Budget B+W film [china]

[aoluain]

Dont know if this has been discussed before, I cannot find
anything here anyway.

It is regarding the budget films from e-Bay . . . LUCKY and SHANGHAI
films . . . has anyone used them?

They do seem to be good value but I just want to get some
opinions on them beforehand.

 

[cmo]

There are already many threads about it, opinions are divided, to put it mildly. I myself tried Lucky films and absolutely hated them. In this thread they are mentioned quite often:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I would prefer a film from a notable manufacturer like Ilford, Kodak or Fuji even if it were totally outdated. You often get "old" films at bargain prices in shops and auctions or from photographers that stopped using film, maybe that is a better choice for you.

 

[werra]

ERA100 is the only chinese film worth messing with unless you are into soft and dreamy mush.
Agfa APX100/Rollei Retro 100, while it lasts, is good budget option in Europe. (I assume you are in Ireland, according to your location description)

 

[cmo]

Werra, aoluain's profile says "medium format shooter", but the old Agfa film and its relabeled relatives are only available in 35mm today. AFAIK ERA films, too, are only available as 35mm, too.

For 120 rolls, Fomapan films from the Czech Republic are probably the cheapest and most reasonable films available in the world.

 

[Jeff L]

I was looking at some Shanghai film for a couple of very old Ikon 120 folders (one with a single element lens). I bugger up too much to spend nearly $6 per roll for 8 exposures. Foma is a good price but the shipping out of the States is as much as the film, making it the same price as new fresh Kodak or Ilford off the shelf. The Shanghai or Lucky (10 rolls of 120) often comes with shipping included from China to Canada for $26. I can't find Foma in Canada or I'd use that.

 

[werra]

Werra, aoluain's profile says "medium format shooter",

Ah, yes, with 120 you are out of luck with ERA and APX100. Did not look at the profile. Well, Shanghai in 120 is not _that_ bad actually, give it a try.

 

[arigram]

I did not have any trouble at all with the Lucky film I tried in China and I am very pleased with the results.
Here's my thread for the film:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[cmo]

I can't find Foma in Canada or I'd use that.

Probably because "Arista EDU Ultra" is their brand name in the Americas. APUG sponsor freestyle has them.

 

[Jeff L]

Probably because "Arista EDU Ultra" is their brand name in the Americas. APUG sponsor freestyle has them.

It's a great price at Freestyle but around double the price of Lucky or Shanghai once you include shipping. $4.99 to ship within the States and $25 ish to Toronto. I may have some sent to a friends in Buffalo and pick it up next time I'm there.
Thanks for the tip.
Jeff

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Dont know if this has been discussed before, I cannot find
anything here anyway.

It is regarding the budget films from e-Bay . . . LUCKY and SHANGHAI
films . . . has anyone used them?

They do seem to be good value but I just want to get some
opinions on them beforehand.

What's wrong with Ilford or Kodak?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's a great price at Freestyle but around double the price of Lucky or Shanghai once you include shipping. $4.99 to ship within the States and $25 ish to Toronto. I may have some sent to a friends in Buffalo and pick it up next time I'm there.
Thanks for the tip.
Jeff

Why are you trying to save money on film? Nothing beats Ilford or Kodak film, but it might not be around for much longer if people buy Chinese film to save a few pennies. What a huge risk for so little gain.

 

[pschauss]

I have had good luck with Shanghai (120). Shot at box speed it works very well in Diafine. Be aware, however, that it curls pretty badly and the numbers on the backing paper are VERY difficult to read through the red window. For that reason I will be staying with Freestyle's Arista Edu Ultra as long as they continue to carry it.

If you want to see some Shanghai examples there is a flickr group.

 

[railwayman3]

If I were really strapped for cash, I'd still stay with Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, even if I had to take fewer shots within my budget. Chinese film isn't rubbish, of course, but the three big names produce consistent quality products which you can rely on, together with support in the very rare event of a problem.

Saving a few pence/cents on cheap film seems attractive, but not to risk wasting all the time, travel and other costs which we all invest into the taking and processing of our shots.

By all means experiment if you so wish, it's good fun, but stick to tried-and-tested materials and methods for the important work.

 

[Jeff L]

Why are you trying to save money on film? Nothing beats Ilford or Kodak film, but it might not be around for much longer if people buy Chinese film to save a few pennies. What a huge risk for so little gain.

I just had some old cameras that I suspect every setting is very vague. $6 a roll to test seems like a waste to me that and I am also curious what Shanghai would be like. I do use Ilford, Kodak and Fuji in my Rollei, Mamiya and Contax's. I did shoot a roll of Maco because I was curious. Curled very badly but I am glad I tried it.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I echo Peter's comments, on experience with Shanghai film. It seems OK but curls horribly, almost to make it unusable (to my eye, anyway)

I can only echo the points made about using Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. You save a few cents on film of varying quality, and then the shot that could be remembered the rest of your life is kacked...when it comes, and you aren't ready.

I've used Shanghai GS3, and purchased ERA in 4x5 (haven't shot it yet). They're OK and any company with a commitment to film should be commended. I simply think no one beats quality control such as it's found at Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, etc. And quality matters.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If I were really strapped for cash, I'd still stay with Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, even if I had to take fewer shots within my budget. Chinese film isn't rubbish, of course, but the three big names produce consistent quality products which you can rely on, together with support in the very rare event of a problem.

Saving a few pence/cents on cheap film seems attractive, but not to risk wasting all the time, travel and other costs which we all invest into the taking and processing of our shots.

By all means experiment if you so wish, it's good fun, but stick to tried-and-tested materials and methods for the important work.

Well put!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I just had some old cameras that I suspect every setting is very vague. $6 a roll to test seems like a waste to me that and I am also curious what Shanghai would be like. I do use Ilford, Kodak and Fuji in my Rollei, Mamiya and Contax's. I did shoot a roll of Maco because I was curious. Curled very badly but I am glad I tried it.

We can talk about getting scrap film to test some equipment (1). We can also talk about being curious and playing around (2). Or, we can talk about getting serious and buying a quality product to make quality images (3).

1. take some outdated film, hand-me-downs, freebies or whatever
2. feel free, if that rocks your boat, no better way to learn
3. Ilford, Kodak and yes... Fuji

 

[rwboyer]

Or....

bulk load you can get kodak that ends up being like $2/roll for 36x35mm - that is easy. If you are more creative you can buy 70mm and deal with it. or if you are really an engineer you can by 5" or 9 1/2" arial film (good stuff) and cut it but all of that stuff is hard:

35mm Kodak of just about any of their BW stuff is $2/roll bulk.

RB

 

[Jeff L]

We can talk about getting scrap film to test some equipment (1). We can also talk about being curious and playing around (2). Or, we can talk about getting serious and buying a quality product to make quality images (3).

1. take some outdated film, hand-me-downs, freebies or whatever
2. feel free, if that rocks your boat, no better way to learn
3. Ilford, Kodak and yes... Fuji

I agree.
I am really curious about other film just like I am curious about driving different cars. When I am doing anything other than experimenting I use only film from Ilford, Kodak and Fuji. Though I am a little curious about Adox.

 

[Redu]

Hello everyone. I would like to share with you my experience with Shanghai GP3 in my very first thread in APUG. Shangahai is a beautiful film. My workflow is shoot -> develop -> scan -> photoshop -> print. The one and only problem with this film is, as mentioned previously, the curl it develops. Regardless of the duration i hang it in my blow dryer it curls and makes it difficult to mount flat hence focus inside a flatbed scanner. However if you have the chance to use a drum scanner curl is no more an issue of course. When it comes to the tonality or grain level. It's very very good. I haven't pushed it though. Always shot at 100 so can't compare with other manufacturer's products from this respect. The following is one good example. I could have managed to sustain a lot of detail on the shiny silver ring and on deep darks at the same time even for an 8bit JPEG prepared for web.

(for higher resolution)

 

[Uncle Goose]

I you are in Europe you are better off with Foma!! I love Foma films, they are cheap and nice. They have a good consistency and since they are about half as cheap as most other major brands you can save money even if you have to ship them. I usually order about 40 rolls at the time and it still 20€ cheaper then going to buy the cheapest film in the cheapest store in Flanders (And I didn't count the fuel I have to spend to get to that store).

 

[Aurum]

I just had some old cameras that I suspect every setting is very vague. $6 a roll to test seems like a waste to me that and I am also curious what Shanghai would be like. I do use Ilford, Kodak and Fuji in my Rollei, Mamiya and Contax's. I did shoot a roll of Maco because I was curious. Curled very badly but I am glad I tried it.

I've found Fuji Acros very tolerant of camera abuse, especially over exposure due to shutter misfire (read 1 second instead of 1/50 in an Ensign box camera) Its competative in comparison to the yellow or white boxes as well

 

[timk]

I've used the shanghai and the lucky B&W film. The lucky is terrible, when I tried it a few years ago I had issues with cracks in the emulsion and the emulsion lifting - It may have just been the batch but something had gone seriously wrong (it wasn't my processing). The shanghai doesn't suffer from this and is actually quite good. The only issue I have with the shanghai is that I can't use it on my folders because I can't see the markings on the back of the film through the red window. Very very annoying, you really need a camera that does frame registration to use it.

 

[IloveTLRs]

I ran across Shanghai 120 film the other day. I would have bought it, but it was actually a few yen more expensive than Fuji/Kodak :confused:

 

[aoluain]

Sorry for the delay in returning to this thread . . .

Great reading and I have decided to stay away from the chinese stuff.
Fomapan sounds great and it is European so should be cheaper on the
delivery costs.

I have used a mixture of fresh and expired films from Kodak, Fuji and
Ilford in 220, 120 and 35mm and have no complaints.

I started out my photo journey with film and about 5 years ago switched to
digital, but I am returning to film now and just wanted to get the dest bang
for my buck as they say.

as has been mentioned it is wist to still use mostly kodak, ilford or fuji
as they produce consistant results and have a long track record and it would be nice to see them still making film into the future . . .

again great reading and thanks for contributing