GP3 - Film Test- The Naked Photographer

[pentaxuser]

Greg Davis has just released his test of GP3. For those interested he does the same intro on each of the films he tests so if you want to avoid that part of the video the test part begins at 3 mins 30 secs. In the comments section there is speculation as to whose film GP3 actually belongs but of course it is not backed up with any evidence trail

So here it is :

pentaxuser

 

[removedacct1]

I think this qualifies as evidence, with some degree of veracity.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think this qualifies as evidence, with some degree of veracity.

Well it would certainly appear to give us some evidence of its spectral sensitivity and possibly faulty development times. In turn this may lend credence to Shanghai not knowing as much about the film as one would expect a filmmaker to know and thus raising questions about whether it is Shanghai's film in terms of manufacture

pentaxuser

 

[Alan9940]

I generally like Greg's YT content, but in this case I'm not sure how beneficial the results are when the GP3 was obviously over-developed and, perhaps, slightly underexposed. In my experience, following the typical exposure and development recommendations for this film will result in "soot-n-chaulk" results.

 

[AgX]

I already hinted a Filmotec having presented their portfolio, including a box of GP3.

 

[czygeorge]

I'm from China and here we all know that GP3 is a totally crap.Not recommend anyone to use it,Since it's even more expensive in abroad market.

Frankly I didn't use it even if someone give me one for free

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

This film is all the rage?? Where? If I were a new film user, I wouldn't buy it after seeing those results. To get decent tones with GP3, box speed doesn't do it. The long toe is a dead give away. EI 50 to get the shadow tones higher up on the curve, coupled with the right developer (Xtol-R, D-23 1+3, Pyrocat-HD worked well) will make a big difference.

 

[wblynch]

Why didn’t the guy in that video take the time to develop a second shot at a shorter time? 30 minutes round trip would have told us something. Seems more interested in getting his face and voice on YouTube than presenting something useful. YouTube has become a cesspool of wannabe “stars”.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Why didn’t the guy in that video take the time to develop a second shot at a shorter time? 30 minutes round trip would have told us something.

Yes, agree with that.
But I have some GP3 which packaging says "instructions inside" but there are none. For D-76 there is only the recommendation on MDC "6-10 minutes" That may be why he got this one wrong. Generally his H&D curves are quite instructive, not many reviewers publish them.

 

[removedacct1]

Why didn’t the guy in that video take the time to develop a second shot at a shorter time? 30 minutes round trip would have told us something. Seems more interested in getting his face and voice on YouTube than presenting something useful. YouTube has become a cesspool of wannabe “stars”.

So, because Greg didn't redo his test of GP3 to your specifications, that makes him a "wannabe star"?? Let me correct your erroneous perception: Greg has bought something in the vicinity of FIFTY different film stocks to perform these tests on, paying with his own money, and entirely independent of manufacturer endorsement. He's taken the time to plot the films characteristic curves and print every single film type to compare it with a control (in this case his control is Tri-X), which I'm sure I don't need to tell you is expensive in both time and materials.
What Greg's test has told us in this instance is that the data Shanghai provided for development times is grossly off the mark, so users need to test and adjust development to get a more usable result. Seems to me that this is valuable information, regardless of the print he obtained.
But no, that's not good enough for you! You want him to redo it so that the finished print looks correct. So tell me, where are YOUR prints and curve plots for all of the film stocks YOU use??! Yeah, that's what I thought. Keep your petty insults to yourself unless you have something genuinely virtuous and helpful to offer. So obnoxious.

 

[Klaus_H]

I already hinted a Filmotec having presented their portfolio, including a box of GP3.

I've used some GP3 135 and GP3 220. My tests results indicate: GP3 135 is original ORWO UN54 while GP3 220 behaves more like FOMA 100.

 

[koraks]

@wblynch it's fine to be critical, but please understand that the way you formulate your opinion has an impact on how a thread like this progresses. Kindly take this into account when posting.
@paulbarden - in case of fire, please refrain from adding more combustible material.

 

[AgX]

Klaus, shown at Filmotec was a box of GP3 type 135, thus this coincides with your perception.

 

[craigclu]

I tried a few rolls some years back when it first became available and didn't feel any negative sensations about the film, especially for the price back then. This is in a slight variation of PyroCat MC, which it seemed to give predictable and proper prints with little effort. I was using it to check some old gear and recall finishing a test roll of my daughter and grandson. Konica 35mm ƒ2.0, printed to Ilford MG RC. It was quite sharp and the down-sized scan lost some resolution. I've watched a number of this fellow's YouTube videos and feel that he usually has a reasonable approach and analysis of things and forgive him for not perseverating on each film in this type of comparison. I've not had reason buy it again and still have a bit in the freezer. In PyroCat, the highlights remained tameable.

 

[Ian Grant]

I tried a few rolls some years back when it first became available and didn't feel any negative sensations about the film, especially for the price back then. This is in a slight variation of PyroCat MC, which it seemed to give predictable and proper prints with little effort. I was using it to check some old gear and recall finishing a test roll of my daughter and grandson. Konica 35mm ƒ2.0, printed to Ilford MG RC. It was quite sharp and the down-sized scan lost some resolution. I've watched a number of this fellow's YouTube videos and feel that he usually has a reasonable approach and analysis of things and forgive him for not perseverating on each film in this type of comparison. I've not had reason buy it again and still have a bit in the freezer. In PyroCat, the highlights remained tameable.

I'm from China and here we all know that GP3 is a totally crap.Not recommend anyone to use it,Since it's even more expensive in abroad market.

Frankly I didn't use it even if someone give me one for free

This is not the same film, this is made in Germany by Filmotec (Orwo), and is probably confectioned by Shanghai.

Ian

 

[ags2mikon]

I first used some GP-3 in 120 over 10 years ago. It was bad all around. Backing paper offset, emulsion marks, tape coming off the backing paper. It was given to me so all I was out is some time. Last summer I bought some in 35mm to test some cameras. I exposed and developed it with un-54 and other than the sprocket holes it is the same emulsion. I liked it very much. Plus X / Verichrome pan with slightly larger grain. But now the price is getting too close to FP-4 to bother with now.

 

[faberryman]

Some people like The Naked Photographer. Some people don't. If you like him, watch his videos. If you don't like him, don't watch his videos. Learning that you can't develop GP3 according to the instructions is not helpful to me. I don't plan to shoot GP3. Even if I did, I would do my own tests to arrive at an appropriate EI and development time with the developer of my choice. Also, I don't like watching a naked guy wearing nothing but a darkroom apron parade around his darkroom. Kind of makes you wonder who his target audience is.

 

[ags2mikon]

Yes I could do without the overexposure now that somebody else brought it up.

 

[Klaus_H]

Shanghai Jiancheng Technoloy Pty offers OEM film on their web site ( link ... ).
They are able to do the full range of "confectioning".
Is this perhaps the company's central business area?
Even if this is true, the newly available film formats (127, 620, 220) are still a welcome enrichment of the film range.