Please help with developing Lucky film

[Bosk]

Hey guys,

I have taken the plunge and ordered all the gear I need to develop B&W film at home for the first time, along with some Kodak HC-110 developer.

I have 10 rolls of Lucky SHD 100 B&W film sitting on a shelf which I intend to use to come to grips with the developing process, before trying some more expensive Illford & Kodak films.

I've consulted the massive Devchart but it doesn't seem to give any information on how to develop this film in HC-110, so I was hoping someone here could lend a hand and give me a clue on what sort of settings I ought to be using.

I believe I need to know how long to develop the film, how often to agitate it, and what kind of dulution to use.

Thanks very much for any assistance you can offer.

[Mauro]

Dear Bosk,
I have read on a photo magazine that the Lucky B+W 400 asa can be developed in ID11 at 20° for 7.5 minutes: I hope this help, but I will keep searching for.
Have you never tried Caffenol? I have developed Ilford 125 ASA with this unusual "soup" and it worked!!!

[kully]

You could try emailing these very nice, kind people in Beijing: 798@798photogallery.cn

I got all my film (including Lucky SHD 100) developed by them when I was there in the Autumn and they only use HC-110.

I think this film is a bad one to start off with, curly like private part hair and scratchy like a insect bite. I'd recommend starting with HP5+ (or Tri-X?), it's a lot more forgiving.

[clintock]

I like the lucky 100
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000001771
I used the times on that page, and found a film on a bigger chart that had similar times for those developers, and extrapolated sort of to get a time for the dilution I was using..
Seemed to work ok.
This page describes how to do a test strip to really get it right..
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html

[ZorkiKat]

Dilute HC110 1+63 (from syrup concentrate) and develop for about 8-10 minutes at 20 degrees C. Personally, I like developing this film in D76 1+3 for about 13 minutes at 20C. And the latest Luckypan 100 which I developed went in paRodinal 1+100, for 15 minutes at 20 deg C

You will have to determine the actual time yourself, depending on your preferences. The high dilutions work well with Luckypan, taming down its tendency to flare in the highlights. There is also increased accutance. Plus, Lucky negatives developed in dilute developers scan very well.

Jay

[Bosk]

Thankyou very much for your instructions ZorkiKat, I will give those settings a try as soon as the developer arrives in the mail.

I have one question for you though, how often should I agitate the developing tank?
And is there a special method to use when agitating?

Thanks again for your help. :)

[ChrisN]

Hi Bosk - I'm sure Jay will get back to you, but the usual agitiation (in a small tank) is to invert the tank say 4 times after every minute ie watching the clock, as the second hand passes the 12 I pick up the tank, invert 4 times, then put the tank down, tapping it a few times to release any air bubbles that might adhere to the film.

And Jay, could you suggest a developing time for Lucky SHD 400 in Ilford DD-X 1+4?

[ZorkiKat]

Thankyou very much for your instructions ZorkiKat, I will give those settings a try as soon as the developer arrives in the mail.

I have one question for you though, how often should I agitate the developing tank?
And is there a special method to use when agitating?

Thanks again for your help. :)

Hi Bosk

ChrisN's suggested agitation frequency is good. My personal agitation method involves continuous, gentle agitation for the first minute, and then subsequent movements for 5 seconds for each succeeding minute.

Inversion agitation is preferred. Movement should be gentle, about one inversion for each second, so each inversion cycle will involve about 5 inversions. Do not shake the tank.

Avoid rotary or continuous agitation if possible. Don't overdevelop or over agitate. Lucky pan develops quickly and its contrast also increases at a fast rate. Overdeveloped Lucky film will have severely blocked highlights, high contrast, and grittier grain. Not good to scan.

Jay

[ZorkiKat]

And Jay, could you suggest a developing time for Lucky SHD 400 in Ilford DD-X 1+4?

Hi Chris N

The developer choice I have is limited to D76, HC-110, Rodinal, and paRodinal. Not familiar with Ilford DD-X though. I haven't used a lot of Lucky 400 too- the ISO 100 version was all that was around when it was still available here. The Lucky 400 I've developed lately went in paRodinal.

In D76 1+3, develop Lucky 400 for 18-25 minutes at 20 deg C.

For Rodinal and paRodinal, use a dilution of 1+50 and develop for about 15-18 minutes at 20 deg C. Rodinal and paRodinal will develop with more pronounced grain so do not use lower dilutions like 1+25. Higher dilutions like 1+100 can reduce the apparent grain, but it can also reduce effective film speed, so dilutions greater than 1+75 are not recommended.

Jay

[ChrisN]

Thanks Jay! Cheers!

[ARCHIVIST]

I would not start my processing life off with HC-110.
It would be better to start with ID-11 or D-76 untill you find your feet.

The choice of the Lucky film is OK but I adhere to the theory that you start out the way you should continue.
Ilford, Kodak and Fuji are more easily avaiable here in OZ and once you have mastered the processing it is a 99% certain that you will find your 'soul' film amongst these brands - so why not start out with them.

You may find that you perfect the Lucky film process but the supply becomes erratic as it is a fringe film in OZ. You will then have to start over with one of the other three brands.

Sure you will trial other film/dev combinations in your processing future but start with a more common film/dev combination. This will make it easier to sort out any initial problems / isssues as they will be known.

All my students in the foundation classes I've taught at TAFE start with FP4 Plus and D-76.

Regards
Peter

[P C Headland]

I would not start my processing life off with HC-110.
It would be better to start with ID-11 or D-76 untill you find your feet.
...

It really doesn't matter what developer you start with, as long as it is not something that no-one else uses. HC-110 is a pretty common developer, and keeps (in concentrate form) almost forever. Being "one-shot" also helps when starting.

Consistency is the key while starting out - use the same temperature, dilution and agitation scheme until it becomes second nature. I would start out with the higer dilutions (like 1+63) as this should ensure the development time is not too short - try and aim for something that gives 8-12 minutes (or longer). This gives a little more leeway if you go over or under time.

Ensure your developer is at the right temperature, usually 20-21C, before you start. Try and keep your temperatures even throughout the development process. To do this, put some water in the sink at 20 - 21C to use as a water bath - stand your tank and chemicals in here. As much as possible, ensure your rinsing water is the same temperature too.

Remember, take your time, write down what you do, and make a note of your results. Oh, and enjoy yourself!!


Good luck!

[Bosk]

I'd like to say Thankyou to everyone for their help and support, particularly ZorkiKat who's method I attempted to follow.

I say attempted, but I've just finished developing my first roll of Lucky SHD100 with a moderate amount of success.


Below is a scan of one of the test shots:

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/8974/scan0051xy2.jpg


As you can see I made a couple of errors first time round.

As is probably most obvious - the water marks on the negative - were from using a lint-free cloth and hairdyer to dry the negs. (think I'll invest in a squeegie in future)

The exposure -blown highlights- may to some degree be a result of poor shutter speed selection as my M2 lacks a meter and the handheld Sekonic I'm using isn't deadly accurate.
Primarily though I think it's the result of incorrect development. I had difficulty reading the thermomoter and have a nagging feeling that I developed at 25c instead of 20c.
I also had issues with the cheap plastic tank I'm using (came as part of a discount 'film development kit' I purchased) which leaked when agitating upside down so I had to resort to using the plastic spindle/rod/thingiee that came with it to turn the reel inside the tank, rather than turning the tank upside down.
Speaking of the reel, loading it in the dark was one of the easiest parts of the process which surprised me.

I'm also wondering if that fact that I only used 4.7ml of developer was an issue, as the HC110 resource page I used mentioned that one should use at least 6ml of concentrate for each roll, even though dilution H only calls for 4.7ml of concentrate when making 300ml of solution for a plastic tank.

For the record I developed in dilution H for 9 minutes, used a stop bath of 300ml plain water at the same temperature for 30 secs, then 3 minutes of Ilford Rapid Fixer 1:4 followed by rinsing with water at the same temperature for 5 minutes.

I guess I'll develop a few more rolls and see if I can fine tune the process a little.


Thanks again to everyone who lent me their advice, I really appreciate it guys. :):):)

[Edward Felcher]

Like any skill, you need repeated trial and error to get it right.

The first meal you cooked or the first roll of film you developed is not going to be perfect.

But you state the obvious. If you're not metering correctly, get a different meter. Just hang up the negatives (do they still sell Photo-Flo?) and don't wipe/blow-dry them.

Just experiment. You will need to develop dozens of rolls before you get proficient.

Now people have "issues". Huh. Not problems any more. If you use a 2 cent development tank, what do you expect? And take some photos outside, not "test photos" of your bottle of chemicals.

[RML]

Please! Don't use a squeegee or a blow dryer!

Wash the film, hang it up to dry and spray it with de-mineralised water with a drop of PhotoFlo in it. Let it dry by itself in a dust free room like your bath room.

I'm shooting Lucky SHD100 regularly these days and dev it in a caffenol recipe of my own brewing. It's wonderful stuff, both the film and the caffenol. Grain is exceedingly small. It scans very well. Check here ( http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/search?q=caffenol ) for the recipe and examples.

I only have to come to terms with dev'ing SHD400. That film doesn't go too well for me so far. Probably I dev it too long. But as I don't have any SHD400 left, I won't be finding out very soon. :)

[Bosk]

You make some fair points there Edward. :o

[Bosk]

Please! Don't use a squeegee or a blow dryer!

Wash the film, hang it up to dry and spray it with de-mineralised water with a drop of PhotoFlo in it. Let it dry by itself in a dust free room like your bath room.

I'm shooting Lucky SHD100 regularly these days and dev it in a caffenol recipe of my own brewing. It's wonderful stuff, both the film and the caffenol. Grain is exceedingly small. It scans very well. Check here ( http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/search?q=caffenol ) for the recipe and examples.

I only have to come to terms with dev'ing SHD400. That film doesn't go too well for me so far. Probably I dev it too long. But as I don't have any SHD400 left, I won't be finding out very soon. :) I think I've learnt my less re: the blow dryer but a squeegee doesn't seem like too bad an idea, what's your objection to them RML?

Thankyou for those lovely SHD100 examples, though I must confess I think the Tri-X shots up the page from them look even nicer!

[Edward Felcher]

You don't need a blow dryer or squeegee. The negs will not dry all that much faster and you risk damaging them or forcing more dust onto them. Use Photo-Flo and just hang them to dry and don't disturb them.

Robert Capa's priceless photos of the D-Day invasion were almost all ruined by an over-zealous lab worker who used an electric heater on his invasion beach negs and melted them. What a loss to history!

[rich815]

.....I adhere to the theory that you start out the way you should continue.
Ilford, Kodak and Fuji are more easily available here in OZ and once you have mastered the processing it is a 99% certain that you will find your 'soul' film amongst these brands - so why not start out with them.

You may find that you perfect the Lucky film process but the supply becomes erratic as it is a fringe film in OZ. You will then have to start over with one of the other three brands...

I could not agree with Peter on this more! Especially after the experiences I had with Lucky film when I lived in China for 5 years in the late 90's-early 00's. It's is pretty sub-standard, inconsistent stuff compared to even the cheapest Fuji or Kodak B&W films, or the Chinese ERA 100 which is fantastic stuff.

Use what you have, but incorporate something like Tri-X, FP4+, Delta 100, Plus-X, or Neopan 400 or 100 Acros, that you'll likely have more consistent availablity and are known to have good reps as high quality films.

[RML]

Well, let me disagree with the notion Lucky is substandard dross. I have yet to dev some rolls of Era but in my experience Lucky is more than decent and more than adequate for any artistic purposes you may have with your photography. 1999/2000 is a loooong time ago and much has changed since then, I'm sure. For instance the involvement of Kodak in the Lucky company.

Bosk, a squeegee can catch dust and grains in the blades and thus cause scratches. Don't even think of being able to prevent it. It will happen eventually. So, don't take the risk and just let the film dry by itself.

[ifirdauzi]

In D76 1+3, develop Lucky 400 for 18-25 minutes at 20 deg C.

Jay

Usually I use D76 1:1 for Lucky SHD 100, 9 minutes @20C, first 60 seconds agitation and 10 seconds/minute after that. Try this as first guess, later on you can add or reduce the Dev time to suit your taste

Lucky may not be the best film, but sure it is the cheapest film in my hometown, cost me only 7000 IDR (~0.9 USD)

Example of lucky (http://wandererjourney.blogspot.com/search/label/Lucky%20SHD%20100)

Igor

[SolaresLarrave]

I souped up a roll of Lucky film in stock D-76, developed for 6 minutes with four agitations every 50 seconds and I think I got a very decent series of negatives from it.

BTW, I haven't scanned it or studied it, but I think it's decent stuff. Not as contrasty as the Gekko film that's going around. Not as good at Ilford either (very rich range of tones). Decent stuff? Yes.

Good luck with your next roll! :)

[sherm]

Bosk,

I'm coming in on this late, but I was talking with Tom Abrahamson last week and one of the many topics was in fact Lucky film. Tom has been using PCK formula developer with Lucky with some real nice results.


A



Phenidon 0.3 grams (dissolve in 30 ml alcohol)

Ascorbic Acid ( Vitamin C) 20 grams

Water to 500 ml





B



Sodium Metaborate (Kodalk) 100 grams

or

Borax (20 Mule Team) 69 grams



Sodium Hydroxide (Red Devil Lye) 14.5 grams



Water to 1000 ml





Process:

a) 50 ml A/100 ml B H2O to 1000 ml

b) 75 ml A/150 ml B H2O to 1500 ml



TX or 400 ASA 8 minutes (2 inversions/60sec)

Delta 400 professional 8 ½ to 9 minutes (2 inversions/60 sec)





I've included the formula and times that I got from Tom. I have yet to try it, but Tom hasn't steered me wrong yet! All of the chemicals can be ordered from Photographer's Forumalry, which is a great resource for all things pertaining to film development.

Good Luck and please post dome results!!

Scott

[ZorkiKat]

Congratulations, Bosk! The highlights don't look blown in your sample. Some detail still shows through them. Did you scan the negative directly or was the sample from a print? Either way, some tweaking in the scan or print can lead to a lot of improvement in the positive. Regarding the amount of developer concentrate in the diluted solution you used, I don't think that it was an issue. If the amount of developer was below what was needed for proper reactions, the first thing you'll see would be bland highlights in the negative.

Jay

[ZorkiKat]

I don't think so.

I've used Lucky almost extensively when it was available here. It's a good film capable of delivering more than just "decent" results. The only "minus" (if it can be seen that way) feature I found with it was that it did not tolerate processing variations. It would go really contrasty if the agitation or timing were too much. The same could be said of "better" Kodak TMax 100.

Era film had been my staple for years too. Unlike Lucky, this film is far more tolerant of processing variations. It would go in many developers and dilutions, allow different timings, and as a result yield pleasing results. It responded well to attenuated or extended developing for 'zone' effects.

I find that Lucky has slightly better resolution (ISO 100) than Era. But the difference is slight, and may perhaps be due to the slightly snappier contrast of Lucky films. Lucky 100 also has a very clear base, which will make it even appear to have more contrast.

Lucky 100 and 400 meant for scanning, IMO, does better if not developed fully for contrast. The negative will be thinner and therefore will have no blocked or flared highlights which make scanner ccd's go crazy. That's why I prefer D76 1+3 or even paRodinal 1+100.

Some Luckypan SHD 100 photos from 4 years ago. Developed in D76 1+3:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/zorkikat/batanes_binoc.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/zorkikat/batanes_ruins.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/zorkikat/batanes_windows.jpg

[Sisyphus]

I am not expert at processing Lucky film, however, I was told a while ago that Lucky film is actually Kodak's plus-x and tri-x just marketed differently for the chinese. I believe that this is a marketing strategy to be able to sell their film more successfully in China, since the chinese as a culture are very much into the meanings, addresses, lic plate numbers, they name their business, usually lucky blah blah blah or Golden Dragon, etc . . .

I honestly do not know how true this is, but if it is you can process it as if it were. I think you got a lot of good info from other people already though, and if they have had experience processing this film, I would just follow there reccomendation.

Please let us know how it turns out, I would be curious to know!

[RML]

I'm not sure if Lucky is the same as Tri-X. Just last week I dev'd a roll of Lucky SHD400 and a roll of Tri-X iso400 together and the difference is very very clear. IMO, the Tri-X looked better scanned. Much less grain/ noise than the SHD400. But I've not (yet) perfected dev'ing my iso400 films in caffenol.

[ZorkiKat]

I am not expert at processing Lucky film, however, I was told a while ago that Lucky film is actually Kodak's plus-x and tri-x just marketed differently for the chinese. I believe that this is a marketing strategy to be able to sell their film more successfully in China, since the chinese as a culture are very much into the meanings, addresses, lic plate numbers, they name their business, usually lucky blah blah blah or Golden Dragon, etc . . .

I honestly do not know how true this is, but if it is you can process it as if it were. I think you got a lot of good info from other people already though, and if they have had experience processing this film, I would just follow there reccomendation.

Please let us know how it turns out, I would be curious to know!


Lucky (anglicised "LeKai") did have some cooperation from Kodak, particularly in the colour film, paper, and processing chemistry fields. This was stated in some of their brochures from the mid 1990s.

It is possible that they got some BW support from Kodak too. But the SHD 100 and 400 pans are not definitely Chinese versions of Plus-X and Tri-X. Kodak's films for one have grey masked film bases. Lucky's pan films have very clear bases. There are some similarities too, which made me suspect at first that SHD 100 was a version of Plus X- the resolution, grain, and developing times were very similar. But in as far as the 400 films go, SHD 400 and Tri-X are definitely two different emulsions.

Jay

[ZorkiKat]

I'm not sure if Lucky is the same as Tri-X. Just last week I dev'd a roll of Lucky SHD400 and a roll of Tri-X iso400 together and the difference is very very clear. IMO, the Tri-X looked better scanned. Much less grain/ noise than the SHD400. But I've not (yet) perfected dev'ing my iso400 films in caffenol.


The current Tri-X we have now is different from the Tri-X, say from the year 2000, in terms of emulsion formulation. Tri-X has undergone many revisions since it was introduced and the latest is the one which has brought about the most radical of changes. If ever Luckypan 400 was based on Tri-X, it must have been one of the older versions which Kodak have decided to share or pass on to others. :)

Have you tried paRodinal? It's does everything Rodinal does.

Jay