Shanghai GP3 100 in 220 now available...

[Disconnekt]

For those medium format film shooters, just saw on twitter that they have Shanghai GP3 100 in 220 available on their website :

https://shop.shjcfilm.com/collections/film/products/shanghai-gp3-100-220

 

[markjwyatt]

220 is pretty cool. I used to shoot a fair amount of it. Sometimes it is too much. Is the film good? It is claimed to have "decent" sharpness!

 

[Disconnekt]

Never shot it personally, but from what Ive read it was decent. The only issue I read early on was about a paper backing issue (molting I think), but other companies (eg Ilford) were having the same issue, I think the backing paper was from the same supplier.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Finally, an affordable roll film for my CubeSat. Had toilet tissue been used as backing paper they could probably fetch twice the price.

 

[halfaman]

Let's hope they do it better than GPX 400.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/shanghai-gpx-400-220-terrible-quality-control.185048/

 

[Rowreidr]

$18/roll? It's cool they are also selling "fresh" 127 ($17) and 620 ($16). But, their handling of 220 GPX400 quality control issues, my experience with Catlabs 80 (also GP3), and ordering from China and then having to wait months for 70? cargo ships to clear out (they are not sending via air, with free shipping). I pass.

 

[Steve Goldstein]

Never shot it personally, but from what Ive read it was decent. The only issue I read early on was about a paper backing issue (molting I think), but other companies (eg Ilford) were having the same issue, I think the backing paper was from the same supplier.

Paper mottling is an issue with 120 film, not 220.

 

[Cholentpot]

$18/roll? It's cool they are also selling "fresh" 127 ($17) and 620 ($16). But, their handling of 220 GPX400 quality control issues, my experience with Catlabs 80 (also GP3), and ordering from China and then having to wait months for 70? cargo ships to clear out (they are not sending via air, with free shipping). I pass.

I used to shoot loads of Shanghai GP3...because it was cheap. Like cheap cheap. I don't shoot it anymore because I only shot the stuff because it was CHEAP! They were selling loads of the stuff, by the brick. And then they decided that they're not a bargain anymore...they're a premium product and priced higher than premium films. And I'm sure there are enough idiots out there who're snapping the stuff up.

 

[pentaxuser]

The site now i.e. as of 2:30pm British Summer Time, says "Sold Out"

pentaxuser

 

[ant!]

And why is one 220 more then two rolls of 120? I guess it makes only sense for people who shoot that much at a time that not reloading is an advantage, but some preloaded film backs/holders would fix that too...

 

[cramej]

It would only be worth it if they used better tape than the 120. I had two rolls (so far) of 10 get wrinkled up in a camera after the tape let go of the backing paper. It's not cheap when a roll gets ruined before you even use it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'll have to look into 220 bulk loading...

 

[markjwyatt]

$18/roll? ...

When I looked last night I am pretty sure it was $6.99/roll! They must be getting a huge response.

 

[abruzzi]

When I looked last night I am pretty sure it was $6.99/roll! They must be getting a huge response.

the 120 is $6.99, so maye it was initially listed as a typo?

Also (and I didn't follow this closely) weren't the earlier 220 rolls, not factory done, but rather a guy that bought some bulk and was doing it himself? I don't have much use for 220, but for those that do, its would be interesting to demonstrate demand (if such demand is there.) However for over 2.5 times the price, it seems like it might dampen enthusiasm. The 620 and 127 are in the same price range of 220, but don't benefit from the additional frames, but they may make some shelf queens occasionally usable.

 

[mshchem]

No Sale! Junk!

 

[Cholentpot]

I'll have to look into 220 bulk loading...

Been there, done that. Unless I somehow get some NVGs I'm not going to try again.

 

[pentaxuser]

When I looked last night I am pretty sure it was $6.99/roll! They must be getting a huge response.

I think that #9 sums up the "whys" We seem to have entered into a strange new consumer world where the normal price v value for money link seems to no longer exist but it shouldn't be surprising to us as the trend started with "new" films that were not new but with eye-catching names and most certainly eye-catching prices

It's time that Ilford produced a "new" range of their existing films called "Films from the Mob" ( as in Mobberley) with pictures of Frank Nitti etc on the boxes. The Ortho 80 Plus becomes the St Valentine's Day Special which for $10 more comes in a miniature fiddle case. The headline can be "We're blasting the market with this new one!"

pentaxuser

 

[BrianShaw]

It seems that post #14 is more likely. (Either a typo on their site or a memory error by Mark.) But you guys and your conspiracy theories is fun to watch. Almost as fun as the loud cries for 220, and then when it appears the condemnation for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Been there, done that. Unless I somehow get some NVGs I'm not going to try again.

NVG's?

 

[BrianShaw]

Night Vision Goggles (NVG). For seeing in the dark.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Night Vision Goggles (NVG). For seeing in the dark.

 

[markjwyatt]

the 120 is $6.99, so maye it was initially listed as a typo?

Also (and I didn't follow this closely) weren't the earlier 220 rolls, not factory done, but rather a guy that bought some bulk and was doing it himself? I don't have much use for 220, but for those that do, its would be interesting to demonstrate demand (if such demand is there.) However for over 2.5 times the price, it seems like it might dampen enthusiasm. The 620 and 127 are in the same price range of 220, but don't benefit from the additional frames, but they may make some shelf queens occasionally usable.

I guess that is possible. I am pretty sure it said 220 though. The link the OP sent went straight to the 220 offering. I thought it sounded pretty cheap.

 

[markjwyatt]

I think that #9 sums up the "whys" We seem to have entered into a strange new consumer world where the normal price v value for money link seems to no longer exist but it shouldn't be surprising to us as the trend started with "new" films that were not new but with eye-catching names and most certainly eye-catching prices

It's time that Ilford produced a "new" range of their existing films called "Films from the Mob" ( as in Mobberley) with pictures of Frank Nitti etc on the boxes. The Ortho 80 Plus becomes the St Valentine's Day Special which for $10 more comes in a miniature fiddle case. The headline can be "We're blasting the market with this new one!"

pentaxuser

I am not that interested at this time to use 220. 120 works well for me with my limited use of MF; though i can see that usage increasing.

 

[Cholentpot]

NVG's?

I have a 90's camcorder that can 'see' in the dark. I have used it in the darkroom. It does have a very faint red LED. It didn't fog my film the few times I used it but I won't be using it again because of the risk.

 

[Kino]

NVG's were/are routinely used in motion picture lab darkrooms where camera original is processed. It's kept to a bare minimum, but they are used.

There, I did my part to steer the conversation well away from the topic of the OP...