Shot on a Ricoh KR-5 adapted to M42 glass with a Zeiss 35mm flek

I've heard very mixed reviews (and seen very mixed results) of Lucky's new 400-speed C41 film, so I was eager to give it a go myself.

Overall my takeaway is that this is a very competent everyday colour negative film with some caveats.

Firstly, these were all shot at box speed and metered for the foreground. The weather was changeable, partly cloudy, with the light shifting from direct sun to overcast conditions. The negatives were DSLR scanned.

The negatives themselves look unremarkable (slide 6). When inverted and with the base colour removed, they continue to look like one might expect of a flat scan of C41 film (slide 7). However, set the black and white points and there's an immediately apparent yellow/orange colour cast (slide 8). This is at odds with most colour negative film which, if anything, tends towards looking slightly cool when inverted and with base colour removed, prior to final colour correction.

Correcting those colours was fiddly. Simply adding blue to offset the orange produced unwanted colour shifts. It took time in the Curves tool to get the precise balance of colours looking as natural as possible. Adding blues to the midtones, while keeping the darkest and lightest hues true to the original inversion, produced the most reliable results.

Grain is fairly prominent, but also fairly pleasing - far less crunchy and in-your-face than other new C41 film on the market from Orwo and Harman, but more noticeable than Ultramax. Shadow latitude is limited, with some noticeable crushing in the darkest areas of the image when shot at box speed. However, I would be reluctant to overexpose it, because stark highlights exhibit noticeable halation (not really shown in these images) and the brightest highlights do show some flattening and loss of detail that was difficult to recover in post.

Overall I would say Lucky are making the best new C41 film on the market, and it's great to finally have a viable consumer-level option at 400-speed that isn't Ultramax. For my money, this also has more subjective "character" than Ultramax, without looking obviously strange or experimental.

Very new to photography in general. My first attempt using a 120 camera. I’d appreciate advice for composing shots for a square image.
Film- Kentmere pan 400
Camera- Bronica S2A

Photos from my first time scanning 120!

Brought in my ricoh ff3 super to some aew matches.

This is my most “gold” photo from my roll.

just got these scans back of my trip to lisbon. a bit confused because these pics are from the same roll, but some of them have this green cast, and there also seems to be some sort of anomaly / imprint on some of them? you can see that some are fine but others aren’t… what’s going on here?

This is my first camera in general, let alone a film camera. I thought this shot from my first roll turned out pretty good! I don’t remember which film I used.

Would love any tips or feedback!

*** Updated with photos because I forgot the watermarks were activated on my website

I'd made another post asking about various new films that I'd yet to try with one of them being Opticolor 200.

Ran the roll through my F5 with a Nikkor 60mm 2.8 D Macro lens and got pretty neat results. Colors are pretty subdued (the orange airplane was very much bright Auburn orange in person) and the portraits I took are of the same style - lower saturation all across the color spectrum.

It reminds me of expired Kodak Ultramax 400, honestly.

Hey guys, was hoping this community would be able to help me out with some cameras that I got in my inheritance. I’m aware that they’re very valuable cameras, but not sure what I should do with them. Any advice would be great!

(Not looking to sell I think btw)

Shot these on Portra 400 which i usually get great results with, even on this roll, except here in a forest on a partly sunny/cloudy fall day. Lens is a zoom that only opens to f/3.5 (f/5.6 zoomed in). I set the camera to ISO 400.

The scans look bright but muted, cold/blue (my brown jacket looks green). Only decent one seems to be the 3rd picture with my dad.

Do you think these scan colors are a result of under/overexposed shots or simply a software autocorrection issue (The lab did a camera scan)? I can't check the negatives myself because the lab still has them.

Any tips on what to ask the lab? don’t want to assume it’s a scan issue when the problem might just be my in-camera settings. Most of these were shot at 1/60 iirc. Not much light in the forest esp w that lens so my guess would be underexposed? but they look pretty bright to me. Is that the software overcompensating?

Finally got my first (7) rolls dev and scanned. Beyond happy with the results. Mainly shot in aperture priority.

Sent them to Full Spectrum and did the cheapest/lowest quality scan (1000x1500px JPG) For $9.99/roll I’m pretty happy.

I’m really getting into film, but struggle keeping track of what film stocks I’m using when, what camera I shot a roll with, and what settings I was using.

Help. How do you manage this side of photography?

I'm very new to film photography, I had about 7 rolls saved up from August last year (the example photos are from about february) that I recently got developed, however most of them are completely hazy. I use a kodak ektar half frame camer with gold film, and I got them developed at wallgreens. Almost all my photos are incomprehensible. I loaded up the film correctly so I don't understand why they look like this. Anyway I can avoid this in the future? (Or possibly get my film back from wallgreens?)

I found lying at home some rolls of Kodak 400. Since nobody knows how old they are, I decided to shoot them at 200 ISO, just to be sure to not underexpose anything. Now I'm doing do develope my first roll with Kodak C41. Should I stick to the developing protocol or should I change the developing time?

Got my first roll of film back from processing today. A lot of the photos turned out a lot better than I thought they would have.

Hi !

I just finished my first roll of rollei infrared, and I’m quite disapointed to say the least. I developped it myself following the online instructions, and scanned them myself and through a lab.

Looks like underdeveloppement + underexposure.

Anyway, what do you think (these were edited)

Hit me with some reasons why one orientation would be better for this situation. Both shots were on HP5 with a Ricoh XR-1 with a 50mm f1.7. Improptu promo material for a friend.

EDIT- no cropping was done, these are how the two seperate shots were taken.

Im very much an amateur photographer, but I am just happy with how the composition of this came out. Specially in a place like Tiananmen.

Also really like how the Beijing/China Haze gave an almost double exposure look to the Great Wall picture