Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Sept 14, 2012 4:19:37 GMT -5
Do we not all think about saving money on film sometimes ? The Chinese Lucky SHD 100 B/W film is probably one ( if not THE ) cheapest B/W film available. The 35 mm version of it is not totally crap ... but I have seen better cave paintings than the results, coming out of the 120 film of this brand: img13.shop-pro.jp/PA01071/050/product/13377243.jpg?20101231045138I wouldn't mind some vintage effect or a little bit more grain, but I thought, I share some of my recent results to save others from a similar disappointment Enoshima Beach by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Enoshima Beach by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Japanese mermaids in Enoshima by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Enoshima by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Enoshima by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Enoshima by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Enoshima by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 14, 2012 4:41:40 GMT -5
Baaaad!
But the box is attractive.
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Sept 14, 2012 6:11:47 GMT -5
Kodak, not known in recent times for it's corporate smarts, was in a partnership with Lucky films. Even Kodak had enough sense to get out of that partnership after a short time. From you examples of Lucky's quality I don't wonder why. Man, that is just horrid like a bad scan of a newspaper photo.
Bob
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 14, 2012 7:04:04 GMT -5
Was the film home or commercially processed, it looks as if over developed, or process temperature was too high, ......now, I know you are now going to say you did it yourself!! ........I am not getting at your processing at all, but the correct timing and the developer type may be vital to get any quality from the film, which I assume from the post was the 35mm version.
If the processing was done commercially then it may well have been push processed, labs tend to over develop.
To determine a home processing time use a weaker dilution developer than usual, normal temperatures, and process a film for a time longer than usual, the weak developer will stop building up density, and then process a film with a series of test shots in good daylight, in graduated series, recording the exposure details carefully, on a known good camera. Use a stop bath and fixer at exactly the right temperature, and wash at the same.
Go through the negs to determine the best and note the exposure details, work backwards and it shows the best practical ASA/Din rating for the film, (given the lighting).
Then take a second film at that film rating, and cut back the developing time by about 20%, and it should reveal what the film can do.
If after this it is still wrong, only further test development with short scraps of film will actually give an exact process time. I usually used Rodinal developer for such test, (if still available).
The Chinese B/W I tried was OK, nothing brilliant, but not as grainy as the posted shots, It may well be they are simply inconsistent in manufacture. The silver level was noticeably lower than Kodak or Ilford, and the film base was not as clear. It was grainier than other 100ASA films.
Hope this helps you and other posters using an unusual film. It is going to get worst with time to obtain B/W supplies, but it is all right at present.
Stephen.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Sept 14, 2012 10:56:57 GMT -5
Stephen, thanks for the detailed and interesting review. No, a lab did it It's actually the third film, which I tried but they all turned out the same. It might very well be, that the lab is not capable of handling this type of film ... or, as you also pointed out, an inconsistence of manufacturing. Not unlikely, because the 35 mm film turned out better ... let's say, a little bit. However, I have also seen better results on Flickr & Co. So it seems to be possible to squeeze out a little bit more, if having some experience and developing by yourself. I basically like the "retro look" of this film ... if the quality wouldn't be that bad overall. On most of the pictures, you can even see the film numbers shining through The question in the end is: Is it worth, buying and trying such a film ? For me, as I don't process films by myself, probably not.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 14, 2012 11:59:29 GMT -5
berndt,
"I basically like the "retro look" of this film ..."
There is a big difference between "grain" and "blotch".
What we have here is a botched job of either film making or processing or both, resulting not in excessive grain but disfiguring blotches.
Large grain may be acceptable and indicative of some older process.
Blotches in a photo cannot be made appealing even with the most modern of pharmaceutical ointments.
And why are those "watermarks" peeking through in most of the pictures?
Mickey
|
|
|
Post by Randy on Sept 14, 2012 12:52:15 GMT -5
Looks like you shot it through a screen door.
|
|
Doug T.
Lifetime Member
Pettin' The Gator
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by Doug T. on Sept 14, 2012 14:25:14 GMT -5
I had some Solaris ISO 400 color print film that got me in trouble once I was doing a wedding. It got pretty ugly. Doug
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Sept 14, 2012 17:52:54 GMT -5
Well, if that was the 120 version, then they have very serious problems.....it looks like the backing paper is too thin, allowing light through, (but don't forget the old 120 rule, load in very subdued light!! or the dark!!) we tend to forget this old advice with modern film. Also remove in the dark and wrap in aluminium foil before taking to the processors.
No 120 film should show grain to that extent shown, it must be over processed to a major degree, to hot a process, or over cooked.
Also the print though from the backing can indicate moisture is in the backing, was the film sealed properly in the pack by the makers, I assume that you did not unpack it and leave it to absorb any moisture? .......and I know this would be obvious to any enthusiast, but did the film get hot in say the back of a car before processing?
A strange problem can come up with some old Bakelite cameras and 120 film, high heat can leach chemicals out of Bakelite, they are able to fog film and affect it, I think it is traces of urea formaldehyde. the cameras are all right at normal temperatures as is film. It prints though fogging traces of the printing on the backing to the film.
Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by julio1fer on Sept 14, 2012 20:57:47 GMT -5
FWIW, I have had much better results than that with Lucky SHD100. The only real problem is no anti-halo layer, therefore nice glow in highlights. Besides that it looks like old Plus-X to me.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Sept 14, 2012 21:21:21 GMT -5
Absolutely !!! I even didn't mean the grain with "vintage look", but more tonality, contrast, etc. I never really understood, why people consider "grain" as vintage or retro. It should just be a matter of the ASA. High ASA films show grain, low ASA films don't ... and that has been the same 50-100 years ago. Frankly speaking, I haven't found my favorite B/W-film yet. I tried the Fuji Neopan and the Kodak T-Max, but I didn't really like their look. The picture quality is of course much better than on this Chinese film, but both films have been too "grayish" for me. Great details and tonality ... but not that contrasty. Can't say why, but I don't like their look. Best B/W-film, I have used yet ... the Rollei Retro 80S, but other suggestions are very welcome. Oh ... and another fantastic one ( if proper developed ), the Fomapan R, which is a slide film but unfortunately not available ale 120 film I usually load it in subdued light ( if possible ), but do not handle it with such care ( removing in the dark, aluminum foil, etc. ) usually. However, I use a lot of 120 film of all types and had never problems ( even not with an Ilford Delta 3200, which should be much more sensitive ). I also used three of those Chinese Lucky films yet ( at different times and conditions ). Here a picture from another film, taken a few moths ago and also with a different camera: www.lomography.com/homes/berndtotto/albums/1815513-lucky-b-w-100-film/photos/15868411Doesn't look better, doesn't it That's a good question. The only explanation, I can imagine is, that the backing paper is somehow reacting with the film emulsion. I don't believe, that they appear from exposure. The backing paper of this film is very thick and black ( almost like carton ). The numbers are printed on it in white color. The manufacturing looks very primitive ;D Not a really good concept anyway, as it is very hard to see those numbers through the red counter window at all.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 14, 2012 22:50:32 GMT -5
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Sept 15, 2012 1:59:33 GMT -5
Not necessarily from the original idea, but I know very well what you mean and often feel the same when looking at many of those "lomo-pictures". What looks like crap, is at least art Mentioning a few good sides of Lomography, it became basically a home for all experimental film lovers and the strongest ( or only left ? ) ally of film in general. The basic philosophy of Lomography is also "don't think, shoot" ... so, more snapshot based, also accepting failures or unexpected results. I have difficulties with that and don't like those toy cameras much ... but well, somehow it became a home for all film photographers ( even extending to other analog freaks meanwhile ). A movement, that is always changing, like many other movements too. Thanks for sharing. But that's a 35 mm picture ... or ? My 35 mm Lucky SHD 100 pictures also didn't turn out that bad: Sky Tree by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Old pub in Asakusa by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr I actually liked the strange charm of this cheap film and became motivated to try the 120 film as well.
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Sept 15, 2012 10:35:23 GMT -5
What looks like crap, is at least art So berndt. If I stare into my toilet I could be looking at something equivalent to The Mona Lisa? Wow! I will never flush again. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by herron on Sept 15, 2012 12:50:01 GMT -5
Baaaad! But the box is attractive. Mickey Sorry ... I got stuck at the mermaids.
|
|