Shangai 120 , Ebay, your experience ?

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I have Vermeer , Tengor and Ikon cameras and I need to buy film. Shangai is the cheapest and free shipping , any problem with the film from ebay ? I found pack of 10 costs 20 or so and I will try to buy from Hong Kong.

ps. John , I might be clearer , I saw the post and Richards Rodinal Rollei image was breathtakinng. I think that film is better than What I can do with it. I am asking is e bay films fresh , in good shape etc.

Latest information , reports is needed.

Umut

 

[removed account4]

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

hi umut

like everything ...
some people love it, ( and others hate it )
i guess it depends on who you talk to

john

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I haven't used it, but suggestions from users is that the batch with expiry date of 20016 is good.

 

[edinator]

Batch 5153 is the really bad batch where the numbers on the backing paper would transfer to the film. It had an expiry date of 2013.

 

[gone]

Very poor quality control (just like Ultracrap, oops, I mean Ultrafine). Best to avoid it. It's cheap for a reason.

 

[Rick A]

So far I've shot over 100 rolls of it without any major issues other than a bit of curl. It is hard to see the frame numbers in red windows though. I bought all mine from Hong Kong. I shoot it half box speed and develop in PMK Pyro or D-76 (1+1).

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Thank you all , I remember Ricardo's saying from past. 10 rolls costs 20 dollars and free shipping. If I would order from US or UK or Germany , only the shipping costs 2 or 3 times more than all paid to china. I will ask the seller , the expiry date . Its cheap because china have hell of money and electricity ,workers costs 1/10 of the us and chemicals and shipping costs 1/100 to 1/1000. I buy lots of things from china and they are excellent and no shipping cost.

1 cubic meters 1000 kilograms good costs 15 dollars to Shangai to Istanbul by ship. Multiply that by least 100 times from New York to Istanbul .

In next 20 years , there will be more universiity graduates than the entire us population , 15 000 000 a year in china.

 

[summicron1]

tempting, but I've gone through too much iffy film at cheap prices in my day to accept iffy results any more.

I'd rather patronize the nice folks at Ilford and Fuji anyway. At 50 cents a shot instead of 30, it's not that big a deal.

 

[zanxion72]

I have mixed results, and feelings, from that film. There have been rolls from the same batch (bought in tens) that gave me excellent results, and others that came out with all one can imagine.
There had been a roll that came out overdeveloped. Was not my fault as my other one in the same tank came out perfect. Another one had its backing paper stuck on the film and I could not take it off. Another one using the same development like others came out ultra thin.

Not bad at all, but only when it works.

 

[DannL.]

Some years ago I bought fifty "supposedly fresh" rolls of Shangai (ISO 100) in 120 off ebay for $50.00. I thought that was a good deal. I used the first half over a three month period with no problems. Then every roll in the second half came up mottled. They still had another year before expiration. In any case I don't buy film off of eBay anymore.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Dann,

This is very interesting report , when it comes to photography I am extremelly slow , may be 20 rolls a year with 35mm and faraway less with 120. I think it would be better to find tri x or fp4 for few rolls for few months. It would be more expensive but I dont want to see the lost rolls when it takes months to expose even single roll.

Thank you,

Umut

 

[hdeyong]

I would use the good stuff, if I were you. It sounds like you are a careful photographer, and to have what may be an important picture ruined by bad film would be very upsetting.

 

[michaelbsc]

I bought several bricks of this when.it was still in production. And when it was new it was only mediocre. I relegated it to things like testing shutter repairs, etc.

I would not use it for anything I care about.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

It was a terrific film capable of great results. I've posted examples here and elsewhere. Nothing mediocre about it. I bought over 100 rolls brought back for me by my father in law from Beijing. It's complete downfall was that it does not age well at all with the paper backing etching numbers and arrows into the film over time and the results getting mottled probably from some kind of out-gassing or acidity or chemical reaction of the backing paper to the film. My remaining 20 or so rolls I use for practicing loading with my 4x5 roll film backs or in testing focusing accuracy of my older MF cameras. Shame. I got some truly fantastic results at one time with this film and only paid about 75 cents a roll.

 

[michaelbsc]

It was a terrific film capable of great results. I've posted examples here and elsewhere. Nothing mediocre about it.

I agree that when it was good it was good. Search the archives here from some years ago and you'll find me defending it. Sometimes vehemently.

My remaining 20 or so rolls I use for practicing loading with my 4x5 roll film backs or in testing focusing accuracy of my older MF cameras. Shame. I got some truly fantastic results at one time with this film and only paid about 75 cents a roll.

But here I rest my case. I won't be using my last 20 rolls of Tri-X for testing.

I really wanted the Shanghai 120 to be the first of a wave of savior films coming from SE Asia. Didn't work out that way.

 

[moltogordo]

I just developed my first roll (older stock) and it looks very nice. I ordered 20 rolls of 2016 stock from Ebay.

However, I feel like summicron1, that supporting Ilford, Fuji and Kodak is the way I'm going. I'd use this film to test "iffy" cameras (I collect) to see how they work, light leaks, etc . . . and if I get good printable results, that's a bonus.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Very poor quality control (just like Ultracrap, oops, I mean Ultrafine). Best to avoid it. It's cheap for a reason.

I totally agree about the Ultrafine junk, but the newer 2016 expiration date stuff is as good as anything. The backing paper/masking tape could be improved upon, but I can live with it. Also, I don't think it has as efficient a annihilation layer as say Kodak films, but I rather like the looks of it that way and it seems to glow more in the highlights. It worked just great in Rodinal 1:100 1 hour stand developed, but was fantastic in WD2H+ pyro. I am away from home at my lake cottage and will scan the GP3 negs from WD2H+ pyro when I return home and post the results. I think it's a darn good film for the money and I wouldn't be afraid to use it on something much more important than a stupid camera test either. JohnW

 

[daniel0663]

I've brought two of these over the past year (http://www.ebay.com/itm/400435977596?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649 ), and so far all 20 rolls were great. I didn't have any of the problems other people were having ....

 

[JW PHOTO]

I've brought two of these over the past year (http://www.ebay.com/itm/400435977596?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649 ), and so far all 20 rolls were great. I didn't have any of the problems other people were having ....

What was your expiration date and was it in a silver plastic wrap? I've only been really happy with the 2016 stuff so far. I'm keep one roll on the shelf, unrefrigerated, and will check it in a year(if I'm still around) to see if there is the number bleed through like the stuff I got before. Time will tell I guess. JohnW

 

[moltogordo]

I totally agree about the Ultrafine junk, but the newer 2016 expiration date stuff is as good as anything. The backing paper/masking tape could be improved upon, but I can live with it. Also, I don't think it has as efficient a annihilation layer as say Kodak films, but I rather like the looks of it that way and it seems to glow more in the highlights. It worked just great in Rodinal 1:100 1 hour stand developed, but was fantastic in WD2H+ pyro. I am away from home at my lake cottage and will scan the GP3 negs from WD2H+ pyro when I return home and post the results. I think it's a darn good film for the money and I wouldn't be afraid to use it on something much more important than a stupid camera test either. JohnW

Oh, I agree, JW . . . the older roll I developed looks excellent, and I won't hesitate to use it at anytime . . . my post above was a bit clumsily worded and didn't quite say what I was wanting to say. I couldn't edit because it was past time when I re-read it.

Actually, camera testing is the most important use for film I have - I'm an avid collector. I think Shanghai's a great idea for this because it doesn't cost that much. If the new stuff's as good as you say, I'm sure it'll get more "exposure" than that. I will try it 1:100 in the Rodinal . . . . i've never stand developed before and that's something I'll have to try. And in a camera test, I think it's important to use good film. And Shanghai is a good film - that's why I ordered 20 rolls. As a new pensioner, I will always try to save a few bucks when I can.

I want to try the new stuff in both my C330, and the 6x7 back on my Linhof, before I commit to using it as a standard in these cameras, my users. I try to use as many Kodak and Ilford products as possible, because they are part of my heritage and I'd like to do my part in keeping them around . . . I've mentioned before I'm not partial to FP4 but use HP5 in bucketloads, and I'm still struggling with the replacement for Plus X. I used Plus X in medium format especially if I was planning enlargements 8x10 and up. I wanted that extra two stops for handholding whenever possible so I mostly use HP5 for general use.

By the way, a few years ago when I bought the older Shanghai, I seem to remember that it was also available in 35mm. Was it, or is that my imagination? You might be interested to know that in 35mm, I've settled on Arista 100 Edu as my replacement for PlusX - I have printed that film, and I really like it. It's quite close to Plus X, I think, especially developed in D76 1:1. Probably the best replacement for Verichrome Pan available. I tried to like FP4 and TMax 100 better but didn't. I'll use TMax only if I want to make an 11x14 from a 35mm - not a likely scenario. It will be my go-to, though, in half frame.

I'm really going to be interested in printing the old Shanghai, hopefully this weekend. I'll let you know as soon as I do.

 

[analoguey]

Do you mean lucky that was in 35mm or Shanghai itself?
You should try out the new one in your users too - lots to like in it!
(120, I mean havent tested the 4x5)
Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[zanxion72]

I have mixed feelings with GP3. In batches of 10 one or two came out with problems (baking paper marks on the negative, one blank, one with huge grain and more). These weren't development issues because I develop them in pairs and sometimes randomly the one of the two comes out badly.
Other than that I really like it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have mixed feelings with GP3. In batches of 10 one or two came out with problems (baking paper marks on the negative, one blank, one with huge grain and more). These weren't development issues because I develop them in pairs and sometimes randomly the one of the two comes out badly.
Other than that I really like it.

Expiration date of this batch you used please?

 

[JW PHOTO]

I have mixed feelings with GP3. In batches of 10 one or two came out with problems (baking paper marks on the negative, one blank, one with huge grain and more). These weren't development issues because I develop them in pairs and sometimes randomly the one of the two comes out badly.
Other than that I really like it.

Yes, if it's exp #2016 and all have the same batch number it would be hard to believe there would be any difference in the emulsion since it is the same throughout the batch. That's why there is a batch number. Now, I might believe the backing paper scratch, but the base for the newer #2016 stuff seems extremely tuff and I've had no scratches at all that I can see. I just scanned some GP3 #2016 negatives developed in WD2H+ pyro and they look very nice. I don't think they are any better than the ones I did in Rodinal 1:100 stand-developed, but should print fine. I use a Nikon 8000 scanner with glass carrier for scanning. The carrier/holder takes three negatives at a time and with GP3 film there is no pain in loading either. This base lays perfectly flat with no curl at all. One of the easiest 120 films I've scanned with so far. This is not a PERFECT film, but not bad for the money and I just order some more. Under $3.00 a roll to my doorstep isn't bad at all. John W

 

[zanxion72]

Expiration date of this batch you used please?

I will certainly give it another try then. I hate it when it fails, but it is lovely when all goes well. The batch I had tried was all 2015. I will look for a ten of 2016. It is not expensive anyway.