Chinese Tri-X, or, Cheap Film Makes the Grade

I've just finished scanning my second test roll of Lucky SHD 400 in

120. I picked up a couple rolls of this film because, although in the

past I've gotten some amazing deals, I know full well that when I run

out of the T-Max 400 in my freezer, I won't be able to afford $4/roll

to replace it -- so I've been looking for cheaper alternatives.

 

The field is narrower than one might think; examination of the catalog

at J&C Photo shows only six candidates at ISO 400 (though there are

three more they don't have or don't carry, at least in 120): Tri-X,

Neopan 400, Fomapan 400, Classic 400, APX 400, and Lucky SHD 400 (they

don't carry or are out of stock on TMY in 120, and don't have any

Ilford products, so no Delta 400 or HP5+). I'm not separately

counting other rebrandings of Forte (Classic 400) or Ilford

(Superfine, etc.). And of course I'm not counting the various Kodak,

Ilford, or Fuji C-41 offerings, because I don't do C-41 myself at this

point (and they're not cheap, either).

 

Of the available offerings in ISO 400, at least from J&C, SHD 400 is

easily the cheapest, hence its presence in my developing tanks.

 

Having tried it for two rolls, exposed the same way I'm used to doing

with TMY, I'm confident it will be a long-term addition to my freezer,

at least in 120. The film itself is on the thin side, very flexible

in handling, and appears to have no anti-curl backside coating -- on

drying, it curls, not back into a roll, but as if to form a tube, and

it curls pretty strongly -- but the emulsion is hard enough to take

normal handling, unlike Efke products and J&C Pro 100, which require

special care to protect the very soft emulsions. The backing paper of

the 120 is almost identical to Kodak backing -- bright white with

crisp black numbers, and a shiny surface on the black, film side; the

tape at the film head end separates cleanly from both backing and

film. Spools appear to be the same Chinese made spools used for Pro

100, and I'm guessing for another brand or two of Chinese made 120

film that hasn't made it to America yet (Holgas have to consume

something in their native land, right?).

 

Of course, none of those qualities, good or bad, would matter without

the images the film can produce, and I can honestly say I like the

images from the SHD 400 about as well as those from Tri-X. The grain

is a bit more pronounced than TMY, more like the old Tri-X (from

before coating was moved to the TMY plant and the grain got finer --

TX instead of 400TX). Scale and tonal range are, to my eye and

scanner, excellent, and sharpness is everything one could expect from

ISO 400, regardless of price.

 

I exposed at ISO 400, using an extended Sunny 16 system (I haven't

carried a meter regularly in a couple years, except for large format),

and developed in HC-110 Dilution G, 22 minutes at 68F with continuous

agitation the first minute, then five inversions every 3rd minute.

Shadow detail is excellent; once resized for web viewing (which

obscures grain) the images are almost indisinguishable from the best

I've had with TMY or the examples I've seen posted to prove the

superiority of Tri-X.

 

All of the following examples were exposed in a 1928 Voigtlander

Rollfilmkamera, 6x9, with 10.5 cm f/4.5 (uncoated) Skopar, unit focusing.<div></div>

Second example.<div></div>

Third example.<div></div>

Fourth.<div></div>

Last one.<div></div>

I heard Kodak is teamed up with Lucky to drive Fuji out of the Chinese market.

I tried some old Lucky years years ago. then they were developed in the lab and they didn't curl (however, they were 135 film). anyway how do you handle the curl film???

I am going to try this film.

If it ain't broke... or, ...whatever works for you.

 

I'm happy for the info, thanks.

Donald, thanks for the heads up on this film. I am also sending you a little package this afternoon.

The only problem I've had with the curl is that it's a little tricky to get the film fastened into my scanner's glassless carrier (it clamps around the edge, almost like the negative carrier in an enlarger), and the first roll was so curly it would fall out of the negative file sheet. A few days under a book seems to flatten it out (the lab processed film probably was dried in a commercial film drier, under tension, same process that gives such flat negatives from color film).

 

And Jim? If I can't afford it, it's *me* that's broke... ;)

 

Glenn, I've forgotten what you might be sending (unless it's a surprise). E-mail me if it's important or involves money (so I don't spend all the pay before it gets here).

Very cool, Donald. Thanks for the report.

 

Jay

I used the Lucky 100 and 400 a few times when I lived in Beijing. Afraid I was not nearly as impressed as you are. And the curling was a real bitch and made it very hard to work with. That and the inconsistency I found on occasion, plus defects in the film (pit marks here and there in the emulsion), had me give it a pass since. Maybe they improved their QC since.

Having lived in China for many years, I have repeatedly made attempts with this film and Lucky SHD100, but just could not get a single picture that I really liked. I think it is its tonality that makes me dislike this film, but my pictures just looked crap. Anyway, it is cheap, so if one is thinking about trying this film, I do not want to discourage anybody. Maybe it's me that's bad, not the film.

Oliver, I've heard that Lucky made significant changes in the film within the last couple years, probably not a coincidence that corresponds to about the time Kodak bought into the company. The word was that there was technology transfer from Kodak in exchange for equity in Lucky.

 

All I'm certain of, though, is that this film isn't bad at all except the curl, and I can deal with that.

Latest Lucky film I got here in the U.S.A. said Made in China fineshed U.S.A. now if that means boxed or coated I don't know. The Yellow cast old Lucky had is gone and the B&W does not curle ... the Color never curled... It could mean that the emmulsion was made in U.S. or in China and coated visa versa ... I wonder if the Emuulsion is made in China and coated in the new Kodak plant... BTW China started the drop in Oil prices recently .... LOL

Don,

 

Ilford HP-5+ is only $2.59 a roll form B&H. That's very cheap! And it's a quality film.

And this Lucky SHD 400 was $1.89 from J&C Photo. For my money, this is also a quality film (and when I can by four rolls for the price of three of the Ilford, I can shoot more).

HP5+/Arista 400 is also $1.89 at Freestyle. I love that stuff!

 

Jay

Since they get to use Lucky films. And consumers in the west too are lucky since by tossing out environmental standards and keeping worker's pay down they can save a few cents on a roll of film. Stop crying about Agfa or Ilford or film selection go for the absolute cheapest. And the Chinese too can be lucky to have a job at Lucky film without need for freely associated organized labour (syndicalist or unionist movements not under the control of the ACFTU monopoly are considered anti-revolutionary in China). Come on.. lets all join Donald in a Hip Hip Horray.. or as the Germans say "Geiz ist Geil" (Cheap makes horney). That the film is not quite as good as others (and the difference in the price of a brick of 10 rollfilms between Lucky and Agfa is less than the price of a coffee in a paper cup at Starbucks)? Who cares..

Yes! What Edward said. And I'm sure you do not shop at Target or Walmart, right Ed? And your clothes? I hope they are Union made in the good ol' US of A? Oh, they're not? And you do shop at Tar-Wal-Mart? Oh, nevermind....

Oh, I see. I'd thought that sometime in the last decade or so it had once again become okay to be broke enough to watch for bargains. Sorry, Ed, I'll find some environmentally concious way to dispose of all my 40-80 year old cameras, burn my negatives (in a high temperature, excess-oxygen incinerator so they don't pollute the environment), erase all the scans from my computer and give the machine away, and while I'm at it, get rid of all my TVs, VCRs, and yes, my car. Then I'll go live under a bridge, since without the car I won't be able to maintain the daily commute and thus won't be able to pay the rent.

 

Simple fact, Ed. Whether I buy Lucky film or not, the Chinese who work in the factory will be working for slave labor wages (except the ones working for Lucky likely make a lot more than their subsistence farming or manual laborer neighbors). They're better off with a job than without, and some of the money I spend goes into improving the economy of their country (which has 5 times the population of mine). Improving their economy is the only possible way to make labor unions (who, I might add, haven't done me any major favors lately), environmental controls (which add cost to products I'd like to buy but can't afford, and seem to make little difference outside the proximate neighborhood of an "offending" physical plant), and personal freedoms available to them (short of sending in the Marines, which isn't going to happen and, based on recent history, doesn't seem to work well anyway).

 

So you can castigate me all you like. Meanwhile, I'll continue to buy the film I can afford, and send my money to China via an American business that supports B&W film, instead of to a British company that's just out of mismanagement-induced bankruptcy via a couple businesses with horrible customer service records and for whom film is an annoying sideline instead of their main business. And I will continue to avoid Wal-Mart, who are partly responsible for my financial condition (via paying below-poverty wages to their workers and offering benefits that may as well be no benefits at all, while driving competitors who support the community out of business).

 

Lucky films make the community better where they are made. Wal-Mart makes the community worse where it operates. Which do you choose?

"<cite>Yes! What Edward said. And I'm sure you do not shop at Target or Walmart, right Ed?</cite>"

<P>

Correct. WalMart is little other than a parasite. WalMart might be cheap but how? By pushing the healthcare costs onto the social welfare system, by ... Sorry NOT WITH ME!

<P>

"<cite>And your clothes? I hope they are Union made in the good ol' US of A?</cite>"

<P>

While the Ladies Garment Workers Union has historically been a great union, the Men's Garment Workers was a bit more problematic and so not all of older men's items were Union--- but never at sub-union standards. The men's union has, however, been amalgamated into UNITE together with the lnternational Ladies Garment Workers Union in the last decade so I would not touch anything non Union unless (as used to be the case with men's items) it was not applicable or where pay and conditions exceeded Union standards. That said most of the American clothing that I've ever purchased has been union goods and purchased either in unionized stores or shops paying in excess of union agreements. Not currently living in the United States much of my clothing today comes from small, often cottage, Irish, Scottish or English makers or bespoke tailors. Among items like underwear, socks etc. I try to purchase, whenever possible, from national or known production using local to them materials. We try to purchase fruits and vegetables from local organic farmers and support rainfeed organic agricultural initiates through aid and development projects. My company too has chosen to work closely together with fair trade organizations. My meats are ritually slaughtered and I try to be informed of the entire chain from farmer up through into my kitchen and onto the table. I ride a bicycle and choose to live without a motorcar (not living in Los Angeles has made that possible).

<P>

It pains me that some items offer me no choice (such as training shoes now that Adidas has closed their production in Germany or computer boards) but when I have the choice I try to use my purchases to "do the right thing" (albeit sometimes the intent and realities diverge).

<P>

Sure many workers don't have much money to spend but to go to WalMart is a false savings. WalMart has a negative influence on jobs in their area and, in the big picture, ignoring the demands of fair trade and looking to get the "cheapest" at all costs will ultimately cost their jobs and push, under the banner of "globalism", their social, educational, environmental and economic standard down to the least common level.. Little more than a pact with the devil!

<P>

Turning to photographic materials.. If you want to have Agfa film available then purchase some. If you want baryta fibre papers then purchase some. Purchasing power IS power.

wow.

<i>Turning to photographic materials.. If you want to have Agfa film available then purchase some. If you want baryta fibre papers then purchase some. Purchasing power IS power.</i><p>

 

But if you have my budget, and the choice is having enough film by buying the absolute cheapest, or running out before you can afford more because you got 1/3 less of the "responsible" brand, which would you choose? I've chosen to support businesses that support film, and it's all I can do for now. If I had the kind of money many amateur photographers seem to have, then I very well might be able to purchase only Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa -- though at this time I'm not certain doing so would serve the future of photography, since at least one of those companies is on record as wanting to be out of the film business.<p>

 

Bottom line is, if I bottom feed as much as possible, I can afford photography, barely. If I don't, I'll be better off developing a "hobby" of watching the same VHS movies over and over.

Damn guys I thought this was Photo net not The John Birtch Society.

Donald,

 

It may well be the quality of the scans, or more likely the gamma on my monitor...but I see little in the above that resembles Tri-X. I tried this stuff 12 months ago and I encontered streaking, curling, and a vulnerability to scratches that other emulsions don't seem to evince.

 

It's also worth noting that Lucky has also been encountering difficulties arising from falling film sales. They are not above the same problems that EK, AgfaPhoto, and Ilford all face. Lucky wants to get their hands on state-of-the-art digital technology...they've no desire to be relegated to a niche market occupied by hobbyists.

 

And I do believe the poster above has a worthy consideration regarding environmental concerns. I have my own budget restrictions but if it's a choice between purchasing less film and treading lightly where the environment is concerned - I will buy less film. Gladly.

 

Others are, of course, welcome to make their own arrangements however their conscience guides them.