Lucky SHD100

Lucky SHD100 is one of those Chinese films that you can sometimes find really cheap. When I was in Bejing a few years ago it cost 2USD a roll in a film shop (that was unfortunately closed when I was going there to buy some).

It has in general a bad reputation, due to lacking quality control and probably due to it being a Chinese made emulsion.

The history of the Lucky brand, and its company, Lucky Group Corporation, is a bit difficult to find good information about. Based on their web site, it seems they are doing mostly B2B stuff. Their English site is pretty thin on information, but if you use Google Translate on the Chinese site you can find more information.

Here is a list of their product categories

I found this piece of information on the English site:

China Lucky Group Corporation (herein after referred to as “China Lucky”) is the wholly-owned subsidiary of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. China Lucky, formerly known as Baoding Cinefilm Manufacturing Factory was founded in 1958.

China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation is a state-owned corporation for the Chinese space program, so my guess is that whatever knowhow China Lucky had, was crucial for the Chinese space program so they just “bought” it. It is not a small company, according to the Chinese site:

The annual production capacity of silver salt film is 20 million square meters

1 square meter of film is around 17 rolls of 135/35 film, so I think just a small fraction of that coating is 35mm film for cameras. My guess is that most of it is X-ray film.

This is what they say about SHD100 themselves:

Lucky's new generation SHD100 is a full-color medium-speed black and white film with high definition and large latitude. It has good physical and mechanical properties, can meet the requirements of use under high temperature and high humidity conditions, and has strong anti-adhesion and scratch resistance. Widely used in indoor and outdoor professional and amateur photography, such as portrait photography, advertising photography and other artistic creation photography, landscape and travel photography. The use of a new type of silver halide grain emulsion enables the film negative to be magnified at large magnifications and still achieve excellent clarity and ultra-fine grain effect. With Lucky black and white painted statues or other similar photographic papers, good results can be obtained.

Alright, enough back story. I’ve shot 3 rolls of the stuff, recently expired, refrigerator stored. My general feeling is that this is s a very good film for the price. Much better than all the Agfa Aviphot rebrands that are circulating these days. Dare I say, better than Fomapan too. I shot all rolls at box speed and I think that’s a pretty accurate speed for this film. Maybe go down to EI 80, and reduce the development time a tiny bit. The highlights can block up pretty easily.

The main downside to this emulsion is that the anti-halo layer is really weak. Bright skies will give a halo in areas of high contrast. That might be part of the charm in some cases though.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Lucky SHD100, Pentax LX, SMC-M50/1.4, Adox FX-39 II, 12min 20c

Something that is positive is that this film is actually pretty sharp. I thought the results were particularly good in FX-39. The grain is not “in your face” but it has a very nice pop to it in areas with lots of micro-contrast. Example of this is here, if you look at the dogs fur:

Lucky SHD100, Pentax LX, SMC-M50/1.4, Adox FX-39 II, 12min 20c

Here are some more example shots. First two are with an Lomo LC-a and the rest of them are with a Canonet G3 QL19. All developed in XTOL 1+1 for 8min. I’d say that the XTOL time was a little on the low side and my FX-39 1+19 time of 12min was a little on the long side. I would probably increase the XTOL time with 30-60sek and reduce the FX39 1+19 time with the same amount, next time I develop this film.

If I ever come across this film for 2-3USD/pcs again, I would not hesitate to buy a brick or two. This is an excellent low-cost film for every day shots. The three rolls I have shot had zero defects or quality issues. There is very very little base fog in my rolls, no weird scratches, nothing like that. It seems though that Lucky does coating runs quite rarely, and you never know when you can get hold of any. Macodirect sometimes has some, but with a quite steep markup compared to getting it locally in Asia, at 5€/pcs.

There exists also a Lucky SHD400, but it is very rare. I have never seen any rolls of it for sale, anywhere. With the current film resurgence, let’s hope Lucky start doing more coating runs and maybe reintroduce the 400 speed film.

Alright, that is it for this time. Let me know if you have any questions, and please take a look at the shop if you find something you like.

Orwo N74 aka Lomography Berlin in D96

Since I have a bottle of D96 I got for my Double-X experiment I decided I should get some more bw cine films to try out with it.

So I grabbed the two Orwo films that Lomography sells, Berlin and Potsdam. Lomography Berlin is actually Orwo N74 and Potsdam is UN54.

The company behind Orwo, Filmotec, is actually selling the next gen version of N74 now called N75 but I think Lomography got a good deal on an expired bulk roll or something because there is some serious base fog on this film.

I rated the film at EI 250-320, and I think 320 is pretty close. 250 was okey but depending on metering, it was at pushing midtones slighly too high up in my opinion.

I developed the film for 8,5min at 20c. Would I do it again I would go for 9-9,5min. It was ever so slightly underdeveloped. Missing a little bit of zing in the highlights.

It was probably a fluke but I had to fix the roll a second time after washing and drying. I usually fix for 5 minutes but I had some milky residue left around the sprocket holes. 99% sure it has nothing to do with the film itself, but anyway, these blogs are my also my personal notes too about these films..

The images are very grainy for a Iso 400 film. It is much grainier than ex HP5 while being 1/3-2/3 stop slower. It has a nice acutance, the images feel sharp and crisp but they feel a little bland.. at least when scanned. I haven’t done any wet prints yet.

The price is not great if you get the Orwo films branded as Lomography. If you got bulk rolls it would be around half price which is much more reasonable. Honestly, Hp5/Fp4, Delta 100/400, Tmax 100/400 are all so much better films than this.

If you want grain, and a certain cinematic look, this could be something worth trying. But for the general bw shooter, I would not recommend Orwo N74.

Alright, here are sample shots. Take a look in the shop if you see something you like and please support my blog!

Kodak Double-X 5222 in D96

Finally I managed to score some D96 developer (thanks retrocamera.be!). It is a bottle of Bellini D96 that I got just for trying out Double-X with the developer it was meant for.

D96 is supposedly a lower contrast developer than D76 for example, which might explain why this is a good match. D96 is a developer made for motion picture film (which Double-X is). D96 is used as a stock solution (meant for replenishment systems) so you just reuse the solution until exhausted.

I found that Double-X in Xtol was a bit too hot. The contrast worked pretty well for street photo style pictures, but I prefer to add contrast with higher paper grades or after scanning, rather than having high contrast negatives to begin with. Information that was never recorded can never be recovered, and it’s much easier to add contrast the way you want than to remove it. Kind of like salt in food, you need to have some, but if you add too much before it’s on the plate you can’t save the dish.

Here is what I wrote about Double-X in XTOL 1+1 a couple of years ago. Since I wanted this to be a fair comparison, I rescanned that roll since I scanned it last time with a Plustek. Here are example pictures of Double-X in XTOL 1+1, developed for 9,5min, 20c:

Alright and finally here’s some sample pictures. D96, 6,5min in 20c. Scanned with the Kodak Pakon F135+, my custom 16bit workflow.

In my eyes, it has more grain when developed in XTOL. Also, it feels like there is an S-curve when developing in XTOL, the darkest shadows get crushed Look at the umbrella the man is holding, and look shadowy part of the ceiling in the walkway.

Now compare to the roll developed in D96, look at the ice, or the snow next to the men working on the truck. Look at the shadow side of the phone. The tones are nice and long, with lots of midrange. Also, the images look almost grainless in D96, they’re not in reality, Double-X is very grainy compared to other modern emulsions of this speed range, but in these scaled down pictures there is almost no detectable grain.

That’s it for this time. Let me know your thoughts, and check out my shop for issues of my zine. Any support is appreciated, all money will go into keeping this site running.

Kodak 2254 aka Kodak Superslow ISO1.6 in C41

Time for another experimental film. I got two rolls of this stuff from my friend Nathan last year (or was it the year before?) It has been on my todo-list for a while now, but since the film is so incredibly slow it is difficult to shoot during autumn or winter up here in the north where we get so very little daylight during those seasons.

Kodak 2254 is actually something called an “intermediate film”. This is how wikipedia defines it:

“An intermediate is produced by exposing film to the original camera negative. The intermediate is then used to mass-produce the films that get distributed to theaters. Color grading is done by varying the amount of red, green, and blue light used to expose the intermediate. This seeks to be able to replace or augment the photochemical approach to creating this intermediate.”

The full name of the emulsion at hand is “VISION3 Color Digital Intermediate Film 5254 / 2254”, so it is a color film, and made for making digital intermediates. Instead of exposing the original film on this film, you scan the original negative, make your changes and then make another negative with a laser printer. So this stuff is never meant to be shot in a camera, or in daylight. Take a look at the data sheet for more information about it.

For those reasons, the film has no remjet. It is an ECN2 film, so it is actually cross processed in this experiment. In my experience processing ECN2 films in C41 gives you a little bit extra contrast and also some wonkyness with colors. But as you will see, this film has some weird colors to begin with, so it is not a big deal in this case.

Looking at the curves from the data sheet, we can already guess a little bit about what it will look like:

Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG

As we can see in the spectral sensitivity curves, the three layers have very different sensitivity. The yellow layer (which gives blue tones) is higher than the magenta layer (which gives green tones) and we have very little sensitivity in the cyan (red tones). The B and G curves also go very close together in the shadows and midtones which will probably lead to some color crossover in blues and greens, especially in C41 (but i am not an expert in this so I might be wrong here)

After developing in my Fuji Hunt C41 kit, I scanned the roll with my Kodak Pakon F135+ with the integrated PSI software. The pictures came out very very blue at first, the color correction software probably had no idea what was going on. The orange film base is also much more red than normal color negative films. I did color corrections and adjustments to try to get the images as close to real life as I could.

It does have a special kind of look, some colors are very muted and desaturated while blues have a lot of pop. Also since a normal exposure in sunlight is much longer than usual, you also get some interesting effects. Clouds go blurry, people and cars are blurry, and there is something “weird” with the light that sticks out for me.

So do I like this film? I think it’s another of those gimmick films that are so popular these days. Companies buying short ends from film labs, putting them in cartridges and making a few bucks. Nothing wrong with that really, but I wish people would not be so much in search of gimmicks and experiments, and instead shoot more professional films like Fujifilm 400H so that those could survive. Every new film shooter goes directly to the experimental films, pushing bw films ten stops, doing stand development in coffee and beer, etc etc.

What is interesting with this film though is the very slow speed. You could for example shoot in a studio with high power strobes and still shoot wide open apertures. Or do reaaally long exposures in broad daylight. Or several hour long exposure at night.

Alright, that’s it for this time. Check out my shop for issues of my film photography zine (and maybe other stuff if you are reading this in the future).

Tech pan in Technidol LC

Kodak Technical Pan is one of those films that has interested me for decades. I remember reading about it back in 2003-2004 and of it’s extraordinary sharpness and smoothness. But, it was also famous for being difficult to process and having difficult to tame contrast.

Last year, in 2020, I managed to find several bottles and a couple of pouches of the equally legendary developer for Tech Pan, Technidol. It came as a liquid developer (called just Technidol) and as a powder (Technidol LC). I have not yet tried the liquid developer but shot 2 rolls last summer that I developed in the LC version.

The negatives blew me away. Grainless, sharp, and with excellent tonality. I immediately started looking for more rolls of Tech pan and now have a small collection of it in my freezer. The issue is of course finding more of this special developer. And is my liquid verison still okey? I don’t know. I will at some point try to develop it in C41 which I have heard gives excellent results (just the developer, dont bleach the negatives or you’ll have nothing left).

Here is a selection of images from the two rolls I have developed. Scanned with the Pakon F135+, with my custom workflow detailed in the previous blog post.

Anywho, if you decide to try Tech Pan in Technidol I do recommend you read the published docs about it, the Kodak P-255 is the one you want. You should be able to google it and find the pdf somewhere. The thing to note is the chapter on processing. When you pour in the developer you want to SHAKE the tank. No nice agitation allowed, just shake it violently and then give it taps to dislodge any air bubbles. 9 minutes in 20c for Technidol Liquid developer, 15 minutes in 20c for Technidol LC. Both at EI 25.

Preferrably you should pour the liquid in the tank FIRST, and then drop in the reels loaded with the films. The first seconds of development are critical for avoiding streaks. I did not do it this way though but I poured in the developer as quickly as I could. I did not get any streaking on my negatives.

I have a dozen or so rolls left, and 8 small jars of the liquid developer, so that is something that is coming up in the blog.

That’s it for this time, please take a look in the shop if you see anything that interests you. Any support is greatly appreciated..

Fortepan 100 and 200

Forte is one of those companies that is dearly missed. It used to be a big company that produced photographic paper and film. It got started in 1922 when Kodak decided that they were gonna start up a subsidiary in Vác, Hungary. At their peak they produced 3 million square meters of paper and 1 million square meters of film, every year. They had around 60 different papers and three different films (possibly four, I am uncertain). Fortepan 100, 200 and 400. The fourth one, is something called Portraitpan. I quote: “The main difference between the portrait film and standard Forte Pan 100 is the film coating. Both the base and the emulsion sides of Portrait Pan have a matte retouching surface” (source)

So as I have understood it, Portraitpan is just the regular Fortepan 100 but both sides of the film had a matte surface so you could retouch it. Portrait films went out of fashion when retouching negatives went out of fashion.

I have been for the past year or so trying to find some fresh-ish rolls of Fortepan but it has been difficult. Fortepan was also sold as Orwopan and I found a couple of rolls of Orwopan 100. After opening the box I can confirm that this is indeed Fortepan, exact same backing paper etc.

I shot a couple of rolls of 100 and 200 each, in 120. For some reason this film doesn’t age very well. They seem to have lost a lot of speed even though both are expired at -95 (which is a while ago sure, but not THAT bad). I exposed my first two rolls at ISO25 and this was way optimistic it seems. The ISO200 roll was probably better stored since it had almost no base fog, but everything was way underexposed nevertheless.

Also the emulsion seems to filled with specs and dust, which I cannot explain any other way than it was already there when it came from the factory.. so quality control was probably not the highest priority over at Fortepan in the early 90s.

Here are a few shots from the ISO25 shots. Fortepan 100 was developed in HC110 dil. B for 4,5min and Fortepan 200 for 7,5min. I added 5ml of BZT 1%, which was probably too much at this rating. The Fortepan 100 roll has some base fog, the other roll was very clear.

Next, I tried another stop of exposure, so E.I. 12 together with prolonged development time. I did Hcc10 dil b for 6min for Fortepan 100 and 8min for Fortepan 200. I skipped the BZT this time, and now the negatives are looking much better. The base fog on the ISO100 roll is clearly visible now, but on the ISO200 roll it is nice and purple. However, there are backing paper issues on these rolls too. It reminds me of expired Shanghai, which also gets totally destroyed when it is expired or stored in humid conditions.

Here are some example shots. From Fortepan 200:

And here are some shots from Fortepan 100:

Tonality-wise, both of these look pretty nice. They aren’t super grainy, very creamy nice midtones. But the backing paper feels like Shanghai backing paper, ie. very bad quality. And as I said, there is dust and specs in the emulsion. It is also the curliest film I have ever experienced. It curls so much, every time I open my negative binder the sheet with the Forte200 in it will just jump out and become a roll. It is a shame that Forte doesn’t exist anymore, but these three issues would probably prevent me from having this as my go to film emulsion.

I have 2 rolls left of Fortepan 200 in 120 format, both expired 1992. If anybody wants to give these a try, I will give them to you for free if you pay the postage for it.

This blog post took me over 6 months to complete. I am happy to have it done, it was a hassle to find film to shoot and shoot 4 rolls of film. And none of the images are really usable, it did not feel worth all the effort. I just hate the look of backing paper stuck to the emulsion. Oh well, hope this benefits somebody out there at least. That’s it for this time, please write a comment with your thoughts!

Lomography Metropolis 35mm

I recently shot a roll of the new Metropolis film, and thought I’d write a short review.

Metropolis is an actually NEW new emulsion instead of rebadged cinefilm or pre-flashed films. It has been coated by Inoviscoat, a spin off from the old Agfa team. So ignoring whatever I think of this film, it is really good that stuff like this is going on and that Inoviscoat is keeping busy. This is the kind of action that will keep film alive for real. Finding some old dusty master roll of expired arial photo and lying about its actual ISO value will have no long term benefit. I wonder what the famous blogger will do once that master roll runs out..

Anyhow, Lomography themselves say about the Metropolis that it: “desaturates colors, mutes tones and makes contrasts pop.” I find marketing speak like this confusing. How can something both be desaturated and muted and also make contrasts pop? I don’t understand..

I shot this roll at ISO320, Lomography themselves say that is is ISO100-400 (which again is confusing, am film can only have one true speed, which is unknown). I think that this is probably really closer to ISO200 since several shots looked quite grainy and weak. Shots that were slighly overexposed looked better when rated at 320. However highlights were VERY quick to block up, so the latitude is less than one would expect with a color negative film. I would not give this another stop and rate at ISO100, I imagine you will have totaly white highlights everywhere.

For a ~200 speed film, this is really really grainy. So keep that in mind.

The colors then, which are the main point of this film. They are desaturated as stated, everything tends to get a cyan/blue tint. Since it is such an unnatural color palette, depending on how you scan you will get different results. Your scanner might try to color correct for this blue cast, and you will end up with much more normal looking images. (Also a problem when doing cross processing)

My Pakon did this to an extent I think, because several of the images lacked any weird color shits.

I think this film might look cool for portraits with “attitude”. I see no point in using this for landscapes, normal portraits, architecture, etc. It’s fun to try different stuff once in a while, but it will probably take a year or two before I will shoot this one again.

Here are some example pictures:

That’s it for this time. Stay tuned for another film review of a new Ilford offering..

Oriental Seagull 400 in Xtol 1+1

Did another roll of Oriental Seagull 400, aka rebranded Kentmere. I could not find any times for Oriental Seagull in Xtol so I did the time stated for Kentmere 400. Lo and behold, it was perfect. No surprise there really. Anywho, I often hate on Kentmere, but it is a cheap film and honestly there is nothing wrong with it. It’s just that there are better films out there.

But here are some Pakon scans from that roll:

For a previous post about Oriental Seagull 400 see here.

Alright that’s it for this time, just a short update.

First look at Svema FN125 expired in -94

Alright, first roll shot with the Svema FN125 I bought a couple of weeks ago. When I got the rolls, I thought the packaging was peculiar. Then I read another review about Svema film here where it says "Firstly, the film is provided as a roll without a cassette. That’s how it always used to be". So I bought some reuseable cassettes off ebay and didn't bother opening my films. Turns out however, that my films do already come in plastic reuseable cassettes. Well, more for me. Pretty cool though, they have the screw on top so they are easy to use again.

FN125 is a ISO125 film. It says ASA125 on the back. Wikipedia however says it is a 125 GOST/ISO 160 film. There seems to be variations on Svema film depending on when they were manufactured. Mine expired in -94, that might be a clue of sorts. Anyhow, I started shooting at ISO100 (who was I kidding). Dropped down to ISO80, then ISO64.

I developed this first test in Rodinal 1+50, for 12min with less agitation than I normally do. 1-2 min between inversions.

The film came out with lots and lots of base fog, and severly underexposed. I would guess it needs another full stop of light, and I probably should cut development time with a minute or two. I wish I had some HC110 at hand, alas I don't.. Maybe Ilford DD-X works well with expired films, does anybody know?

Here are some sample shots from todays expirement. To be continued..