But at the risk of being repetitive, you used a development regime that is non-standard.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.
But at the risk of being repetitive, you used a development regime that is non-standard.
And you revealed the cardinal sinof 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!
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.
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.
ok, so a fair test is one that does not reveal any flaws and/or weaknesses?
Got it.
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.
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?
https://shop.shjcfilm.com/collections/b-w-negative/products/shanghai-gp3-100-220
New version and fresh 220, fixed old 400 220 backing paper and emulsion issue
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.
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.
I want them to succeed because I want 220 film. And I really like the potential of their emulsion.
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.
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).
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+?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?