D23. Lucky pan has a thinner, high resolution emulsion which does contrasty highlights.

I never got Era which was frame-numbers printed on the edges. The film from bulk rolls only bore "中国“ on the edges, plus some 'footage' numbers which ran in a similar way as the footage numbers of motion picture film. Even the factory boxed 36 exposure load didn't have frame numbers.

For a time, we also had "Era color" negative film. I don't know if it was really from Era, but I was sure it was from China. It was bad in the sense that the colours were pale and the speed was slow: though marked ISO 100, it would give acceptable results when exposed at EI 40. It processed in C41.

Jay

 

[Socke]

Guess what kinda shot I saw? 🙂

But I'm very much a novice when it comes to developing my own B&W film and scanning the results does not help. I need a few prints to see if I really did get the huge grain I see in the scans or whether I did a much smoother job.

Here's what a friend of mine shot on Lucky SHD.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/immermalwieder/sets/72057594141847733/

He had it comercialy developed via a german drugstore chain, Schlecker, probably at CeWeColor or Eurocolor.

Edit:

changed the URL, Tim put it in a set for us.

 

[Goodyear]

Interesting.

I wasn't aware that Lucky had no anti-halation. I think I'll give it a try for that reason.

 

[leafy]

Someone mentioned that Era does not have anti-halation layer either. My photos looked ok though, the halo effect is less significant that Lucky.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Someone mentioned that Era does not have anti-halation layer either. My photos looked ok though, the halo effect is less significant that Lucky.

Era has a grey base, Lucky's is very clear. Perhaps the grey in the emulsion does the anti-halation job?