Is Shanghai GP3 the same as Orwo UN54????

John Wiegerink said:

Well, I got a little side tracked, but finally developed four 4X5 sheets of GP3 and have to say I saw no mottling in any of those sheets. The film was frozen for some time and then cold stored in the fridge for about six or seven months. The box has an expiration date of 07/2023 and was developed in BTTB for 5+5. The negatives actually look pretty good. I think I'll keep this box for use in an old 4X5 falling plate camera and maybe testing certain lenses out.

Click to expand...

Good to hear you are getting good results from your batch of Shanghai GP3!

Definitely! Note that my initial results with the film were just fine. The problems only appeared much later on. I should have just shot that box within the course of a couple of weeks/months and there wouldn't have been a problem.

koraks said:

Definitely! Note that my initial results with the film were just fine. The problems only appeared much later on. I should have just shot that box within the course of a couple of weeks/months and there wouldn't have been a problem.

Click to expand...

This was in an unopened box dated 07/23, which might just make a difference. Now that the box has been opened we'll see how long it takes to develop mottling. Or, maybe the batch my box came out of is slightly different.

I recently shot a roll. It might just be the developer (The lab I sent it to uses Ilford DD IIRC), but my shots came out incredibly grainy even under the bright sun. It's the grainiest film I've ever shot hands-down, but I don't know if it would be finer.

2ndGenNikonian said:

I recently shot a roll. It might just be the developer (The lab I sent it to uses Ilford DD IIRC), but my shots came out incredibly grainy even under the bright sun. It's the grainiest film I've ever shot hands-down, but I don't know if it would be finer.

Click to expand...

That looks like scanner noise and/or sharpening with the radius set too small. Scanner noise will increase with overexposure on a negative.

I have never had any complaints about grain. Other things like weak tape holding the film to the backing paper emulsion flaws yes. It sure looks like sharping artifacts. As if it's over-sharpened. Tone wise your shot looks very good.

2ndGenNikonian said:

I recently shot a roll. It might just be the developer (The lab I sent it to uses Ilford DD IIRC), but my shots came out incredibly grainy even under the bright sun. It's the grainiest film I've ever shot hands-down, but I don't know if it would be finer.

Click to expand...

This looks more like aggressive sharpening...

lamerko said:

This looks more like aggressive sharpening...

Click to expand...

It definitely is.

2ndGenNikonian said:

It's the grainiest film I've ever shot hands-down

Click to expand...

That's impossible to tell from this scan. As pointed out above, it's an oversharpened scan. What the original looks like, we can only guess at. It's possible that this is quite grainy, but even if that's the case, the question remains to what extent this is inherent to the film itself. Exposure and development play a role in this as well. If you overexpose, scanning through the density will yield a grainy result. Overdevelopment will cause the same problem, and choice of developer has an influence, too.

A more severe problem in that image IMO is the banded sky; this unevenness is either due to development or scanning. It's not a defect that's likely caused by the film itself.

The GP3 I shot was comparable in terms of grain to Fomapan 100, but it wasn't the same film (see post #9). I'd have to dig up some negatives and scan them; if there's interest I could do that. As said before, I shot only the sheet film version.

9x5mm crop of a 220 GP3 frame in HC-110 dilution B:



I found the grain to be about average for a 100 speed budget film.

Fomapan 100 35mm in 510-pyro for comparison:



The Foma looks a little better to me, but nothing to split hairs over when shooting medium format.

UN54 in 35mm with Black/White & Green developer:



I think I overdeveloped that last one. Its grain does remind me more of the GP3 than of the Fomapan, but I can't say if they're the same film, and my processing, digitization, and contrast adjustment could be playing as much a role as anything.

So, your GP3's grain should look relatively normal, all other things being equal.

loccdor said:

The Foma looks a little better to me, but nothing to split hairs over when shooting medium format.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but:

loccdor said:

HC-110 dilution B:

Click to expand...

vs

loccdor said:

510-pyro

Click to expand...

That's a significant difference if we're going to look closely at grain and how it scans.

True, unfortunately I've been all over the map with developers so don't have more isolated variables than this.

No worries; having fun is the main priority. I just wanted to highlight it because in this case, it's a relevant issue and I think GP3 and Fomapan 100 end up being very close in terms of average granularity.

koraks said:

No worries; having fun is the main priority. I just wanted to highlight it because in this case, it's a relevant issue and I think GP3 and Fomapan 100 end up being very close in terms of average granularity.

Click to expand...

I'll check out the negatives when I can, and see if I can get them re-scanned.