Lucky SHD100, Konica FT-1, Hexar f3.5 28mm

[iangreenhalgh1]

Shot this today to try out the Hexar which I bought a while back but forgot about. Stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 60 mins at 20C.


#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

[Katastrofo]

I think the dev/film combo was successful. How much Rodinal did you use? With the link
I posted of Rodinal stand, he stressed using 4ml as a global amount in both 35mm and
120. So, 4ml to 500 for 120 is 1:125 and I use 400ml of water to do 1:100 in 35mm.

[Attila]

Nice series! I like especially first one.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I used 1:100 and my tank takes 300ml so I used 3ml. I'm not sure if I have another roll of Lucky 100 to try again, I'll have a look.

Cheers Attila, that's my favourite too, nice and simple subject.

[Katastrofo]

Can you get the Lucky color films in GB, both in 35 and 120?

[fish4570]

really nice texture.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Have to order the Lucky stuff from ebay, it comes from China, not seen a UK stockist.

[Katastrofo]

I knew it was Chinese, thought it might be offered locally as an import. If I move to Thailand,
Lucky and Shanghai will be the predominant brands offered.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Won't there be Fuji out there too?

[iangreenhalgh1]

I just found another roll of Lucky 100 so I'll shoot it and develop it normally instead of stand, see if it comes out more contrasty, might tell you more about this film and whether it will work well for you.

[ForenSeil]

You'r living in an untidy town
I enjoy the series anyway

You have to try a more contrasty development with the lucky film. Especially if the sund wasn't shaded.
How did you digitalize the film? The whites look a little bit burned out for a stand-development.
Was #3 shot wide open? The soft glow on high contrast areas is a little stronger than I would expect from this lens (I also have a Konica 28/3.5 but never used it much though). Or is this a problem of the film?

[iangreenhalgh1]

Epson Perfection 3200 scanner.

#3 was at f11 I think, if not, f8. The sun was only just and so out of frame to the top right.

I haven't tried this lens before, the Hexanon 3.5/28 is a favourite of mine, I just bought this Hexar as part of my Konica collection as it was dirt cheap in almost mint condition in the original leather case.

My town is a shithole, dirty, rundown and decaying, derelict buildings everywhere, it makes me sad and angry. Sure we're poor, but there's no excuse for the way some people just leave junk lying around and take zero care of their houses and property.

Some more shots from this roll that show how things are here, sadly:


#1

#2

#3

#4

[Katastrofo]

Like this last one for the long look down the lane.

Fuji is offered in Bangkok and the touristy coastal places, like Pattaya Beach, but
where I will be is near Ubon, and there it is mostly Chinese film.

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I don't understand, what issue do you mean?

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I still don't understand, sorry. I had to google acutance...

Here's the same portion from the original 3200dpi scan without any PP:



The sun was literally just above the telephone pole, it was early evening.

[ForenSeil]

I think it's not flaring as flaring would not be only limited to the high-contrast edges and I also don't believe that's some kind of soft glow or CAs from the lens as that pic was taken @ at least F8

So I think it's caused by light that penetrated through the emulsion and reflected from the carrier/camera slightly diffused back into the emulsion again. Usually this issue is minimized by a "anti halation" layer, but the cheap Lucky film seems not to have one (or only a poor one).

Some people (including me) like this effect for some pics as it can produce interesting "soft glow" effects.
Efke IR 820 is also available as an "Aura"-version without anti-halation layer for example.

Nice to know that there's such a film available below the price of the Efke IR 820 Aura (which is my fav. film btw)
Btw, is the Lucky SHD sensitive to IR? I guess it's not but would be very cool

[Orio]

I like much the first one, it looks like a photo I could have taken myself.
Quite good series overall.

[Katastrofo]

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thankyou for the explanation Forenseil, I would never have noticed that, and just put it down to flare from the sun. You Germans are notoriously good at attention to the smallest details!

I've got one more roll of this lucky 100 to shoot, I'll try to capture a scene with the sun just out of frame to see if this issue crops up again.

I'm very pleased you like that shot Orio, I had your picture that was spoiled by the running man in mind when I took it.

I felt the houses and empty scene gave it a sense of isolation and loneliness.

I have to admit, I'm enjoying shooting and developing my own BW film so much I haven't even used any of my digital cameras in two weeks.

[ForenSeil]

[iangreenhalgh1]

You know, I really don't care.

In photography the big picture is what counts and these little details are not important.

You focussed on one minor detail of one shot in the series, and it was confined to to a corner and barely noticeable.

I'm sorry but it's pointless to obsess over these little details, just make the shot and worry about the important factors - subject composition, exposure.

People on this forum obsess too much about the camera and lens and the little technical details, those are all minor factors in the overall picture, some visual sense and artistic vision is far more important than any technical aspect.

[ForenSeil]