Look what the cat dragged in...

[BradS]

mind blown!

 

[Huss]

Well, that would tie in with the concept of light bulbs actually being Dark Suckers. It only stands to reason that if they consume dark, they have the potential to leak it.

Yeah but I didn't see a light bulb in my Fuji when I opened it. Should I be looking somewhere else? Where else could I have got the dark leak from?

 

[grat]

Yeah but I didn't see a light bulb in my Fuji when I opened it. Should I be looking somewhere else? Where else could I have got the dark leak from?

Of course not. It was cloaked in shadow, from all the dark leaking.

 

[Auer]

Well, that would tie in with the concept of light bulbs actually being Dark Suckers. It only stands to reason that if they consume dark, they have the potential to leak it.

Correct.

All one has to do is break a lightbulb and the darkeness instantly leaks out. This is easily proven in a dark room with a lightbulb and a hammer.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Scanned with a digicam, so essentially it is photographed. A piece of dust would show as a white spot.

In that case, I'd suspect either a drying mark (likely interlayer) or an artefact from the use of a monobath. The mark is discontinuous?

 

[BradS]

Might also be some artifact of the light used to illuminate the negative for digital imaging.

 

[Huss]

In that case, I'd suspect either a drying mark (likely interlayer) or an artefact from the use of a monobath. The mark is discontinuous?

No the mark/line is continuous across the entire roll.

 

[Huss]

Might also be some artifact of the light used to illuminate the negative for digital imaging.

It only appeared on this roll, none before, no rolls (different films) after.

 

[Lachlan Young]

No the mark/line is continuous across the entire roll.

It only appeared on this roll, none before, no rolls (different films) after.

In that case, I'd be more inclined to suspect a manufacturing issue. Did you run any 220 through the Fuji after this roll?

 

[Donald Qualls]

In that case, I'd be more inclined to suspect a manufacturing issue. Did you run any 220 through the Fuji after this roll?

Or, more to the point, have you shot another roll of the GP3 220?

 

[Huss]

I have not yet run another roll of 220 thru the Fuji. I just loaded a roll of 120 in the Fuji to test the camera but that is flawed, as I had to flip over the pressure plate to the 120 side!
I'll try another roll of the GP3 220 in my Hasseblad H1.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You could tape a strip of 120 backing to the 120 side of the pressure plate. Yep, still flawed, but if it elminates the problem, you'll know to look at the pressure plate specifically...

 

[Huss]

You could tape a strip of 120 backing to the 120 side of the pressure plate. Yep, still flawed, but if it elminates the problem, you'll know to look at the pressure plate specifically...

Thing is there isn't a mark on the plate (either side). I was thinking perhaps the rollers but I really think it was a flaw in the film itself. Either way, I'll find out when I shoot the next roll of GPX in a different camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Either way, I'll find out when I shoot the next roll of GPX in a different camera.

That's another way, yeah.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Does anyone have an update on this GP3? Is there a US vendor for the 220 yet? Thanks!

 

[Huss]

Shot my second roll, it is now drying. More notes:
1. The backing paper really does stink. Intense moth balls smell. A little disconcerting.
2. The backing paper is surprisingly hard to remove from the film from both ends when loading the film onto a reel.
3. The film seems to be susceptible to fat rolling. My roll in the GW690III was not as tight a I would have liked even though I was very careful loading it as that camera is touchy in that respect. But luckily no light leaks. The roll in my Hasselblad H1 had the same issues - and that is a camera that has auto loading and I have never had any fat rolls in it. Will see if there are any light leaks when I scan it.

 

[pentaxuser]

3. The film seems to be susceptible to fat rolling. My roll in the GW690III was not as tight a I would have liked even though I was very careful loading it as that camera is touchy in that respect. But luckily no light leaks. The roll in my Hasselblad H1 had the same issues - and that is a camera that has auto loading and I have never had any fat rolls in it. Will see if there are any light leaks when I scan it.

Did the film come tightly rolled and became fat when placed in both cameras or did it arrive fat rolled? If the latter then maybe this tends to support what was being speculated on, namely, that these rolls may be made up by hand to a very large extent.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

1. The backing paper really does stink. Intense moth balls smell. A little disconcerting.
2. The backing paper is surprisingly hard to remove from the film from both ends when loading the film onto a reel.

That sounds a lot like the paper hasn't fully finished being allowed to outgas after printing - which will depend on the volatility of the solvents used. By 'difficult to remove from the film', do you mean difficult to unstick the tape?

 

[Huss]

That sounds a lot like the paper hasn't fully finished being allowed to outgas after printing - which will depend on the volatility of the solvents used. By 'difficult to remove from the film', do you mean difficult to unstick the tape?

Yes, it was hard to unstick/remove it from the film as I did not want pieces of it floating around in the developer. Much more so than other 120/220 films I've used.

 

[Huss]

Did the film come tightly rolled and became fat when placed in both cameras or did it arrive fat rolled? If the latter then maybe this tends to support what was being speculated on, namely, that these rolls may be made up by hand to a very large extent.

Thanks

pentaxuser

It is not as tightly rolled as regular production film. With regular film if you squeeze the roll there is no budge. With this film there is definite flex and it seems awfully close to the end of the plastic reel that it is on.. So yes, these should be rolled tighter. Taking a glance at the film which is hanging, it does not look like there are any light leaks so that's good.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, Huss. It does all suggest that the 220 may very well be rolled in the dark by hand using a small team of operators As long as there are no light leaks and the rolls are OK in the camera then it matters not as far as I can see

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

Thanks, Huss. It does all suggest that the 220 may very well be rolled in the dark by hand using a small team of operators As long as there are no light leaks and the rolls are OK in the camera then it matters not as far as I can see

pentaxuser

You know how when you normally unload a roll of 120 or 220 film, and use the adhesive band to secure it nice and tight so it does not open up? With the Shanghai 220 film, there is none of that nice n tight feeling, trying to secure it showed too much flex in the roll to make me comfortable. I actually was a bit surprised there weren't any light leaks.

 

[Huss]

The second roll had lines running through it on the left side. 10 out of 32 exposures had them, so I think this is a defect in film handling by the supplier/mfg.
Shame, as I really like how the film looks. First pic shows the defect, 2nd is without it.

Hasselbad H1, 50mm, Shangai GP3 400, 220. Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

 

[pentaxuser]

If hand rolling in the dark is what is happening then we can be reasonably sure it is a process new to Shanghai and its operator so maybe some faults are to be expected. Hopefully if there is any kind of QC process being employed Shanghai will spot this and improve the process but in the meantime a buyer may have to put up with occasional defects

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

It's weird that the marks were on only 10 out of 32 exposures. In a Hasselblad H1 that works perfectly, has never scratched film.
I'm hoping this is a growing pains thing, because I love the results this film gives. And it is so nice to have 32 shots w/o reloading.