Shanghai GP3 100 220 - still an unfinished product?

[loccdor]

GP-3 has no relation to plus-X. GP-3 is UN54 from what I’ve gathered.

Thank you. You may be right. But, when I go to Orwo's site for UN54, it says "Compare to Eastman Plus-X", so perhaps the films are not very dissimilar?

 

[loccdor]

Spectral sensitivity, ORWO UN54 vs Eastman Plus-X 5231

 

[MFstooges]

I just bought a few rolls directly from the Shanghai website...
I had bought a few rolls a couple years ago, and had mixed results when I had a lab process the film.... I really liked the good results, the image quality was very nice.
Now that I can process 220 B/W myself, I am giving the film another chance by removing one variable from the equation.

I bought couple of 120 from auction seller, didn't know they sell directly. It's the one with bright box and huge GP3 letters. I haven't tested yet. How does your packaging look like?

 

[Roger Cole]

Hm, those curves look very similar to me or I'm missing something, particularly the D=0.3 above B+F. Obviously the Plus X is missing the little hump between 600 and 625 nm but otherwise the basic shape is very similar.

I really miss Plus-X. I loved it in Diafine preferring it at 400-500 to Tri-X in regular developers. But I don't care that much about 220. I tend to be a slow deliberate shooter and 120 rolls are long enough they often stay in a camera too long anyway.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks @Roger Cole. One of the motivations for me using 220 was to open myself up to a less in-demand and accordingly lower price expired film market. Another is that I like to take it on trips with a lot of walking around under the hot bright sun, not that many opportunities to pause and reload. And another still is that it avoids problems with backing paper mottling effects. Like you, under slower paced conditions I don't feel much hindered by 120.

I was just starting photography at the time Plus-X was discontinued. I remember there being a lot of uproar at the time and I didn't really understand it. Now that I've had a chance to shoot some, I realize I would have been one of those people had I started a few years earlier. Although I've heard great things I haven't had the opportunity to try Diafine. Seems like a very useful developer that should be more widely available than it is.

To be fair, Plus-X, Double-X, and Tri-X all seem similar in their spectral sensitivity curves to my untrained eye. Which might explain why I love all of them.

 

[Roger Cole]

In that regard they are, but the curves... I loved pre-2007 Tri-X but I just don't get along nearly as well with the new version.

That's an interesting thought about backing paper mottling. I haven't encountered that in 120 yet but I know many people have, and it's likely just because I haven't been shooting much at all. All my MF cameras take 220 or I have 220 backs for them so I may pick up some.

 

[loccdor]

Okay, I had the chance to shoot another roll of 220. I used a yellow filter and the Volna-3 80mm f/2.8 on the M645J. Development was 1+31 HC-110 9 minutes 20C.

By and large I loved the images produced, but I wanted to highlight one where the emulsion defects seemed almost strategically placed on the worst spots that could be picked:

At least so far I have not had any dreaded film jams in camera. These defects are not enough to stop me from using the film, they are pretty much on par with Fomapan. But I can see why some would avoid it. I actually have to blow this image up to about 3 feet before I can really see them.

 

[Roger Cole]

Okay, I had the chance to shoot another roll of 220. I used a yellow filter and the Volna-3 80mm f/2.8 on the M645J. Development was 1+31 HC-110 9 minutes 20C.

By and large I loved the images produced, but I wanted to highlight one where the emulsion defects seemed almost strategically placed on the worst spots that could be picked:

View attachment 371189

View attachment 371190

View attachment 371191

At least so far I have not had any dreaded film jams in camera. These defects are not enough to stop me from using the film, they are pretty much on par with Fomapan. But I can see why some would avoid it. I actually have to blow this image up to about 3 feet before I can really see them.

I hate to say/admit it but I almost certainly would never have noticed those, and I don't think any viewer would either if viewing a print, say, 11x14 or smaller from that entire uncropped frame, and maybe not at 16x20.

 

[loccdor]

I hate to say/admit it but I almost certainly would never have noticed those, and I don't think any viewer would either if viewing a print, say, 11x14 or smaller from that entire uncropped frame, and maybe not at 16x20.

Agreed. It's not that bad to me, but it is more than you typically find on Ilford, so I don't blame people for shying away.

 

[MFstooges]

I processed one roll. Unfortunately one of the frame has scratches. These scratches are under the emulsion coating.

 

[MFstooges]

I asked the ebay seller from whom I purchased the GP3 if they can report this defect to the manufacturer. To my surprise the seller sent me 1 roll to replace mine.
Pretty good customer service.

 

[loccdor]

I'm still processing GP3 220 shot this year and discovering new emulsion defects. Here's the latest I found. Looks like a flock of seagulls! It takes up about 1/3 of one of the 6x4.5 frames.

 

[SMD]

GP-3 is UN54 from what I’ve gathered.

So it is a reversal film?
How old is it? As far as I know the actual ORWO (aka Filmotec) never produced UN54 in MF, only as 35 and 16 mm. So it is some very old stock from the original VEB ORWO?

 

[MCB18]

So it is a reversal film?
How old is it? As far as I know the actual ORWO (aka Filmotec) never produced UN54 in MF, only as 35 and 16 mm. So it is some very old stock from the original VEB ORWO?

It’s UN-54, negative film, sane stuff they sell today. And as far as the question of age, no it’s not too old, they can make it in whatever size they want. Shanghai buys it in master rolls, slit it to size, and finish it themselves. ORWO just contracts Filmotech/invisicoat to coat it, and have it shipped to China.

It’s the Smsame thing Cinestill does with Kodak. Cinestill contracts Kodak to coat a master roll, they ship jt to Harmon for finishing, then it gets shipped back to the US for distribution… ever wonder why it’s so damn expensive? That’s why.

 

[Donald Qualls]

ever wonder why it’s so damn expensive? That’s why.

And yet GP3 is fairly inexpensive, comparable to Fomapan.

 

[MCB18]

And yet GP3 is fairly inexpensive, comparable to Fomapan.

I meant Cinestill. GP3 is pretty cheap because Shanghai does everything besides coating the film, unlike Cinestill. End user doesn’t take on as much markup (Finishing fees from Harman, transport back to the US, Import taxes from US to UK then back again, storage fees for whatever warehouse Cinestill uses, etc etc etc.)

 

[SMD]

It’s UN-54, negative film,

The U stands for Umkehr. It is a film intended for reverse process. It can ofcourse developed as well as negative.

sane stuff they sell today.

I thought they stopped production. At least the information they gave me years ago was that they sell remains and than in newer price offer listings it dissapeared.

And as far as the question of age, no it’s not too old, they can make it in whatever size they want.

I would gladly buy it cut raw stripes for 120/220 film. I dont think that is possbible. Filmotec sold it as 35 and 16 mm bulk rolls.

Shanghai buys it in master rolls, slit it to size, and finish it themselves. ORWO just contracts Filmotech/invisicoat to coat it, and have it shipped to China.

It’s the Smsame thing Cinestill does with Kodak. Cinestill contracts Kodak to coat a master roll, they ship jt to Harmon for finishing, then it gets shipped back to the US for distribution… ever wonder why it’s so damn expensive? That’s why.

Yes, that explains it. They were fast scrapping production lines and now they ship around the world instead of producing everythin in one place.

Still, I would gladly buy from ORWO/Filmotec. But they were reluctant even with 35 and 16 mm sales in bulk.

 

[MattKing]

Import taxes from US to UK then back again

Probably not - if they are handling things properly.
There are most likely provisions that provide for putting up bonds that are cancelable when worked on product is re-exported.
Unless they are either too small or too unsophisticated to make proper use of them.

 

[Henning Serger]

It’s UN-54, negative film, sane stuff they sell today. And as far as the question of age, no it’s not too old, they can make it in whatever size they want. Shanghai buys it in master rolls, slit it to size, and finish it themselves. ORWO just contracts Filmotech/invisicoat to coat it, and have it shipped to China.

Well, that is more complicated, as both FilmoTec and InovisCoat (which are meanwhile owned by the same owner, and a kind of "sister-companies") are both still officially in insolvency. A restructuring plan is approved, but the future is still uncertain.

FilmoTec has never had the capabilities to coat their own film. After their foundation they used Forte as their coating partner. After Forte's market exit they switched to Harman technology (officially confirmed at that time by FilmoTec in the German press). And some years later they switched to InovisCoat (which have a contract with the Polaroid Film GmbH to use the Polaroid factory in certain time slots for their own products; InovisCoat is a company that does not own a film factory).
In the past two companies had the right to use the former ORWO brand name: The big German photofinisher / mass volume lab ORWOnet, and FilmoTec for their BW films.
Meanwhile only photo finisher ORWOnet has the right. FilmoTec has lost it in the current insolvency.
Therefore:
Forget ORWO film as a film brand. It is history.
That is also the reason why the latest films from FilmoTec/InovisCoat has been offered under the "Original Wolfen" label.

It’s the Smsame thing Cinestill does with Kodak. Cinestill contracts Kodak to coat a master roll, they ship jt to Harmon for finishing, then it gets shipped back to the US for distribution… ever wonder why it’s so damn expensive? That’s why.

And again also here it is more complicated, as CineStill is not using Harman technology exclusively for confectioning, but also several other partners. And the very high prices of CineStill films have also more than one reason. Including the reason that there are enough customers believing in fancy marketing stories and willing to pay these very high prices.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[loccdor]

Here is what the GP3 220 paper is like. If you try to tear it with your hands, it separates into a paper torn layer and a plastic one which only stretches.