• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Shanghai GP3 100 220 - still an unfinished product?

Huss said:
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.
Click to expand...
But at the risk of being repetitive, you used a development regime that is non-standard.
And you revealed the cardinal sin of finger squeegeeing your film.
There is a significant possibility that the difference between the Shanghai film and other more modern competitors is that the Shanghai film benefits from little or no pre-hardening!
 
+1....not a fair test.
In another thread, Photrio member Auer got some very nice results from standard processing.
I have some 220 Shanghai I received last month, just haven't had time or dry/sunny weather to shoot it.
 
I would like to see a fair test with XTOL since it is such a forgiving developer.
 
ok, so a fair test is one that does not reveal any flaws and/or weaknesses?

Got it.

 

I'm being fully transparent as to my process, and earlier when I mentioned that I ran the film between my two delicately soft fingers, I did also mention the possibility that even though 'normal' films like those made by Ilford, Kodak, Foma etc are not effected by such a tender touch.. there is a possibility that the Shanghai film is extremely soft. Which is why I then said that the next roll will just be air dried with zero physical contact.

That of course still does not address those parallel scratches.
 

My experience and the community experience is that touching the film with fingers or squeegee runs a risk of emulsion damage. Many of us have learned that touching the emulsion is just asking for problems.
 
i would change only your developer, keep everything else the same and check your results then. I also ran a finger squeegee with my gp3 and didn't get the emulsion damage that you did. the only time I dont do any squeegee is when I reversal process as the bleach leaves the emulsion very soft. I expect that a mono-bath is hard on GP3 and is having a impact on your results. just because it works for most films does not mean it works for all films.
 
destroya said:
I expect that a mono-bath is hard on GP3 and is having a impact on your results. just because it works for most films does not mean it works for all films.
Click to expand...

I understand that which is why in the monobath thread I list films that it is not good with. For example, with Silberra Orto 80 it totally strips the emulsion off the film base!

Think of this as an educational tool. I am providing research to the film community by demonstrating my experience with the film and DF96. I have four rolls left. The next one will be developed in DF96 again, this time with me not touching the film surface at all to remove the final water rinse.

Of note, Shanghai themselves acknowledged the flaws in the GP3 400 220 film that I had revealed. You can see it in their marketing blurb where they say issues with the emulsion have been addressed.
I am putting that to the test and so far t doesn't look that great BUT I'm not done testing. One more roll in DF96, then depending on the results, the next in a standard developer.

I want to stick with the DF because to my eye the results - outside the damage - are stunning. There is a gorgeous richness to the film with DF96.
 
Last edited:
Huss said:
Click to expand...

I'm gonna take the Hussters side on this one. Those marks are not from squeegee fingers. The lines are most defiantly not either. I have two rolls sitting on a shelf waiting for a few nice days and I'll try it myself in a traditional developer.
 
Huss said:
ok, so a fair test is one that does not reveal any flaws and/or weaknesses?

Got it.

Click to expand...

A fair test would be one using a process recommended by the film's manufacturer.

While I've seen enough of Huss' work to be confident you know what you're doing, and I do not see how a monobath could cause all the issues seen, I would also like to see conventionally processed GP3 220.
 

Well we can blame Shanghai or we can blame the monobath or we can blame Shanghai and the monobath.
 
one thing I didn't see mentioned is the weird splotchy stuff is almost always concentrated at the top of the image (there is one with a line down the side.) If I thought Huss was a beginner at this, my first thought would be not enough developer. Since its almost certainly not that, I wonder what else would likely cause issues primarily on one side of the roll?
 

There is a possibility it is because the emulsion is very soft, and my squeegeeing it w my fingers caused that. Which is why I'm going to test again and not touch it at all.
But, it would seem the damage would be everywhere then. Anyway, we'll see.
 
One thing is for sure, they're listening to what we are saying.

Time will tell if the product is up to scratch. It has the potential.
 
Agulliver said:
One thing is for sure, they're listening to what we are saying.

Time will tell if the product is up to scratch. It has the potential.
Click to expand...

Do you really want to talk about scratches when working to promote a film?
 
Agulliver said:
One thing is for sure, they're listening to what we are saying.

Time will tell if the product is up to scratch. It has the potential.
Click to expand...

I want them to succeed because I want 220 film. And I really like the potential of their emulsion.
 
Huss said:
I want them to succeed because I want 220 film. And I really like the potential of their emulsion.
Click to expand...

I really liked their GP3 120 back when it was the cheapest stuff out there. I heard that it was basically Plus-X for some reason or another.
 
Cholentpot said:
I really liked their GP3 120 back when it was the cheapest stuff out there. I heard that it was basically Plus-X for some reason or another.
Click to expand...

And how could that be? They brought the rights from Kodak? Or are you just saying that because the ISOs are close? Why not FP4+?
 
Not sure what the 'old' GP3 120 was, but the new one definitely is not Kodak. It has a very thin base, different base colour, and curls more.
Plus the fact they mentioned they corrected the emulsion issues suggests it is made by someone else (if not themselves).
 

Thank you for that clarification with supporting information.
 
Sirius Glass said:
And how could that be? They brought the rights from Kodak? Or are you just saying that because the ISOs are close? Why not FP4+?
Click to expand...

Dig deep enough and there are discussions about Kodak granting rights to Chinese coaters and they used to coat using the Plus-X emulsion. When Kodak killed Plus-X the Chinese coater just kept on using the formula. I've seen this kicked around on APUG and other places.
 

I was wondering about that as I typed to post. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register