7 Comments

1. 
   wuxiong · 2012-09-02 14:51

   I thought it will be underexposed when you shoot redscale with this film in your uws, but from your result pics, they are quite convincing...<:)

2. 
   uncle_jay · 2012-09-02 15:18

   @wuxiong: Thanks! Some of the photos that came out were a surprise to me too! :)

3. 
   superlighter · 2012-09-14 13:57

   I need to try it with my uws too, I don't have a lucky 200 but I think any other brand should be ok . :)

4. 
   uncle_jay · 2012-09-14 14:35

   @superlighter: Do give it a try. What I noticed about the Lucky 200 film is that it's quite thin, so the colors seem to appear lighter than Kodak's for example. Have not tried it with a roll of Fuji Superia yet though.

5. 
   superlighter · 2012-09-14 14:45

   I don't think the acetate support that is transparent can affect the result but I have some expired agfa vista 200 that are quite thin to try. :)

6. 
   adash · 2012-09-14 15:00

   @superlighter - there is an anti-halo layer behind the emulsion itself, that acts as an ND filter when the film is reversed for redscale. This layer is removed during processing, and is not visible in the final negative, but I guess it affects the exposure too much. I have done Lucky 200ASA in redscale and it gave very similar results, not as red as I hoped. I guess this Lucky is just more sensitive on the back side due to differences in the anti-halo layer.

7. 
   superlighter · 2012-09-14 15:31

   @adash thanx for the explanation! :)