Shanghai GP3 100 220 - still an unfinished product?

[redbandit]

i know they show a factory photo on their home page, but the damned search engined arent working correctly in the last hour

 

[Maris]

I've shot and processed several rolls of Shanghai 220 format and the packaging is interesting:

The backing paper is obviously re-cut from 120 stock.
Only the sticky paper closing the roll designates 220 format.
The (masking?) tape joining the leader and tail papers to the film is not full width.

The cutting and assembly of this film is in detail slightly crooked everywhere. I speculate that Shanghai 220 is hand assembled by hard working Chinese people spending their days in a black room. I remember years ago Kodak in Melbourne, Australia employed about thirty blind people for tasks just like this.

The Shanghai 220 films I've used had flawless emulsion on a grey base but without edge markings. No maker's name or frame numbers. With my light meter, Sekonic 758, and my metering method, chasing Zone III shadow detail, I have to rate this film at E.I. = 25 to get the negatives I like.

 

[AnselMortensen]

My Shanghai 220 is identical to Maris'.
Same paper and packaging, no film- edge information.
I had good results with both Rodinal and lab-processed film at box speed.
I'd be disappointed if they changed sources without notification.
I'd be ok with a different emulsion as long as they gave it a different name...
Having a source of 220 film is important to me, there's only so much questionably-stored ancient Tri-X and Plus-X left in the world.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've shot and processed several rolls of Shanghai 220 format and the packaging is interesting:

The backing paper is obviously re-cut from 120 stock.
Only the sticky paper closing the roll designates 220 format.
The (masking?) tape joining the leader and tail papers to the film is not full width.

The cutting and assembly of this film is in detail slightly crooked everywhere. I speculate that Shanghai 220 is hand assembled by hard working Chinese people spending their days in a black room. I remember years ago Kodak in Melbourne, Australia employed about thirty blind people for tasks just like this.

The Shanghai 220 films I've used had flawless emulsion on a grey base but without edge markings. No maker's name or frame numbers. With my light meter, Sekonic 758, and my metering method, chasing Zone III shadow detail, I have to rate this film at E.I. = 25 to get the negatives I like.

maris,
The last batch I used was sometime back, so this stuff might be all new to me. The older film I rated at between ISO50-ISO64. ISO 80 was the limit for me, and I got good results with Rodinal at ISO 50. I'm just going to run a practice roll tomorrow and think I'll set my meter at ISO 50 to see what happens. I'm guessing I'll be pretty close to spot on if it resembles the older stock. I'll report tomorrow evening.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The backing paper is obviously re-cut from 120 stock.
Only the sticky paper closing the roll designates 220 format.
The (masking?) tape joining the leader and tail papers to the film is not full width.

This may be a batch difference -- yours earlier than mine. The one roll of GP3 220 I've shot had white backing with sticky-back end tapes, like current Fomapan or Ilford products. Some blue/purple print on at least the tail paper, and the format marking is consistent as 220. I think they sold some immediately after introducing it that was in fact hand assembled with 120 components, but the current offering (I got mine in November 2022) seems to be made from the start as 220. There's reportedly a huge difference in quality control over that span as well.

 

[Agulliver]

The GP3 I shot in 2021/22 on 127 and 620 was certainly not Fomapan 100. As previously stated I will eat a pair of my dirty socks it if is. But, if Shanghai are swapping suppliers, then maybe someone else's GP3 *was* Fomapan 100.

In principal I'm not against rebranding but we do need to know. Currently I use GP3 only for unusual formats but there's plenty of Fomapan out there rebranded as @Henning Serger says, more expensive than buying Fomapan itself. If someone knows that Kosmo Foto is Foma in disguise at a higher price and buys it because they like the box, or that Kiki is rebranded film from somewhere else but they think the cat box is cute enough to justify the cost then fine.....but it's bad for those of us who just want to shoot film that we like, often at the best price. If I want to shoot Foma 100, and quite frequently I do, I'll buy Foma 100 unless I can get my hands on some Arista EDU 100 at a cheaper price.

The only difference is these unusual formats such as 620, 220, 127 and even 110. I cannot buy Kodak, Fuji or Ilford film in those formats factory sealed. But I can buy Shanghai (or "Lomography" 110). It's still nice to know if they change supplier. Or if Shanghai really are making their own emulsions and coating themselves.

 

[Henning Serger]

Whatever is in the GP3 box, las long as the boxes have the same emulsion number printed on, ist must be the same material.
I did receive 2 different films with same emulsion number on the box.
Was it an oversight, or is it a business model? Who knows ....

+1.

As a customer you have the right to be informed if the product characteristics have significantly changed.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I do expect Shanghai is using its own backing paper independed which material is rolled in the backing paper.

Yupp.
And therefore it isn't possible to deviate conclusions from the backing paper to the used film emulsions.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Cubao]

All the film manufactures had the same problem at the same time.

Never heard about any back paper issues of Fujifilm

 

[Agulliver]

+1 on it being a concern if GP3 changes without any change of name or info on the packaging. If one batch really is Fomapan 100 and another is something else....that's not good if you're expecting your two batches of film to perform similarly. While it's a bit dodgy to say "This is new Shanghai GP4" or "This is new and improved GP3" at least you know it's changed.

 

[John Wiegerink]

+1 on it being a concern if GP3 changes without any change of name or info on the packaging. If one batch really is Fomapan 100 and another is something else....that's not good if you're expecting your two batches of film to perform similarly. While it's a bit dodgy to say "This is new Shanghai GP4" or "This is new and improved GP3" at least you know it's changed.

That's exactly what I was getting at. If you have never used GP3, then you wouldn't know what you are missing or what you are not. You would just be using a "new to you" film and form your opinions from that. Having shot GP3 film previously, I'm expecting results to be identical or at least extremely close anyway. I don't want to be calling this film GP3+ or GP3-. I want to be calling it good old GP3, which I had previously found to be a very nice film at a below average price. That's another thing that hints to rebranding, the significant raising of the retail price upon reintroduction of GP3.
It's raining here right now, so shooting my new test roll will be delayed until it stops.

 

[Film-Niko]

Shanghai GP3 100 (220) is like a grab bag.

I purchased 10 GP3 220 in November 2022 and 10 GP3 220 in December 2022.
All 20 films have the same data on the boxes (Emulsion number: 3101 - Develop before: 2024-02).
The first 8 films (November delivery) I used behaved like FOMApan 100 ( see my post #236 in this thread ).
But ...
Yesterday I developed film the 9th film and it was total different to the 8 other films.
The color of the water used to pre-soak had been light green for the fist 8 films. The color was dark gray-blue on film #9.
The film requieres different developing times than the first 8 films.
And ... The film had a bright, looped stripe in the middle of the film over its entire length.

Since I was uncertain, I performed another test. I exposed a film from the December delivery with a gray card (Zone I to Zone X at 100 ASA). I split the film in half and developed both halves in separate tanks. One film with ATOMAL 49 and one film with FX39. The results were exactly the same as with film 9. There was no FOMApan 100 like film and the error in the emulsion was also present.
I think I will dispose of the remaining films.
As much as I like 220 format films, I will not be using "exotic" films in the future.

Farewell Shanghai GP3 !

For all the testing data we've got here so far from experienced photographers we can probably come to the conclusion that there is no own emulsion production and own coating at Shanghai anymore. Just a remaining small capacity for film finishing.
Those small film factories who try hard to establish an own production like Adox, Film Ferrania, InovisCoat, FilmoTec have all published at least some pictures of their factories and machines. Which makes sense as a small player or newcomer in a market with established companies which are in the market for more than 100 years.
I have not seen anything in that regard from Shanghai. I am convinced they would have published some material if they have an own production.

And of course such a complete change of material without any info to the customer is not acceptable.

 

[John Wiegerink]

And of course such a complete change of material without any info to the customer is not acceptable.

I agree with you, but it's obviously acceptable in China.

 

[Film-Niko]

I agree with you, but it's obviously acceptable in China.

Unfortunately not only in China.......as western film rebranding companies have done it, too. Like Maco, they are even doing that quite permanently.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Unfortunately not only in China.......as western film rebranding companies have done it, too. Like Maco, they are even doing that quite permanently.

Yes, it’s a shame or i should say, a sham, but it has become acceptable to do so. Question is how do we stop it from continuing? I think the cat is out of the bag and no one is going to be able to catch it.

 

[Film-Niko]

Yes, it’s a shame or i should say, a sham, but it has become acceptable to do so. Question is how do we stop it from continuing? I think the cat is out of the bag and no one is going to be able to catch it.

How it could be stopped?
At least we as experienced photographers can report about that here on photrio, on youtube in the comment section when one of these film scams is presented, in other film photographer groups like those on facebook, on instagram.

We as affected consumers should not be quiet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How it could be stopped?
At least we as experienced photographers can report about that here on photrio, on youtube in the comment section when one of these film scams is presented, in other film photographer groups like those on facebook, on instagram.

We as affected consumers should not be quiet.

Oh, if we had the power to make any changes.

 

[Film-Niko]

Oh, if we had the power to make any changes.

We have the power. We just have to start, and stop being passive and quiet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We have the power. We just have to start, and stop being passive and quiet.

Carry on.

 

[Nokton48]

I have a new use for my Shanghai 220. I have a couple of Graflex RH20's, which I've loaded up ready to shoot. Running it through my Jim Galvin Back, attached to my Peco Juniors. The Galvin Back was designed to be used with the Graflex Wind Lever Backs, which BTW are super nice IMO.

220 is photo firepower. That really hasn't changed over time. Some times short rolls are a PITA and this stuff still has a place

 

[Huss]

I have a new use for my Shanghai 220. I have a couple of Graflex RH20's, which I've loaded up ready to shoot. Running it through my Jim Galvin Back, attached to my Peco Juniors. The Galvin Back was designed to be used with the Graflex Wind Lever Backs, which BTW are super nice IMO.

220 is photo firepower. That really hasn't changed over time. Some times short rolls are a PITA and this stuff still has a place

I approve of this message. Loading a roll of 220 into my H1. I go through 36 exp of 35mm easily walking around for an hour or so, this allows me to shoot the same way on MF.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I just wish there were a convenient way to adjust the advance distance in my Mamiya 220 back -- I'd love to be able to install that mechanism in my 6x4.5 shell.

 

[Craig]

I go through 36 exp of 35mm easily walking around for an hour or so,

Just out of curosity, what do you with the images after you have shot them? Do they go on a social media feed, do you make prints and hang/exhibit them somewhere, or do they simply lurk in Print-File pages in a large binder?

 

[Huss]

Just out of curosity, what do you with the images after you have shot them? Do they go on a social media feed, do you make prints and hang/exhibit them somewhere, or do they simply lurk in Print-File pages in a large binder?

Social media feed? Maybe a few on sites like this one, or FredMiranda.com. But that is just an off shoot, not the intention.
Prints? Yes. Exhibit? Yes
Print File pages? Of course!

Photography to me is a relaxing, enjoyable, creative, productive and therapeutic past time. It's an escape in the best way. And the process of film photography just adds to that.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Photography to me is...an escape in the best way. And the process of film photography just adds to that.

I totally agree. I do my photography for me, and I shoot film exclusively (color and B&W).