Speed of Lucky Color Super 200?
So I got a brick of Lucky Color Super 200 (expiry Dec 2013) to play with. It arrived yesterday. I wanted to shoot a test chart with it, as there's no real data around, to see how it stacks up against people's anecdotes of how shit it is.
Well it turns out that EI 200 was way over exposed. The density is very high, but there is no base fogging on the film, the base is quite thin.
A scan of that 200.. the density range is so thin, I can see why it'd give terrible results exposing it like that.
The least exposed shot I had was at 1280 on this roll, and that is the best with the broadest density range, though still a bit on the over side, but vast improvement compared to 200, 400, etc.
Ftr, EI 1280 hit ~50 lp/mm from 4:1 to 80:1 contrasts, the next contrast step on my chart was 2.6:1 and it went to ~42 lp/mm. I do have 1.6:1 and less on the chart, but I couldn't see any difference on any part, and the chart goes to 14 lp/mm how I had it set up.
It's very weird, but it's certainly not out doing any other high speed colour film, as it's less detailed than other high speed films.
I'm going to shoot another roll on the street tonight at various speeds.
I've checked the processing, I've checked the meter several times, and the exposures I recorded. They all seem fine.
I even cut half the roll off and processed in different C-41 chemistry in a hand tank as opposed to machine process. I added 3g/L KBr to that, as I wanted to see if I get any kind of detail improvements by giving up a few stops of speed, which is one reason I got lucky in the first place - I figured it'd be easier for me to see differences.
I only had EI 200 - 25 on that half, but the 200 shot is certainly a fair bit thinner (But still too dense) than the 200 shot of the standard machine process one.
This is very strange, I'll play with it some more.
Would like to see some "real life" shots with this film, rather then test charts, which are even more difficult to interpret when you can't actually see them.
I've used a few rolls of this film, just out of curiosity, not for any serious work, and find it quite OK and comparable with other consumer films. A setting of 200ISO seemed fine, and, as with some other C41 films, a touch of overexposure seemed to do no harm. From your posting, are you suggesting that the effective speed of the film is much higher than than 200ISO?
(I've read that Lucky were associated with Kodak during their venture into China, and presumably gained knowledge and technology from Kodak during that time?)
My initial thought is that it'd be like Foma if anything.. that 200 would be generous, so most of the testing was over-exposure. With a couple under-exposures out of left field.
I dont have the images here, they are at work, but I'll show some histograms from a Flextight of them, the 200 ISO ones are bunched up the right with extremely little difference between dmax and dmin, 1280 had a generous difference between dmax and dmin.
They are visually very dense as well. I couldn't discern the first pair of lines at all on the chart at the 200, 400 ones etc, but those were further away than the 1280 one. But the first element would have represented between 30 and 40 lp/mm iirc, and I couldn't detect any contrast at all between them even on the highest contrast line pairs.
I'm going to shoot some images in a bit on the street, on an AE-1 with the meter set to 1600 and 3200.
The test chart was only a small portion of the neg. But the rest of the shot is interior anyway.
I wonder if it is just this batch that is like this. I've head of QC issues. Though I've only shot one roll of it so far. But I've ruled out as much as possible:
One half of the film was machine processed, every other film coming out of it is perfectly fine. The other half was hand-processed in C-41 with KBr added making it lose density, and 200 was still too dense.
I used a modern Gossen meter, incident metered. Checked it against camera meters and other meters, they agree, I also shot Agfa Precisa CT 100 and it came out, if it was overexposed it'd blow out quickly.
It's not the camera or shutter, as it was stop watch timed bulb exposures for the 400 and slower exposures.
I'll develop the roll from tonight tomorrow.
It is very strange, but it seems like EI 200 grossly overexposed the roll I shot.
I feel suspicious about it. There must be an error somewhere. I was incident metering, and only confirmed the meters accuracy through it's average reflectance meter which was within a 1/3rd of a stop of my AE-1 meter which only just provided excellent results on Agfa Precisa CT the roll before this one.
I've shot this roll mostly through the AE-1's meter. I'll see how it goes.
This is interesting. Perhaps send a roll to a commercial lab just to rule out the processing?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
On the Roger David shot, are you saying that you exposed at 1600 ASA and developed with standard C41 time? You're a bit short on some detail, and seemingly long on other detail. By the way, if that was shot over the last two days, then, even allowing for electronic methods to get it onto a computer screen which bump contrast, that looks pretty good to me. It has been quite flat weather and to get that contrast you're looking good. As for the blacks not holding their detail, that is a bog standard situation of pushing and/or under exposing a C41 film, if indeed you did push the film that is.
Lucky film is not a premium film, either colour or B&W, although I like and have used both.
An empirical method to find my true speed of a C41 film in my camera(s) exposure and my darkroom developing, is to expose in 1/3 stop increments around the speed I believe it will be. Generally speaking, when viewed under a loupe on a light box, the first frame that has tighter grain structure is the first frame to have ever so slight over exposure from the true speed of the film.
With C41, worse grain (loose looking as well) is under exposed and above the true speed of the film, better grain (tighter and smaller looking) is a byproduct of being below the true speed of the film.
By the way, does your camera fire the shutter within acceptable limits allowing you to rule out camera exposure deviation?
The first roll that had gross overexposure was bulb mode for box speed at 4 seconds, timed with a stop watch. It's not possible to be off on exposure time accuracy by an order of several stops. ie; meaning to do 4 seconds, but doing a minute instead etc.
Don't forget that there could effectively be a stop (or so) less exposure with a four second exposure, due to reciprocity failure. Maybe the "B" exposures are too far out of the working range of the film to be linear, but if you got these results with even less exposure than you expected, then it is surprising! I'm curious about what is going on.
200 could have always been their 400 film relabeled.