Shanghai GP3 100 in 220 now available...

[MattKing]

Now if someone can come up with an automated re-spooling machine that can produce in reasonable quantity without significant QC issues ....

 

[John Wiegerink]

I would love to see a true 620 film from the likes of Ilford or Kodak for example. There were some fine 620 cameras made and millions of lesser quality 620 cameras also. I still use my Kodak Medalist and Kodak Monitor 620 cameras, but sold off my Kodak TLR's. I have a Zeiss Super Ikonta C with a coated Tessar and I actually think the results from the Kodak Monitor's "SPECIAL" lens are better. The Medalist 100mm f3.5 Ektar lens beats them both. I'll admit that at least I can respool 120 film onto my thin metal 620 spools, but being able to buy 620 film at a reasonable price would be nice. Of course by respooling I can have any film I want. JohnW

 

[flavio81]

The 620 spools that are being manufactured are plastic, and therefore work in some but not all 620 cameras. The plastic spools are necessarily slightly thicker than the original metal ones, and don't work properly in some of the tightest fitting 620 cameras.
No one has come up with an economically viable way of economically manufacturing small quantities of metal 620 spools.
More importantly though, the technology involved in making plastic (or even metal) 620 spools is far simpler than making 120 backing paper or 220 leaders and trailers, which need to:
1) be of different thickness at the edge than at the centre;
2) be fully opaque and non-reflective;
3) be of the correct thickness and flexibility;
4) be able to receive ink that
a) won't migrate or smear even when pressed against photographic film; and
b) won't react chemically when pressed against photographic film;
5) won't shed or react chemically when pressed against photographic film; and
6) has very particular requirements with respect to absorption and retention of moisture.
All of the above must be done to very close tolerances.
All of the above characteristics are within the capabilities of the best paper manufacturers, but the one (or ones) willing to do so on a production basis:
i) don't do this work cheaply and, perhaps most importantly,
ii) are only willing to do the work in large batches that, for 220 film, are uneconomic for the film producers to purchase.
For 220, none of the film producers are willing to tie up the necessary capital for several years at a time. The capital requirements involved in 120 backing paper are themselves problem enough.

Have you taken apart a 220 roll?

220 backing paper is essentially the same as 120 backing paper. Only the labeling changes, and of course you need less paper since it doesn't run the full length. Even the start mark, within tolerances, can be in the same position...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Have you taken apart a 220 roll?

220 backing paper is essentially the same as 120 backing paper. Only the labeling changes, and of course you need less paper since it doesn't run the full length. Even the start mark, within tolerances, can be in the same position...

That's the least of the problems. You can build a 120 spooling machine that operates in room light, but not a 220 one. From a quality assurance perspective & a health & safety perspective there are significant advantages to this.

 

[OrientPoint]

Only if they are willing to do it and lose a bunch of money on each roll.
Or, based on past experience here with the first Shanghai attempt, willing to put out severely substandard product..

I bought and have just received a few rolls of the current round of Shanghai 220 film. The first roll I loaded into my Rolleiflex (which had the 220 modification) jammed. After extracting and examining the roll it was apparent the leader is poorly attached to the film with a bit of masking tape about a half an inch in from the edge of the leader. Because of how and where it's attached the edge of the leader sticks up and jams into the roller, making it impossible to completely load.

I guess I'll have to open these rolls in a darkroom and tape them down properly. So much for quality control. I probably should've just stuck with 120 from Kodak or Ilford.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ok, so we have a state-own Chinese company, most important (or one of the) manufacturer and distributor of X-ray film for hospitals, situated in a country that has the largest consumer pool in the world, and we're actually comparing this to Ilford's situation and wondering why Ilford isn't keeping up?

 

[MattKing]

I bought and have just received a few rolls of the current round of Shanghai 220 film. The first roll I loaded into my Rolleiflex (which had the 220 modification) jammed. After extracting and examining the roll it was apparent the leader is poorly attached to the film with a bit of masking tape about a half an inch in from the edge of the leader. Because of how and where it's attached the edge of the leader sticks up and jams into the roller, making it impossible to completely load.

I guess I'll have to open these rolls in a darkroom and tape them down properly. So much for quality control. I probably should've just stuck with 120 from Kodak or Ilford.

FWIW, I'm disappointed - I would have likes to see that someone has come up with a solution. I have a camera with extra 220 inserts and a camera that can be switched to 220, and they both performed really well with 220 in them.
The person who bought my RB67 with those extra 220 backs would probably like it more.
You can tell that the machine that could do this well and economically at production volumes must be far from trivial if when Ilford/Harman costed them out so many years ago in 2006 they were going to cost £300,000. Just think what that machine would cost now!

 

[Moose22]

they were going to cost £300,000. Just think what that machine would cost now!

50 quid.*


* Plus half a million in work to get it going again, and who knows how much in parts you have to make yourself, because good luck ever finding spares when something breaks.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, in 2006 Ilford/Harman costed out both rehabilitating their existing machine (which was worn out to the point of unusability) and having a new machine built, and the costs were the same £300,000.

 

[markjwyatt]

If anyone knows, what % of the total film market is 6 cm (excluding instant prints- just emulsions coated on plastic film- 35mm, 6cm, LF, specialty, etc., negative and reversal, B&W and color)? Of that % (say 5%?), what % could use 220 instead of 120 (e.g., as someone already noted, a lot of older MF cameras, folders, etc. do not accept 220). So of the % (say 10%?) that could use 220, what % of those purchases would be 220 over 120 (20%?). And finally what is the total % of film market that is likely to be 220? I suspect it is very small (maybe 0.1%, likely < 1%). It is good that Shanghai wants to try. If they succeed, we might find out, and others may follow.

 

[Moose22]

FWIW, in 2006 Ilford/Harman costed out both rehabilitating their existing machine (which was worn out to the point of unusability) and having a new machine built, and the costs were the same £300,000.

Exactly.

A while back there were tons of injection molding and milling machines hitting the market. So much work had moved to China in the early '00s when the economy tanked machine shops around here were closing down left and right. Friends of mine were in that business and picked up a couple. The molding machines were actually going for scrap value -- if cut them up and sell the steel parts as raw steel you'd make more than selling them as a working unit. The problem was getting them working again. These were engineers who owned a couple fadel and bridgeport mills, were deeply knowledgeable and experienced, and could make their own parts. Still, one of their almost free mills cost them an extra $90K before it drilled a single hole. Better than the $350K a similar new mill would cost, but still. They needed three injection molders to get one working, and scrapped the other two. I don't remember what the out of pocket expense was, but it was NOT cheap.

Film processing machines are significantly less common items than CNC mills at this point. Getting one working (new or rehabbed) then amortizing it over the dime or quarter a roll they might make in profit... Big gamble. And how long does it take that now-working machine to produce the 5 million rolls of 220 before they come close to recouping that outlay? That's a huge gamble and you'd need to think there was a market willing to buy millions and millions of rolls of 220 waiting to be tapped.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ok, so we have a state-own Chinese company, most important (or one of the) manufacturer and distributor of X-ray film for hospitals, situated in a country that has the largest consumer pool in the world, and we're actually comparing this to Ilford's situation and wondering why Ilford isn't keeping up?

Is Shanghai state owned? If it is, it would seem that currently it may be operating its 220 production on a shoe-string from evidence in #205. It would look as if the speculation that it was a old lady "knife and forking it " in the dark may not be far from the truth. A largely "hand-made" 220 can be fine but it relies on the kind of consistency than often fails when it has to be maintained for roll after roll. Even at relatively low levels of production the problem may be that demand isn't high enough for much if any investment in mechanisation to be profitable but a little too high for consistent "knife and forking" methods to work in a faultless way, so faults of some kind may have to be expected.

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Is Shanghai state owned? If it is, it would seem that currently it may be operating its 220 production on a shoe-string from evidence in #205. It would look as if the speculation that it was a old lady "knife and forking it " in the dark may not be far from the truth. A largely "hand-made" 220 can be fine but it relies on the kind of consistency than often fails when it has to be maintained for roll after roll. Even at relatively low levels of production the problem may be that demand isn't high enough for much if any investment in mechanisation to be profitable but a little too high for consistent "knife and forking" methods to work in a faultless way, so faults of some kind may have to be expected.

pentaxuser

Everything in PRC is to some extent State Owned.

 

[Arcadia4]

Its now owned by wholesaler Shanghai Jiancheng Technology Ltd . Its not clear if they are still coating film or just converting/branding it. Given labour rates in china the ‘machine’ for making 220 may be some people working in the dark.

 

[ic-racer]

Would This 220 film work in a camera like the Fuji GW690 where you manually line up an arrow with the dots on the film gate? There is no super precise feeler mechanism in that camera.

I think the old Rollei Automats are the only cameras I know which sense the beginning. Of course, they stopped including that mechanism in the new TLR cameras in the1980s.

 

[destroya]

i have some of the 220 on its way and looking forward to trying it out. i shot some of the old gp3 and some of the new, i guess the defining line is from the old factory and the new. the new stuff was in 4x5 and had serious emulsion defects which they later admitted to which was kinda shocking but admired. the old gp3 in 120 also had masking tape used but it was for the end of the roll to secure the film and used to keep it rolled up. of course it never worked and my first 2 rolls had leaks from unsealed rolls. from then on i always had rubber bands and the old rollei cigar like tubes to keep the finished rolls in till development. that said, i really liked the results. It really reminded me of plus-x. at the time I could deal with the cheaper finishing because it cost half the amount of fp4 or other films. at the same price i would and have taken a pass. I really hope that they can get a better finishing to the 220 film as it would be nice to have an option in B&W. i might have to save my ends of any 220 film i shoot going forward and try to do a make shift roll your own with some bulk 70/60 mm film if i can find it and want a serious headache from trying to do something that is certain punishment.

john

 

[Auer]

I bought and have just received a few rolls of the current round of Shanghai 220 film. The first roll I loaded into my Rolleiflex (which had the 220 modification) jammed. After extracting and examining the roll it was apparent the leader is poorly attached to the film with a bit of masking tape about a half an inch in from the edge of the leader. Because of how and where it's attached the edge of the leader sticks up and jams into the roller, making it impossible to completely load.

I guess I'll have to open these rolls in a darkroom and tape them down properly. So much for quality control. I probably should've just stuck with 120 from Kodak or Ilford.

What is the 220 mod and does it affect other films?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I think the old Rollei Automats are the only cameras I know which sense the beginning. Of course, they stopped including that mechanism in the new TLR cameras in the1980s.

All the late-1950s-1970s Rolleiflex models like the E and F series had the sensing mechanism. My three E models all worked flawlessly with all 120 films that I used, including 120 Kodachrome 64.

I'll wait to hear how this new 220 works for the early buyers. On the Fuji GW690II, it will give 16 frames per roll.

 

[pentaxuser]

Everything in PRC is to some extent State Owned.

Well that's a very broad statement and if that's true to the extent that every company does what the Party tells it to then what might be the benefit to the greater good of China i.e the Party in doing this? It is not clear to me why the Party would target a small part of the film business, namely 220 when it hardly qualifies as being either very profitable or particular prestigious.

I simply mention this because my impression in your #206 was that your mention of the State suggested that Shanghai was placed to do things such as 220 that Ilford, by comparison, could not command the resources to do

I may have been wrong in my assumption of your point and if so can you say what it is about state ownership and the PRC's influence that gives it reason to launch 220 when Ilford has decided it isn't viable

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Well that's a very broad statement and if that's true to the extent that every company does what the Party tells it to then what might be the benefit to the greater good of China i.e the Party in doing this? It is not clear to me why the Party would target a small part of the film business, namely 220 when it hardly qualifies as being either very profitable or particular prestigious.

I simply mention this because my impression in your #206 was that your mention of the State suggested that Shanghai was placed to do things such as 220 that Ilford, by comparison, could not command the resources to do

I may have been wrong in my assumption of your point and if so can you say what it is about state ownership and the PRC's influence that gives it reason to launch 220 when Ilford has decided it isn't viable

Thanks

pentaxuser

State has a finger in the pie, they allow the 'owner' to go out and make profits as they see fit as long as they keep the business up and running and cranking out what the state needs.

China may very well be seeing a film production as a vital economic resource. Have all the hospitals throughout China switched from analog X-ray to digital? In case of a gamma burst or the grid gets knocked out they may need the access to film.

 

[markjwyatt]

It appears to ahve started as state owned: https://www.shjcfilm.com/

"Established in 1958, Shanghai Shenbei, a state-owned film manufacturer, developed Shanghai GP3 black and white film. It was aiming to be an affordable film product friendly to the domestic market. With 40% to 50% of the market share, Shanghai GP3 film was one of the most classic films.In early 2000, the film industry was primarily shocked by digitalisation Shenbei Factory came to the end of its first chapter."

Maybe it went private later (after its "first chapter")? It is no longer Shanghai Shenbei. It is no Shanghai Jiancheng Technology Pty Ltd., which at least implies private.

 

[pentaxuser]

State has a finger in the pie, they allow the 'owner' to go out and make profits as they see fit as long as they keep the business up and running and cranking out what the state needs.

China may very well be seeing a film production as a vital economic resource. Have all the hospitals throughout China switched from analog X-ray to digital? In case of a gamma burst or the grid gets knocked out they may need the access to film.

Yes my point was that while your first sentence may be a good summary of the State's position and overarching power on the whole range of Chinese companies it is not clear to me why the State needs specifically to do this for 220 and would thus apply pressure on Shanghai to make it. For reasons I have already given it is would appear to be neither particularly profitable for China or prestigious for the reputation of China.

Do you believe China is using the State's resources to enable Shanghai to produce 220 at a profit or for reasons that are lost on me are simply doing it for China's prestige? Surely only on the basis of it helping Shanghai in such a way does it make any sense to compare it to Ilford who of course have to rely solely on its own resources to re-start 220

If you are right about State help then we should rejoice because then Shanghai can drop its likely manual way of making 220, buy the machinery needed and produce 220 at a better quality level and with economies of scale make it more cheaply for all potential consumers of 220?

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Yes my point was that while your first sentence may be a good summary of the State's position and overarching power on the whole range of Chinese companies it is not clear to me why the State needs specifically to do this for 220 and would thus apply pressure on Shanghai to make it. For reasons I have already given it is would appear to be neither particularly profitable for China or prestigious for the reputation of China.

Do you believe China is using the State's resources to enable Shanghai to produce 220 at a profit or for reasons that are lost on me are simply doing it for China's prestige? Surely only on the basis of it helping Shanghai in such a way does it make any sense to compare it to Ilford who of course have to rely solely on its own resources to re-start 220

If you are right about State help then we should rejoice because then Shanghai can drop its likely manual way of making 220, buy the machinery needed and produce 220 at a better quality level and with economies of scale make it more cheaply for all potential consumers of 220?

pentaxuser

I'm not sure where you're going with this.

The overall company may be owned by the state with a private individual running a subsidiary business out of it. As long as the quotas are met the state doesn't care what the company does.

It appears to ahve started as state owned: https://www.shjcfilm.com/

"Established in 1958, Shanghai Shenbei, a state-owned film manufacturer, developed Shanghai GP3 black and white film. It was aiming to be an affordable film product friendly to the domestic market. With 40% to 50% of the market share, Shanghai GP3 film was one of the most classic films.In early 2000, the film industry was primarily shocked by digitalisation Shenbei Factory came to the end of its first chapter."

Maybe it went private later (after its "first chapter")? It is no longer Shanghai Shenbei. It is no Shanghai Jiancheng Technology Pty Ltd., which at least implies private.

It's all possible but like The Department of Education, once they have their hands on something they rarely let it go.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Is Shanghai state owned? If it is, it would seem that currently it may be operating its 220 production on a shoe-string from evidence in #205. It would look as if the speculation that it was a old lady "knife and forking it " in the dark may not be far from the truth. A largely "hand-made" 220 can be fine but it relies on the kind of consistency than often fails when it has to be maintained for roll after roll. Even at relatively low levels of production the problem may be that demand isn't high enough for much if any investment in mechanisation to be profitable but a little too high for consistent "knife and forking" methods to work in a faultless way, so faults of some kind may have to be expected.

pentaxuser

In the PRC, cheap product is not necessarily the result of shoe-string production. It's another reality, and we can't compare business models nor production operations there to those in Europe or North America. Truthful and viable information is impossible to gather, and we're are just left with baseless speculation. Point is, there's absolutely no way to know how they are producing their 220 - neither from a technological point of view nor a financial one. Hence, makes no sense to ask Ilford to do something a Chinese company is doing when we have absolutely no clue how doing that something is actually achieved by them.

 

[Cholentpot]

In the PRC, cheap product is not necessarily the result of shoe-string production. It's another reality, and we can't compare business models nor production operations there to those in Europe or North America. Truthful and viable information is impossible to gather, and we're are just left with baseless speculation. Point is, there's absolutely no way to know how they are producing their 220 - neither from a technological point of view nor a financial one. Hence, makes no sense to ask Ilford to do something a Chinese company is doing when we have absolutely no clue how doing that something is actually achieved by them.

Bingo.

China is incomparable to basically the rest of the world. China does it the China way.

For all we know they have a full scale 220 operation with all the gizmos and machinery just to crank out a few score of rolls a month. Or it's granny sitting in a closet rolling the film by hand while humming 80's pop classics.