Shanghai GP3 100 220 - still an unfinished product?

[Huss]

Shanghai were kind enough to send me 5 rolls of their 100 220 emulsion to test after the issues with the 400 220 that I bought with my owns monies..

The good - absolutely love the tones and richness of this emulsion.
The bad - well see below.

The test conditions? Fuji GW690III and DF96 monobath. Also I immediately shot a roll of lford Delta 3200 (rated at 800) after the Shanghai was done at the same location. So same camera, location and time used for both. Developed in DF96 Monobath the moment I got home (first the Shanghai, then the Ilford as I do not have a tank big enough for 2 rolls of 220 film at one time.

I'll let you pick out which shots were taken on Delta 3200 (not too hard to tell really as I have included the entire images w no cropping!).

 

[Huss]

FYI the Shanghai was developed first in a completely dry tank. The Ilford was then developed in the almost completely dried tank. Fresh dry spools for both.

Also I have developed other 220 B&W film in this tank previously with no issues. Not by Shanghai though.

 

[Huss]

 

[Cholentpot]

You can send these in to the Shanghai PD and they might have some of the fingerprints on file. Gosh.

I've rolled my own 220 and it doesn't look nearly as messed up as this.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am not going to run out and buy a 220 back today based on the Shanghai film you posted. I can wait for a while.

 

[mshchem]

Is the Shanghai 120 any better? I will stick with my current suppliers

 

[Huss]

Here's the thing. Others recently posted their samples and did not have issues. Apparently. But I deliberately shot a roll of Ilford immediately after as a control to make sure the camera was not at fault etc.
I really do like the tones and look of this film. And I guess if you are doing a Lomo thing where you embrace the randomness of defects it can work - there are photoshop filters out there that add this 'damage' to the image!
I have four rolls left and will now embrace it for that aesthetic. Because perhaps I don't have a choice!
It really is nice to have 16 shots per roll in the GW690 rather than 8. And 32 shots in the Hasselblad H1 is kinda nice too. But...

 

[Kino]

Such a shame; its a very nice looking film, but...

 

[MattKing]

I'd like to see the results of some developed "normally" - i.e. not in a monobath.

 

[Huss]

I'd like to see the results of some developed "normally" - i.e. not in a monobath.

I can understand that - the mono may have something to do with the weird emulsion patches - but it is not going to put on those scratches!

 

[MattKing]

I can understand that - the mono may have something to do with the weird emulsion patches - but it is not going to put on those scratches!

Probably not, although it might have something to do with a softened emulsion.
Just in case I'd like to see a comparison, using standard developer and a hardening fixer.

 

[pentaxuser]

Probably not, although it might have something to do with a softened emulsion.
Just in case I'd like to see a comparison, using standard developer and a hardening fixer.

I hadn't thought of that Matt. They are good points about monobath. The emulsion's ability to capture what's in front of it is good. It is difficult to believe that having put the effort into making it Shanghai can possibly believe that these faults are acceptable so is it a "rogue" example, the monobath or just the inability to control quality and produce consistent, acceptable film?

A standard developer and hardening fixer might eliminate or pinpoint monobath but if it were I who had bought this film I'd want to contact Shanghai to find out what it has to say

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

Probably not, although it might have something to do with a softened emulsion.
Just in case I'd like to see a comparison, using standard developer and a hardening fixer.

The scratches would have been 'applied' before the monobath had any chance to do its dirty. The random patches? Could be a monobath thing but weird how there is no pattern to it.
More info - it was developed at 75 degrees.

 

[Agulliver]

What a shame....the unaffected portions of the GP3 frames look gorgeous. So there's real potential. But the damage is quite serious, on this roll at least. We can assume Huss knows what he's doing too. I would like to see a more "traditional" method of developing but I don't see how the monobath could cause all those scratches, fingerprints and other marks. And even if this is rare, the fact that it happens at all rules this batch out for serious work.

Do ensure the GP3 official account here is aware, they seem intent on solving the problems.

I'm kinda itching to shoot the 3 rolls I have...but don't really have any upcoming opportunities.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here's a reply I got at 6:00am this morning on the other thread. Sounds promising in that GP3 account at Shanghai will be interested in what has happened to Huss' film

↑
Is Shanghai state owned? If it is, it would seem that currently it may be operating its 220 production on a shoe-string from evidence in #205. It would look as if the speculation that it was a old lady "knife and forking it " in the dark may not be far from the truth. A largely "hand-made" 220 can be fine but it relies on the kind of consistency than often fails when it has to be maintained for roll after roll. Even at relatively low levels of production the problem may be that demand isn't high enough for much if any investment in mechanisation to be profitable but a little too high for consistent "knife and forking" methods to work in a faultless way, so faults of some kind may have to be expected.

pentaxuser
Click to expand...
we are still improving our 220 film, hope we can do better and better. but during this period, we may still have some problems happen or found from customer. So hope we can solve all tasks soon.

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

What a shame....the unaffected portions of the GP3 frames look gorgeous.

I agree with you. The potential looks to be great. I love the tones and richness, and this was without using any filters.

With all the films I develop I run them between my fingers to 'squeegee' off excess water before I hang them to dry. So it is actually a very light touch, with (normally) much less chance of damage to the film than if I used a real squeegee.
In case the emulsion IS super soft after developing in monobath, the next roll will be just hung to dry with no other physical contact.
This film does seem to have much less thickness compared to the Ilford roll I developed at the same time. Ilford lies relatively flat while the GP3 curls much more. (But not as bad as some).

If the patches still present themselves, then the roll after that will be commercially developed for comparison. But the scratches definitely have nothing to do with development.

 

[Huss]

 

[Craig75]

I can't see how the development process would make a difference here. There is a huge repeated imprinted pattern going down the harbour shot. The long straight scratches remind me of my own pitiful attempts to roll and load 16mm cartridges... and obviously we seem to be missing a lot of emulsion too...

I suppose to be ultra cautious one could just dry next roll on the reel and worry about any drying marks another day or presoak film in a hardener before development but in this instance I can't see what that would do

 

[faberryman]

I can't see how the development process would make a difference here. There is a huge repeated imprinted pattern going down the harbour shot. The long straight scratches remind me of my own pitiful attempts to roll and load 16mm cartridges... and obviously we seem to be missing a lot of emulsion too...

I suppose to be ultra cautious one could just dry next roll on the reel and worry about any drying marks another day or presoak film in a hardener before development but in this instance I can't see what that would do

I guess it just depends on how badly you want to shoot 220. It seems like the easiest thing to do is shoot 120 and reload. If you like the look of Shanghai 220, the Shanghai 120 is likely the same film. I haven't tried it so I don't know if it has the same problems as the 220. Maybe the problems with the 220 are introduced by the method they are using to spool it, whatever that is.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Frankly I would rather have Kodak, Ilford and Rollei products in 220 before I consider buying the 220 backs and buying 220 film. Meanwhile I am happy with the 120 market so no griping here.

 

[Huss]

I guess it just depends on how badly you want to shoot 220..

Using a Fuji GW690III, shooting 220 is really handy. 16 exposures per roll vs 8. But if the quality is really like this, then for me it's only useful if I am going for that lomo/damaged film cred look.

There are quite a lot of people out there (not on Photrio!) who shoot film cuz it is not clean to them like digital. Don't want to say who it is, let's just say the kids...
And seriously, if that is the look that 'you' are going for, then, well there you have it. Check out freestyle.com and see all the 'special effects' film they sell.
The difference here is that these 'special effects' are unintended!

 

[faberryman]

Using a Fuji GW690III, shooting 220 is really handy. 16 exposures per roll vs 8. But if the quality is really like this, then for me it's only useful if I am going for that lomo/damaged film cred look.

There are quite a lot of people out there (not on Photrio!) who shoot film cuz it is not clean to them like digital. Don't want to say who it is, let's just say the kids...
And seriously, if that is the look that 'you' are going for, then, well there you have it. Check out freestyle.com and see all the 'special effects' film they sell.
The difference here is that these 'special effects' are unintended!

I guess I would rather shoot 8 good negatives than 16 defective ones. I think even Lomo would be embarrassed selling that Shanghai film. You are going to have to be a pretty smooth talker to convince anyone that that Shanghai film is wabi-sabi. Not saying it can't be done though.

 

[destroya]

you must have some issues with your cameras or development as I shot a few rolls of this film in 220 and had no issues like you had. a few zits, yeh, but nothing as bad as your film came out. there is a chance that its not only the film but could be something on your end. others who have shot this film in 220, please chime in. I used the same camera as you did, so I doubt that its the camera unless you have pressure plate issues

I would shoot another roll and use a normal development plan, forget the monbath

john

 

[Huss]

you must have some issues with your cameras or development as I shot a few rolls of this film in 220 and had no issues like you had. a few zits, yeh, but nothing as bad as your film came out. there is a chance that its not only the film but could be something on your end. others who have shot this film in 220, please chime in. I used the same camera as you did, so I doubt that its the camera unless you have pressure plate issues

I would shoot another roll and use a normal development plan, forget the monbath

john

Well no, because as I mentioned I also shot a roll of Ilford at the same time through the same camera as a control. And also posted those pics in this thread.

 

[Huss]

I guess I would rather shoot 8 good negatives than 16 defective ones. I think even Lomo would be embarrassed selling that Shanghai film. You are going to have to be a pretty smooth talker to convince anyone that that Shanghai film is wabi-sabi. Not saying it can't be done though.

Dood, you are onto something! 'Wabi Sabi 220"!