If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
"Roman J. Rohleder" wrote in message ... "Richard Knoppow" schrieb: "Peter Irwin" wrote in message The film base is very clear, not grey. If you are referring to 35mm B&W film being on a clear base it may be that Lucky is coating an anti-halation coating under the emulsion. They are not. And it´s the main flaw I found with these films. The location of the coating makes it function as an anti-light-piping coating as well eliminating the need for pigmenting the support. A friend of mine demonstrated that you could read a newspaper through the undeveloped film Worse is the photographic result - the lack of a anti-halation coating (AHU) contributes to halos and an overall unsharp appearance of the negativ under certain lighting conditions - like with a glaring piece of chrome or metal or the sun within the frame. Kodak pulled out of the Joint venture with Lucky some time ago. Gruss, Roman Fascinating, antideluvian film. I am not sure of the date anti-halation coatings were applied to roll film but they certainly date back to glass plates. In fact threre are instructions for making your own coating for plates in many ancient phtography books. Halation was much worse for plates than film but its amazing that anyone would make film now without the coating. Also, the back coating is also used for countering the curling tendency of the emulsion the anti-halation dye is usually included in this coating. If there is no back coating at all I suspect the film will curl very badly. FWIW normal emulsion is nearly transparent, this is why special motion picture effects could be made by bipacking (running two films through the camera emulsion to emulsion and exposing through the back of one of them). -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
Richard Knoppow wrote:
Fascinating, antideluvian film. I am not sure of the date anti-halation coatings were applied to roll film but they certainly date back to glass plates. In fact threre are instructions for making your own coating for plates in many ancient phtography books. Early plate "backing" had to be washed off. Many people continued to buy unbacked plates for quite a while after backing came out. Unbacked plates were fourpence cheaper for a dozen 4x5 plates in 1915, but I think not having to wash off the backing was the real reason unbacked plates remained popular. Kodak NC film was claimed to be "non-halation" on the packaging either from its inception (around 1904) or very soon afterwards, but I think that may have been a reference to the properties of the thin support rather than an actual antihalation layer. Verichrome (c. 1932) definitely did have an anti-halation layer; Kodak showed pictures of a neon sign at night which made the difference obvious. Halation was much worse for plates than film but its amazing that anyone would make film now without the coating. I looked at some Lucky SHD-100 negatives to see if I could see signs of halation. The only thing that was obvious when examining the negatives with a loupe was that the area aound the sky showed a bit of grey spreading outside the frame. This sometimes seems to happen a bit even with decent films, but the Lucky film is probably worse in this respect. None of the pictures on the roll included light sources other than sky. I did see the tiny scratches in the sky that I had complained about earlier - this might be a batch related problem, but I still found it annoying. I think that some special purpose films such as Eastman 5302 and 5360 may have no antihalation layer. They look the same both sides: 5302 looks like white translucent plastic and 5360 looks like red transparent plastic. I seem to recall that you can expose either side, though you obviously want emulsion-to-emulsion for contact printing. Also, the back coating is also used for countering the curling tendency of the emulsion the anti-halation dye is usually included in this coating. If there is no back coating at all I suspect the film will curl very badly. For all its faults, the Lucky film curls no more than usual. FWIW normal emulsion is nearly transparent, this is why special motion picture effects could be made by bipacking (running two films through the camera emulsion to emulsion and exposing through the back of one of them). The Lucky film is grey and somewhat translucent and looks the same colour from both sides. If you put undeveloped film on a newspaper you could probably just manage to read through it. If you had a light behind the paper it would be easy. Transparent suggests to me something like 5360 which looks like nearly clear red plastic - so much so that I had some trouble believing that it was actual film when I first saw what looked to be clear film under a red safelight. Peter. -- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
Peter Irwin wrote:
The Lucky film is grey and somewhat translucent and looks the same colour from both sides. If you put undeveloped film on a newspaper you could probably just manage to read through it. If you had a light behind the paper it would be easy. Transparent suggests to me something like 5360 which looks like nearly clear red plastic - so much so that I had some trouble believing that it was actual film when I first saw what looked to be clear film under a red safelight. I went back to Home Center and found the only 4 rolls of Lucky film they had. They are the ISO 200 color film. More importantly they have the name and phone number of the importer on them. I'll try to call them next week and see if they import black and white film. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
I went back to Home Center and found the only 4 rolls of Lucky film they had. They are the ISO 200 color film. More importantly they have the name and phone number of the importer on them. I'll try to call them next week and see if they import black and white film. Good gosh, Geoffrey. Can't one of us send you film? Is there a horrible tax or something? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
John J wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: I went back to Home Center and found the only 4 rolls of Lucky film they had. They are the ISO 200 color film. More importantly they have the name and phone number of the importer on them. I'll try to call them next week and see if they import black and white film. Good gosh, Geoffrey. Can't one of us send you film? Is there a horrible tax or something? Thanks, it would be appreicated but difficult. About a year and half ago, all of the post offices in the world got together and raised their rates. What they did is went from slightly more than their cost, for example, $6 for up to 4 pounds airmail, to 1/2 of what the courier services charge. So the per pound rate seems cheap as it's $35 for up to 12 pounds, but no one sends 12 pounds. If you send 4 pounds, it's still $35. Add into that a customs clearing fee ($10) now tacked unto packages, and the chance it will be x-rayed, or gamma ray scanned in a shipping container, it's not a good bet. Just about the only thing that would work is to have it brought back by someon in their carry on luggage, as no one knows if they x-ray or gamma scan checked luggage. I'm not really in that bad a shape, although the non digital department of most camera stores is a handfull of rolls of c-41 film, there is a good chance that the new Ektar film will at least make it to one store here and I can telephone order it. It's the wierd stuff like Lucky film where I have to call the importer and ask if they brought any in, because there is no way I can buy enough to make it worthwhile for them to get it for me. There is also the problem of paying for it. I don't have pay-pal, and international money orders were replaced with Western Union money transfer which the minimum fee is $35. If anyone happens to be coming here in the next few months and wants to bring a few rolls of film, I'd gladly pay them for it. :-) On the other hand, although it's pricey, there is no lack of digital cameras, memory cards, inkjet paper and so on. It's often that way in life, what you don't want is always in good supply. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Thanks, it would be appreicated but difficult. About a year and half ago, all of the post offices in the world got together and raised their rates. [... snip long list of woes, all quite daunting ...] Yes, you need someone to come in with a carry-on of film. It would look a bit suspicous, though, no? Seriously, what if I had nothing but film in my luggage? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
John J wrote:
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: Thanks, it would be appreicated but difficult. About a year and half ago, all of the post offices in the world got together and raised their rates. [... snip long list of woes, all quite daunting ...] Yes, you need someone to come in with a carry-on of film. It would look a bit suspicous, though, no? Seriously, what if I had nothing but film in my luggage? They would open each box, take the film out of each casette and inspect it for drugs, explosives or porn. It's probably not worth it, a couple of 100 foot rolls of 35mm would last a long time. Or 2 20 packs. Thanks, Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
Hi,
some time ago I got some rolls of SHD100 as 120 and some SHD400 as 135-36. The SHD100 I used for testing my camera, just because it was quite cheap - but what I found out: The lack of a anti-halation-dye can give quite interesting shots. For example (from the test-roll, so this is not an ideal picture, but it shows what I mean) http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online...tmp/mf2_07.jpg and http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online...tmp/mf4_14.jpg (Developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 12min iirc and quite inoptimal scan...) The SHD400 I have not tried so far, but the first one is ready to be developed, but what I expect are quite similar results but with the grain of a 400ASA-film. For me the Lucky is a quite nice film if I need this effect, otherwise I would prefer other films... Sadly there is afaik no one in Germany (and in Europe?) importing those films and the Austrian dealer (fotoriegler.at) has sold his last Lucky SHDs according to a friend. Jens |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
Jens Schinkel wrote:
Hi, some time ago I got some rolls of SHD100 as 120 and some SHD400 as 135-36. The SHD100 I used for testing my camera, just because it was quite cheap - but what I found out: The lack of a anti-halation-dye can give quite interesting shots. Yes, I agree, the shots are very interesting. Thanks for posting them. For example (from the test-roll, so this is not an ideal picture, but it shows what I mean) http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online...tmp/mf2_07.jpg and http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online...tmp/mf4_14.jpg (Developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 12min iirc and quite inoptimal scan...) The second one (the railway station) looks like it was shot in the 1930's. For me the Lucky is a quite nice film if I need this effect, otherwise I would prefer other films... I like the look of the second one. The effect of the film, the development and the scan is something that from a technical point of view, we got rid of long time ago, but from an artistic point of view might be just what we want or need. I'm sure if I went around the old city (of Jerusalem) with a camera loaded with it, not only could I produce some interesting shots, I could sell them to tourists if I were careful to keep modern cars and signs like "cell phones sold here" and "Internet cafe" out of them. :-) Sadly there is afaik no one in Germany (and in Europe?) importing those films and the Austrian dealer (fotoriegler.at) has sold his last Lucky SHDs according to a friend. Oh well, I expect I will have similar luck here too. I wonder if their color film produces similar results. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Do you feel Lucky?
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... Jens Schinkel wrote: Hi, some time ago I got some rolls of SHD100 as 120 and some SHD400 as 135-36. The SHD100 I used for testing my camera, just because it was quite cheap - but what I found out: The lack of a anti-halation-dye can give quite interesting shots. Yes, I agree, the shots are very interesting. Thanks for posting them. So we see the different point of view, some others said they won´t use Lucky films because their lack of an anti halation dye, but sometimes I would like to have other films also lacking this dye for the effects. For example (from the test-roll, so this is not an ideal picture, but it shows what I mean) http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online...tmp/mf2_07.jpg and http://www.ascholz.homepage.t-online...tmp/mf4_14.jpg (Developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 12min iirc and quite inoptimal scan...) The second one (the railway station) looks like it was shot in the 1930's. And for this things Lucky would be my film of choice, if you use this weakness for your pictures - ok, the ones I posted may not be the best examples, but anyway... For more "retro" I also own an old Agfa Isolette and Adox Golf. But this is another story :-) For me the Lucky is a quite nice film if I need this effect, otherwise I would prefer other films... I like the look of the second one. The effect of the film, the development and the scan is something that from a technical point of view, we got rid of long time ago, but from an artistic point of view might be just what we want or need. Yep... Technically imperfect but it looks good. This is also why I like APX400 in Rodinal, the grain is quite nice - I´m not so fanatic about finest grain possible using microfilms... I'm sure if I went around the old city (of Jerusalem) with a camera loaded with it, not only could I produce some interesting shots, I could sell them to tourists if I were careful to keep modern cars and signs like "cell phones sold here" and "Internet cafe" out of them. :-) You own some good saw? This should solve the problem with those signs... *duck and away* Otherwise I´d agree... Sadly there is afaik no one in Germany (and in Europe?) importing those films and the Austrian dealer (fotoriegler.at) has sold his last Lucky SHDs according to a friend. Oh well, I expect I will have similar luck here too. I wonder if their color film produces similar results. Give it a try? I don´t have an idea about the color films... Geoff. Jens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FEEL FREE TO USE | artista | Digital Photography | 0 | December 27th 07 06:37 PM |
I feel so left out | Doug Payne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 20 | February 15th 07 03:27 AM |
How would you feel if your wife | Dallas Dahms | 35mm Photo Equipment | 17 | November 7th 05 04:37 AM |
I feel so stupid with my new DMC-FZ1 | Sexy Olde Farte | Digital Photography | 5 | October 15th 04 10:31 AM |
[SI] Because I feel obligated... | Al Denelsbeck | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | July 5th 04 04:14 PM |