>>4488583
I've shot two rolls but haven't developed it yet. I doubt it's going to be anywhere near as good as a cheap Vision3 repack which is the same price.

>>4488584
Yeah from what I can tell their B&W Lucky 400 is worse than Kentmere 400 or 100 and it's more expensive than either.
Maybe if this stuff was like $8 a roll then sure, but I dont see the point.

>>4488583
yeah its alright, shot a roll so far

to think lomography sold literal garbage rolls (some even marked with letters and codes on top of the image) for $20, and still do

Damn I expected chinaslop to cost less than Kodak Gold

>>4488601
>>4488638
>>4488641
its cheaper if you are from a third hole shithole, a roll of Gold cost 15 usd for me. And Lucky its just 9 USD so yeah.

File: SHD 400-14.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4488583
I've shot with the BW 400. I just finished my roll of Lucky 200, but I haven't developed it yet.

>>4488583
how long does Reflx Lab take to ship to the US?

I'm shooting with them, for the first time both with a 35mm camera and with my first roll of film... from what I've seen online, it doesn't seem bad... I bought about 10 rolls of film, all different from each other. I'll test them all and post here when they're developed.

>>4488641
tarrifs?
>>4488638
it's a lomo thing bro you just wouldn't get it, true lomocels love fucked up shit that doesn't work how it's meant to

>>4488583
Kinda want to try Shanghai 100s but its so expensive to import here unless I buy it in bulk. I imagine Lucky 200 will be just as gay to get.