Select Page

Film review: Lucky New SHD 100 Part 3 – 35mm EI 400 (bracketed +/- 1 stop)Film review: Lucky New SHD 100 Part 3 – 35mm EI 400 (bracketed +/- 1 stop)

Film review: Lucky New SHD 100 Part 3 – 35mm EI 400 (bracketed +/- 1 stop)

Welcome to part three of my review of Luckyfilm’s NEW SHD 100 black and white negative film, this time describing the film shot at EI 400 and bracketed +/- 1 stop of under and over exposure.



Series structure

Part one covered the 35mm version of Lucky New SHD 100 at EI 100 with +/- 1 stop brackets. Part two went on to cover EI 25 with the same bracketing system. In this, part three, I’m covering the film shot at EI 400 and part four will cover the film developed in a black and white reversal development process.

You can review the parts published so far by following the links below:

…and here’s what’s covered in this article:




Shooting, development and scanning methodology



This roll was shot immediately after my EI 100 and EI 25 rolls and shot with my Nikon F100, which was set to manual and in spot meter mode. The F100 counted a total of 39 frames shot.



As the the previous two tests, the Nikon F100 was paired with my Nikkor AF-D 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 zoom/macro lens. For this roll, the lens was set to a constant f/5.6.



The film was developed at 20c in Kodak HC-110 1+47 (dilution E) for 11:30 (N+2 development). The film was agitated continuously for the first 60 seconds and then again for 10 seconds at the top of every minute thereafter. No pre-wash.

Ilford’s Ilfostop and Rapid Fixer were used at the manufacturer’s recommended dilutions for one minute and five minutes respectively. Finally, the film was soaked for one minute in Kodak Photoflo (2+1000ml) and then rinsed for five minutes in running water.



As with the EI 100 and 25 rolls, the film was left to hang to dry for 24 hours, cut and scanned using an Epson Perfection V750 Pro scanner in factory-shipped 35mm holders.

I scanned to TIFF at 1600dpi in Vuescan for speed (I hate scanning 35mm film), and a light unsharp mask was applied in Photoshop with no dust removal.

The files were exported to 1000px on the longest edge in Lightroom with a light hand on getting the file size down for web.





Five scenes are provided here for review. Each of the galleries below shows the under exposed, correctly exposed (per meter) and over exposed images in that order. Click the thumbnails for a full-size view.

You’ll note that I didn’t remove any dust from my negatives but don’t let that distract you.


Sample one


Sample two


Sample three


Sample four


Sample five




Closing thoughts

OK, so they’re not the most inspiring of subjects but I think they serve to underline the now established point in parts one and two: the film produced better results when under exposed, regardless of if the available light is harsh or subdued. There is an exception, however: subjects in deep shade definitely work better over exposed by a single stop, and there’s enough range there to bring out that detail without blowing the highlights out too much.

I mentioned in part two that this EI 400 test yielded the most character and I stand by that. Push processed two stops, the film has a puffier grain and exhibits a pleasing softness in the out of focus areas. There’s still detail to be found, although how much of this is the grain and how much is the contrast the emulsion retains is up for debate by better people than I.

That said, for my money, if SHD 100 was one of my staple 35mm stocks, I’d shoot it at EI 200 and develop as box speed.

There are at least two more parts to come in this series. Part four will cover the film developed in a reversal process – as described here – and part five will show the film shot at EI 1600, a 4-stop push.

Thanks for readng and until next time, keep shooting, folks,




Write for EMULSIVE

The driving force behind EMULSIVE is knowledge transfer, specifically creating more of it in the film photography community. You can help by contributing your thoughts, work and ideas to inspire others reading these pages.

Take action and help drive an open, collaborative community: all you need do is read this and then drop me a line.



Lend your support

Like what you see here? You can support EMULSIVE by helping to contribute to the community voice on this website (see above), or by heading on over to the EMULSIVE Patreon page and considering financial support from as little as $2 a month.

As if that’s not enough, there’s also an EMULSIVE print and apparel store over at Society 6, currently showcasing over two dozen t-shirt designs and over a dozen unique prints of photographs made by yours truly

In short, I want to continue building this platform and I’d love your help to make that happen.



About The Author


Self confessed film-freak and film photography mad-obsessive and OVERLORD at I push, pull, shoot, boil and burn film everyday, and I want to share what I learn.


Comments are welcomed and encouraged on EMULSIVE but there are some instances where comments will deleted, and authors of those comments banned. They are as follows:

  • Comments deemed to be spam or solely promotional in nature will be deleted. Including a link to relevant content is permitted, but comments should be relevant to the topic at hand.
  • Comments including profanity, containing language or concepts that could be deemed offensive will be deleted. Note this may include abusive, threatening, pornographic, offensive, misleading or libelous language.
  • Comments that attack an individual directly will be deleted, as will comments that harass other contributing authors. In short, please be respectful toward others.


Add your voice to the discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Find out how you can help support EMULSIVE from as little as $2 a month on Patreon.Learn more