 |
Johnny ©ontax [deleted] says:
Yes.I used to use Lucky all the time until it destroyed two seperate backs on my Kiev 88 due to not being taped and mashing the gears.
I would only ever use it in a holga now...
Posted 37 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Is it batch based or random?
When i did ilford tour they did explain that packing rollfilm (Getting the masking tape in the right place, lining up with the backing paper and film, etc).
Posted 37 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I bought 100 rolls of Lucky 120 film and about 1 in 20 will do this. I use it in a Rollei 6008. fortunately the rollei has a protection fuses that blows when the film crunches up rather than rolls. I still use the film though
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
happens to me on my RB67...
the local dealer says she's going to bring up with the manufacturer...
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh well, i use this stuff in my pinhole camera, which is just a box camera. No complex mechanism to break. Next time i feel the same thing I'll abandon the roll and start again!
1 in 20 seems about right
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've just recently shot and scanned my last roll of Lucky 120. A couple of years ago I bought about ten rolls of mixed SHD-400 and SHD-100 and at last I've finally finished that rubbish.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You get what you pay for.
Posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I just had the back pop off my holga because the film was built up in the center of the camera. (not taped to the paper!)
First time this has happened, I have been through 5 rolls or so.
Also I get scratch marks on my photos, thought it was the camera but it only happens with Lucky film.
I still like the quality (poor) images that it makes combined with a Holga though.
Originally posted 36 months ago.
(permalink)
abdukted1456 edited this topic 36 months ago.
|
|
I've shot about 10 rolls with no problems. I was messing around with one and unrolled it and the film was taped down quite firmly. I also save the "tape" from new rolls of lucky to seal up exposed rolls in a pinch. My only problem is the black backing paper with the fuzzy numbering. Most of my medium format cameras are really old so their screens are all scratched making it really hard to read lucky film. Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford are all easy to read on any camera.
Posted 35 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
you want to talk about problems and faults! I was dumb enough to buy this rubbish at urban outfitters for $20 for 3 rolls packaged under the Lomography brand. So I'm guessing I payed about a $700 mark up. Hey that's my own fault whatever the REAL problem here was when I took out the first roll there was no paper band on the film just a piece of masking tape. Am I to assume these are being hand rolled somewhere in china? So upon taking off the tape it tore the shitty backing paper. So I load the film into my Diana close the camera up and start winding on and realize the next problem..... I can't see any numbers or warnings on the film, they're too faint. ok well could this get any worse? YES! I keep rolling on the film and the backing paper FUCKING RIPS APART! thankfully I wasn't too near the film (I think I still have yet to develop this stuff) I've kept a few backing papers from other films so I actually had to splice on a new backing paper leader. well despite these problems I managed to get through all three of these rolls and only to find out that the sealing band at the end it nothing more than a piece of paper. THERE'S NO GLUE ON IT. Why did they even bother to include it? thank god I kept the piece of masking tape from the start of the roll.
I really don't think I will ever shoot with this film again unless the results are amazing.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Licking the sealing paper always worked for me. It has a glue like they used to use on envelopes and stamps before they went self-adhesive.
When I bought my 10 rolls from HK (through eBay) I paid something like AU$30, IIRC. So Lomography is definitely a rip-off. Big surprise there.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Mine too, got scratches marks only when use Holga + Lucky. The scratches happened all the time. But when using with my TLR, there is no scratches.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Imroy, I did lick the paper there was no glue on the seal it was just a plain piece of paper
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I stopped the scrtaches on Lucky roll film in a Holga by adding a thin strip of plastic electrical insulation tape along the edges of the frame mask. The plastic casting is quite rough and this smoothed over the nasty bits.
Never had any other issues with the rolls though.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Perhaps I got a good batch, or Camera with a j. got a bad one. That's what you get for such cheap (without the Lomography markup) film.
Posted 24 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ ░ [deleted] says:
Stripes, lots of stripes and you can barely read the numbers on the back.
From what I read here Im afraid to use lucky film in my Voigtländer Bessa.
Posted 23 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't worry too much about 35mm in your Bessa, if the film path is anything like my M6, it will be nice and simple. The 35mm seems to be slightly more consistent in the manufacturing than the 120 film, too. It has also (touch wood) failed to gum up my F80, too, so far.
I'd think twice about using the 120 in anything more expensive than a Kiev, or hell, a Holga, though...
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've used 35mm Lucky extensively and haven't had a mechanical fault yet. The film seems thinner than, say, Fuji's Neopan SS, but it never had any ill effects.
I've had some troubles with cheap & dodgy film before (mostly colour negs), and even the aforementioned Neopan - Tearing at the sprockets, mainly - but Lucky SHD100 was reliable so far.
Posted 22 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Just finished to scan one roll today by TLR Yashica D, and found the numbers and dots on the picture, 1st time happened, and there are few shots in the roll are like this. This one is the worst. Does it happen to anybody before?
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
Colourful Life (Teresa) Very busy !! edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
I took some SHD100 120 format away with me on Holiday last month. Ran a roll through my Mamiya RB and a couple of rolls thorugh my Zeiss Ikon. One roll had the backing paper such that the numbers were facing the film and not the window. At least it is cheap enough I didn't worry so much.
When developing, I found the film curled so much it took me 20 or more minutes to get it spooled onto the developping spool.
Personally, I won't use it again but the cost is hard to resist for just mucking around.
edit: Yes, I've got a roll where the dots and numbers are visible in the exposed frames.
My film was purchassed around October 2010.
Originally posted 17 months ago.
(permalink)
Not So Nice Duck edited this topic 10 months ago.
|
|
Buy Shanghai...
Posted 17 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The re-packaged film under the Lomography brand is probably Shanghai GP3, because China Lucky use paper bands.
Mind-you we could do with some of that masking tape to stick the film properly to the paper. The Shanghai and Lucky 120 B&W ought to be compared by someone with a magazine medium format camera.
I think the Lucky may be better as regards grain, the dev time is shorter than as for FP4. I use the Pan F timing. Shanghai GP3 has the same time as for Ilford FP4.
Lucky 120 could be a lot better if:
1. Improve the printing of the frame numbers on the backing paper by using thick white ink. STOP WATERING IT DOWN SO MUCH.
2. Use decent adhesive labels to hold the film to the backing paper & provide a similarly effective sticky label to stick the exposed roll closed.
Posted 13 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just got another five rolls of Lucky.
I checked to see if the end of the film was properly taped down inside a changing bag & it was!
They have sprung another nasty trick on us.
The film has a horrific curl, like a spring it is. It also curls along its length too!
There's a bonus now. The film seems to be cut a mm or more too narrow, so you can imagine the fun and games getting it into a spiral.
Thank goodness I only bought five rolls.
I processed a roll of Shanghai GP3 at the same time, although it was in another tank.
That was also a PITA to get into the spiral, but the curl was much reduced after I fed it into the spiral emulsion outwards.
As far as curliness goes Shanghai & Lucky are both as bad as each other. I'll try loading the next roll of Lucky 100 emulsion out too.
The narrow cut of the Lucky makes the film a bitch to scan (for me), as my negative carrier' won't hold it flat enough. .
One edge is not held down.
I'll get the batch number of my films . In case the problem is with a bad batch & not a general fault if anyone is interested.
Posted 4 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
After shooting another roll of the 120 in a Bencini & finding this had the backing paper imprint I didn't even bother drying it. Went straight into the bin, followed by the other three unused 120 rolls.
I am done with this crap!
Posted 2 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Has anyone got a photo of the backing paper of lucky. I know that the stuff on shanghai is dreadful but the photos came out real good, see my photo stream. Should I buy this for my holga or shall I stick with fomapan?
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There's little to choose between the backing papers. I've used Lucky in my Holga with no problems, and in good light the frame numbers are fairly visible through the red window. I like the way it looks, but GP3 is often slightly cheaper!
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I think that for a subject of the slightest value you would be better off using Fomapan 100.
Posted 6 weeks ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
LUCKY Film Photography /
Discuss
Mine too, got scratches marks only when use Holga + Lucky. The scratches happened all the time. But when using with my TLR, there is no scratches.
Feed – Subscribe to LUCKY Film Photography discussion threads
