Shanghai GP3 100 220 - still an unfinished product?

[pentaxuser]

I want them to succeed because I want 220 film. And I really like the potential of their emulsion.

I think we'd all agree with the above sentiments , wouldn't we?

 

[Cholentpot]

I was wondering about that as I typed to post. Thank you.

Shanghai stuff from when I shot a lot of it did look very similar to Plus-X. I know that most of us can't tell the difference according to some people but my eyes say what they say.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shanghai stuff from when I shot a lot of it did look very similar to Plus-X. I know that most of us can't tell the difference according to some people but my eyes say what they say.

Wondering? ... Have you had your eyes calibrated?

 

[Huss]

Ok, the mighty Texas Leica is loaded with another roll. Test # 2 - DF96 but no touchy!

 

[Cholentpot]

Wondering? ... Have you had your eyes calibrated?

About once a year. They're the soft focus kind and pretty good with macro.

 

[AgX]

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

But this is just the lot you are said to have been sent a sample of.

 

[Huss]

But this is just the lot you are said to have been sent a sample of.

yes, but they have acknowledged the emulsion problem with the 400 220 film. We are now trying to determine if it is indeed fixed, and/or if DF96 Monobath is causing some of the issues we (I) now see.

 

[foc]

Why not develop two films together, at the same time with no touchy on one and gently touchy on the other?

 

[Agulliver]

Why not develop two films together, at the same time with no touchy on one and gently touchy on the other?

I think Huss said that his developing tank doesn't have sufficient capacity?

 

[Huss]

I think Huss said that his developing tank doesn't have sufficient capacity?

What I am going to do is the same thing. Developed one w the touchy - results shown. Now will develop the other w no touchy w/ everything else the same.

My 'big' dev tank holds only 2 rolls of 35 or 1 roll of 120/220.

 

[Darko Kamer]

Watching this thread with interest. This film (which seems to produce nice images/tones) is one of the most inexpensive medium format I've come across and produces what appears to be nice results.
I'd be very interested If the 220 problems noted here get solved.

 

[Huss]

@darko Arista 120 film is $6/roll

 

[Huss]

Roll #2 drying... 2nd time w Df96 - no touch! Let's see if the issues were due to soft emulsion being handled. At the moment I can see the negs have lovely density..

 

[Sirius Glass]

Roll #2 drying... 2nd time w Df96 - no touch! Let's see if the issues were due to soft emulsion being handled. At the moment I can see the negs have lovely density..

Come on! I am waiting as fast as I can!

 

[Huss]

Well, round 2 was a failure unless you are going for the WabiSabi look. This time I did not touch the film - no gentle finger squeegeing, nothing. Just air dry.
Terrible emulsion marks, bad scratches everywhere. So, because this was a 'no touch' dev, the scratches are 100% on Shanghai. But the dev? Perhaps the DF96 somehow is caustic to this emulsion. I have never seen this behaviour developing other emulsions - and I've developed hundreds of rolls in the last couple of years with DF96! The one absolute failure was the Soviet Orto 80 which just completely lost the emulsion. But this would be a runner up.
Shanghai does seem to make it's own stock - as pretty everything else I've developed in DF96 monobath has been fine - Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Lomo Babylon 13 and Fantome 8 etc.

Round 3 - I will give it to a lab to develop in their regular process (and will ask what that is!)

From round 2:




Textured backgrounds can hide the defects!:



But there you have it:

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, round 2 was a failure unless you are going for the WabiSabi look. This time I did not touch the film - no gentle finger squeegeing, nothing. Just air dry.
Terrible emulsion marks, bad scratches everywhere. So, because this was a 'no touch' dev, the scratches are 100% on Shanghai. But the dev? Perhaps the DF96 somehow is caustic to this emulsion. I have never seen this behaviour developing other emulsions - and I've developed hundreds of rolls in the last couple of years with DF96! The one absolute failure was the Soviet Orto 80 which just completely lost the emulsion. But this would be a runner up.
Shanghai does seem to make it's own stock - as pretty everything else I've developed in DF96 monobath has been fine - Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Lomo Babylon 13 and Fantome 8 etc.

Round 3 - I will give it to a lab to develop in their regular process (and will ask what that is!)

From round 2:




Textured backgrounds can hide the defects!:



But there you have it:

The film is the same.
The development chemicals different but not controversial.
The film surfaces were not touched by fingers or a squeegee.
The film was hung to dry.

So who is the bad guy. Not the developer. Not the technique. That leaves the film as the direct cause of the problem. Shanghai has a long way to go before bringing this film to market.

Thank you Huss.

 

[MattKing]

I'm still interested in seeing how it reacts to a development regime where you aren't mixing developer and fixer in the same tank at the same time.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I'm still interested in seeing how it reacts to a development regime where you aren't mixing developer and fixer in the same tank at the same time.

What is this, calculus?

 

[Huss]

I'm actually with Matt right now. I want to see one of "my" rolls developed in standard formulation just to see if it works better there. Still would not make up for the scratches but perhaps the splotchiness.

Next stop - Pauls Photo in Torrance! (but I first gotta shoot another roll of film!)

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Developers containing silver solvent -thiols really differentially highlight emulsion anomalies. Might be good in a reversal process with -thio group in both developers.

 

[MattKing]

What is this, calculus?

Perhaps the ability to withstand a monobath hasn't been "integrated" into the design of the film.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Perhaps the ability to withstand a monobath hasn't been "integrated" into the design of the film.

It's air pollution, holmes.

 

[MattKing]

It's air pollution, holmes.

I'll be "d(i)fferential" to whatever Huss decides to do.

 

[Huss]

I'm taking one for the team. Next roll at the local lab.

 

[foc]

I'm taking one for the team. Next roll at the local lab.

Thanks for posting your efforts so far and I am looking forward to seeing the results of the lab processed film.