leica888 Posted February 23, 2009 Share #1 Posted February 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have in the past been shooting with ILFORD or KODAK black and white negatives; lately however,by chance, when I could not find film around I settled with the cheapest I could find called LUCKY (from China) I had it processed and scanned the negatives.They were not bad at all...however I noticed that the film is soft and thin compared to the firmness of the known brands.Does that mean that this brand might have a poor archival quality? Has anybody used this film? Any opinions? Thanks again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2009 Posted February 23, 2009 Hi leica888, Take a look here negative brand. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest wls.shanghai Posted February 23, 2009 Share #2 Posted February 23, 2009 I think, the LUCKY B&W film is made under KODAK license?! yes, the film is not bad - and for one appr. (1) Euro very cheap. I used some rolls for testing. wls LUCKY SHD 100 and LUCKY SHD 400 on the market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted February 23, 2009 Share #3 Posted February 23, 2009 Film is pretty cheap to start with - unless this film gives specific and desirable effects when used, why chance it? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodaktrix Posted February 24, 2009 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2009 I have heard, that the production quality of Lucky does change from charge to charge. So I gave ERA 100 a try. The grayscale is very good, it is thin and clear, but perfectly flat when dry, it is said to be a classic silver film, no T-or FlatChrystalls. It is not marked and the frames are not numbered. I did not yet shoot it, just made a sensitivity test for me. In Diafine I got very good scanable negs from 100-200ASA and scanable ones from 50-800ASA. It cost me 1.50 Euros per roll incl. shipping. Regards Oliver Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted February 24, 2009 If Lucky is licenced under Kodak,it must use Kodak technology too then...cause its not so bad at all and pleasant for the pocket at 2 dollars a piece.Though when I shot with CN Kodak 400 in Sepia,I could clearly see the difference. I processed the Lucky SD100 negatives with Kodak developer and fixer for 6 minutes. For now black and white Lucky will do...but with extra money I would probably go for Ilford 100 or Kodak tri X. But its hard to let go when it is a third cheaper..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted February 24, 2009 Share #6 Posted February 24, 2009 Remind us again how much you spent on your Leica kit Film is cheap. Even expensive film is cheap. Unless I couldn't get anything else, and was desperate, I'd always stick with a premium brand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted February 24, 2009 Share #7 Posted February 24, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) At one point in time Lucky had a deal with Kodak. I think that is no longer true. I have some Lucky SHD 100. It's fun. It's cheap and has poor anti-halation qualities. Also seems grainy for it's speed. It's something different to play around with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #8 Posted February 24, 2009 good point,I just spent 800 dollars for the leica m3 with summicron 50mm 2 in excellent mint condition just yesterday and had an M2 with 2 summicron lens for 15 years, why should I settle with a cheap ,risky and unproven film like lucky.Its great for experimentation but thats probably as far as it goes now. after using just about 30 rolls of it.Will post some of the photos from it next time incidentally this site Early versions of Leica M3 double strokes Models with sequential year of produce - - MIR Image Library gives you the cost of ones gear so detailed down to the serial number.Great site. am in heaven now with a combination of M2 and M3.I am trying to switch the 35mm to the m3 (to experiment)without the goggle to see how much icutout image occurs from the frameline since m3 only accepts 50,90 and 135 lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share #9 Posted February 24, 2009 to Mr.Andy just saw your site with photos of Aschuwitz ....great magnificent work indeed.I did something similar with Dachau images years back and had a photo book published in 2004. But your images are stunningly amazing!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted February 25, 2009 Share #10 Posted February 25, 2009 If you want inexpensive but quality B&W film all the experts agree that this film is Tri-X: Arista Premium B&W 400 ISO 35mm x 36 exp. | Freestyle Photographic Supplies Freestyle are great to deal with too and strongly support the film community. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica888 Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted February 27, 2009 where do you get this film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubenkok Posted February 27, 2009 Share #12 Posted February 27, 2009 Hi, I don't have any experience with LUCKY B&W film. Maybe this is an alternative, have a look at: FOMA BOHEMIA + sp and try the FOMAPAN 200 Creative BLACK-AND-WHITE NEGATIVE FILM http://www.foma.cz/Upload/foma/prilohy/F_pan_200_en.pdf You can buy this film at FOTOIMPEX GmbH Fomapan 200 Hope this is some help? regards Ruben Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted February 27, 2009 Share #13 Posted February 27, 2009 Ilford- Pan F Plus 50asa- beautiful fine grain- FP4 125asa- medium speed fairly fine grain Ilford's most popular film- HP5 400asa medium grain fast enough for most situations. Link that to Ilford's chemicals and paper and you have a system just like Leica is a system but by all means buy cheap Chiwanese film and keep your fingers crossed if you shooting anything important. I certainly wouldn't take the risk Welcome to the ILFORD PHOTO Website Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattLain Posted February 27, 2009 Share #14 Posted February 27, 2009 the lucky films are meant to be very similar to the characteristics of kodak's t-max so the negatives will look thinner than most. Whether they have the same t-grain I'm not sure, but that could be a reason why they look 'flat' or 'soft'. I don't know if you can get hold of it in the Philippines but Rollei Retro has become one of my main film stocks, I just prefer films with high silver content. Here in the UK, Robert White sells 30 rolls (135) of the stuff for £50 - thats £1.60 each or about $2.30. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.