Shanghai GP3 100 in 220 now available...

[flavio81]

Ah, yes. I hadn't opened the box yet. Inside are times for D-76, 7min in dilution 1:1. I'm going to use that.

Can you post the times here? or the table? So we have the official source.

Thanks for the sacrifice you did in the name of us Apuggers.

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks for the full explanation, Cholentpot . It is difficult to see the whole process in my mind's eye but I get the general idea. I can see it taking quite a bit of practice

pentaxuser

Practice makes competence.

 

[tballphoto]

yet the real question to me is, if this company can spool up 220... why cant other companies like say ilford do the same?

 

[Auer]

yet the real question to me is, if this company can spool up 220... why cant other companies like say ilford do the same?

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/

 

[swchris]

Can you post the times here? or the table? So we have the official source.

Thanks for the sacrifice you did in the name of us Apuggers.

Here you are:

 

[tballphoto]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ly-from-ilford-photo-harman-technology.18206/

Well the issue is, if the Shanghai film can be done as 220 it sort of proves that alot of what that post from Ilford states as fact for THEM,, that is just a bunch of hooey.

reading that post from ilford, the machine that rolled 220 format is 50 years old, and is merely shutdown and mothballed. They state the cost of building a new one, and even for refurbishing the old one as being too expensive... funny thing is they dont NEED to upgrade the lectronics, simply hit the power switch.

 

[MattKing]

Well the issue is, if the Shanghai film can be done as 220 it sort of proves that alot of what that post from Ilford states as fact for THEM,, that is just a bunch of hooey.

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.
The backing paper/leader and trailer paper is really quite complex and expensive stuff, and none of the film manufacturing companies have the capability any more to make it themselves.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well the issue is, if the Shanghai film can be done as 220 it sort of proves that alot of what that post from Ilford states as fact for THEM,, that is just a bunch of hooey.

reading that post from ilford, the machine that rolled 220 format is 50 years old, and is merely shutdown and mothballed. They state the cost of building a new one, and even for refurbishing the old one as being too expensive... funny thing is they dont NEED to upgrade the lectronics, simply hit the power switch.

Here's a suggestion The new "Ilford" is now run by a company called Pemberstone and while the facts stated by the former executive as to the state of the Ilford machinery will remain as they were, it may be that the new company may take a different position from the former board of directors of what was then Harman Technology. So make an inquiry of the current company via the IlfordPhoto website and let us know how it goes

If you don't mind a suggestion a simple inquiry is the best. I'd avoid using words like hooey or in any other way appearing adversarial. It is after all a different company

Neither do I think it is as simple as suggesting to them that they have merely to turn the on/off switch to the on position so personally I'd avoid this in the inquiry as your easy solution. It tends to relegate Ilford to being a little "simple-minded" IMO so not a good start

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[tballphoto]

Here's a suggestion The new "Ilford" is now run by a company called Pemberstone and while the facts stated by the former executive as to the state of the Ilford machinery will remain as they were, it may be that the new company may take a different position from the former board of directors of what was then Harman Technology. So make an inquiry of the current company via the IlfordPhoto website and let us know how it goes

If you don't mind a suggestion a simple inquiry is the best. I'd avoid using words like hooey or in any other way appearing adversarial. It is after all a different company

Neither do I think it is as simple as suggesting to them that they have merely to turn the on/off switch to the on position so personally I'd avoid this in the inquiry as your easy solution. It tends to relegate Ilford to being a little "simple-minded" IMO so not a good start

Best of luck

pentaxuser

Its just fact,,, it has been dabbled out on various spots it would cost 20$ a roll if ilford or kodak was to make 220 again,... yet the shanghai stuff isnt that expensive, and they dont have any issue getting the paper for the 220 ends.. Proves that it isnt impossible to do.

 

[MattKing]

Its just fact,,, it has been dabbled out on various spots it would cost 20$ a roll if ilford or kodak was to make 220 again,... yet the shanghai stuff isnt that expensive, and they dont have any issue getting the paper for the 220 ends.. Proves that it isnt impossible to do.

We will see what the quality is like.
Also, as the quality control problems with backing paper (on 120) and leaders and tails (on 220) relate at least partially to the interaction between the paper, the ink and the emulsions, it may also be the case that the only film that will work with the lower grade (and presumably less expensive) paper used by Shanghai is film like the film Shanghai uses.
I doubt you are going to see Ilford, Kodak or Fuji going through the expense of designing different film just to satisfy the demand for 220.

 

[dynachrome]

Ilford, even in its current form, has a certain cost structure. It also has a very high level of quality control. Ilford does not want to make a product that is pretty good or even very good. It wants to make a product which is excellent. I am tempted to try some of the GP3 to shoot some 220 again. I don't expect it to be as good as an Ilford or Kodak product.

 

[pentaxuser]

Its just fact,,, it has been dabbled out on various spots it would cost 20$ a roll if ilford or kodak was to make 220 again,... yet the shanghai stuff isnt that expensive, and they dont have any issue getting the paper for the 220 ends.. Proves that it isnt impossible to do.

Fine you have two choices. You either argue your point here on Photrio in the hope that you can convince us that it is simple for Ilford to restart 220 or you can inquire of Ilford if it might consider spending the money to refurbish the machinery which in the then opinion of the then board needed to be refurbished.

Let's assume you convince some of us and "win the day" here on Photrio. If that were to be the case would this help convince Ilford and thus bring closer the production of 220 by Ilford?

It may be that your only desire is to convince us on Photrio that Ilford for what seems to be some strange reason is denying itself the benefit of extra profit by simply turning the machinery on

So what is your objective?
(1) To convince us that Ilford is stupidly missing the chance to enhance its profits and that's where your desire begins and ends or
(2) Convince Ilford of your belief

I'd appreciate knowing whether you intend to pursue both objectives or only one and if so which one

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[flavio81]

.
The backing paper/leader and trailer paper is really quite complex and expensive stuff, and none of the film manufacturing companies have the capability any more to make it themselves.

This has been repeated a lot. However film rolls are more than 100 year old. 120 film is almost 120 years old. It can't be THAT complex, THAT advanced. George Eastman & his people invented roll film backing paper more than 120 years ago, with technology from 1900.

During those 120 years, several dozen different companies manufactured roll film: kodak, agfa, gevaert, capelli, ferrania, forte,.foma, negra, valca, Fuji, konica/Sakura, lucky, shanghai, ilford, ensign, perutz, GAF, adox, efke, svema, tasma, tura, OrWo, the list goes on and on.. I have counted 23 (twenty three) different brands so far.

Surely this paper was made by many many different factories, not by one factory closely guarding an esoteric secret.

Simon Galley at Ilford told us all this story of 120 paper being more expensive than the film and difficult to source etc, but i don't buy the story. There must have been some hyperbole going on. Surely right now only one or two companies are ready to supply the coveted 120 paper at reasonable cost and complying with all the quality standards. But this doesn't mean it's going to be that way forever.

 

[flavio81]

It may be that your only desire is to convince us on Photrio that Ilford for what seems to be some strange reason is denying itself the benefit of extra profit by simply turning the machinery on

I think there's no strange reason. It's simply not profitable (or not profitable enough) for Ilford.

But for Shanghai, it seems to be. Different companies, different realities.

 

[flavio81]

Here you are:

Your kindness is getting legendary proportions.

D76 1+1 is 7 minutes, much more reasonable.

Massive dev chart says 14 minutes. Once again, MDC is full of 'it...

 

[tballphoto]

Your kindness is getting legendary proportions.

D76 1+1 is 7 minutes, much more reasonable.

Massive dev chart says 14 minutes. Once again, MDC is full of 'it...

I thought massive development chart used a very specific development process.... the one i found on there site for film is NOT the same as what is written on the inside of the foma 120 roll i opened up this afternoon... and the process difference resulted in like 2 minutes of difference between the two methods.

 

[tballphoto]

on the high note, almost all medium format film cameras can use 220 film rolls.

How many people are using cameras using 620 film? Not many, yet the film companies have been making 620 spools.... and not been bankrupted by it

 

[Disconnekt]

For anybody in the UK area, Nik & Trick has some rolls available on their site (here: https://ntphotoworks.com/product/shanghai-gp3-120-roll-film/) at £9.69 w/ VAT ($13 usd).

Although the link has "120" in it, the description info talks about it being 220 film & the photos shows 220 boxes

 

[tballphoto]

For anybody in the UK area, Nik & Trick has some rolls available on their site (here: https://ntphotoworks.com/product/shanghai-gp3-120-roll-film/) at £9.69 ($13 usd)[/QUOT


Finally some decent images from this film are online. APPEARS to have a slight issue with heavily lighted scenes,,,, especially the tree one. But rest of it is better then i expected.

 

[Agulliver]

on the high note, almost all medium format film cameras can use 220 film rolls.

How many people are using cameras using 620 film? Not many, yet the film companies have been making 620 spools.... and not been bankrupted by it

620 film is much easier is it is *exactly* the same film and backing paper as 120, just wound onto a spool with a thinner diameter centre. Any company successfully manufacturing 120 film could theoretically use exactly the same film and backing paper to make a limited run of 620. It's not even difficult to hand spool it. 220 is a different prospect as the old Ilford/Harman post linked above says. It's not so simple to produce on a machine or by hand.

The folks at Shanghai have found a way to do it. Their business model seems to include filling small niches as they are also doing 127 and 620.

I don't know what the potential market for 220 is. The millions of vintage folding 120 cameras with ruby windows cannot use 220. It was always a niche product even when Kodak and others made it.

The current Nik & Trick offer is good, so I've ordered 3 rolls. No idea when I will use it as I have only my beast of a Kiev 6C that I can shoot it with....but having had both my lenses overhauled this year it's all working perfectly so at some point perhaps next summer.

 

[John Wiegerink]

on the high note, almost all medium format film cameras can use 220 film rolls.

How many people are using cameras using 620 film? Not many, yet the film companies have been making 620 spools.... and not been bankrupted by it

Who’s manufacturing 620 film? As far as I know they are just retooling 120 film onto 620 spools. Not speaking of Shanghai of course.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[markjwyatt]

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.

The inintial investment to injection mold the spools would be failry high (if that is how they are manufactured- most likley), at least $75k if not double that. Just the mold is probably $30k-50k, add heaters, runners, etc., plus having the rest of the facilites to injection mold. A business case could be made (and apparently was) for a molding shop to do it. Molds last a very long time once made.

3D printing them might work, but also would bne expensive on a per unit basis.

 

[MattKing]

The inintial investment to injection mold the spools would be failry high (if that is how they are manufactured- most likley), at least $75k if not double that. Just the mold is probably $30k-50k, add heaters, runners, etc., plus having the rest of the facilites to injection mold. A business case could be made (and apparently was) for a molding shop to do it. Molds last a very long time once made.

3D printing them might work, but also would bne expensive on a per unit basis.

I don't think that there is a plastic that would be strong enough, in the thickness required, to replace the very thin metal 620 spools that are required for the most persnickity cameras (primarily the most interesting Kodak ones).

 

[markjwyatt]

I don't think that there is a plastic that would be strong enough, in the thickness required, to replace the very thin metal 620 spools that are required for the most persnickity cameras (primarily the most interesting Kodak ones).

Probably not, but someone is producing them, and probably by injection molding, and some people are using them (in more forgiving cameras I suspect).