Shanghai GP3 100 in 220 now available...

[Agulliver]

It looks like the people at Shanghai have found a way to make metal 620 spools

https://shop.shjcfilm.com/products/...t-agfa-620-camera?_pos=2&_sid=75d313195&_ss=r

I've also noted that the Shanghai web shop is growing, they now offer C41 films from Kodak and Fuji as well as one of their own.

The 220 film has reduced in price if you buy a brick. I am looking forward to trying it when circumstances allow.

 

[Ai Print]

It looks like the people at Shanghai have found a way to make metal 620 spools

https://shop.shjcfilm.com/products/...t-agfa-620-camera?_pos=2&_sid=75d313195&_ss=r

I've also noted that the Shanghai web shop is growing, they now offer C41 films from Kodak and Fuji as well as one of their own.

The 220 film has reduced in price if you buy a brick. I am looking forward to trying it when circumstances allow.

Thanks, I ordered a brick, price is decent for 220 and it will give my lone A24 back something to do.

 

[pentaxuser]

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

.

Well, would appear the answer is nowhere. From strictly the 220 consumers point of view can we agree that the more resources that Shanghai is able to pour into 220 production and its future quality, be that from State resources or otherwise the better it is for those consumers . Indeed the more highly China decides to promote film in general then the better it has to be for film if it leads to competition in price, more kinds of films such as colour, Kodak type IR film etc

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

Well, would appear the answer is nowhere. From strictly the 220 consumers point of view can we agree that the more resources that Shanghai is able to pour into 220 production and its future quality, be that from State resources or otherwise the better it is for those consumers . Indeed the more highly China decides to promote film in general then the better it has to be for film if it leads to competition in price, more kinds of films such as colour, Kodak type IR film etc

pentaxuser

Agreed.

 

[flavio81]

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.

I have some Kodak 220 film i unrolled to find out how 220 film worked. It also used what appeared to be a masking tape, also about half inch from the edge of the leader... And yes it was noticeably thick.

If i had more spare time i'd take and upload a pic here.

 

[OrientPoint]

I have some Kodak 220 film i unrolled to find out how 220 film worked. It also used what appeared to be a masking tape, also about half inch from the edge of the leader... And yes it was noticeably thick.

If i had more spare time i'd take and upload a pic here.

The Kodak and Fuji 220 I've used has a smooth transition between film and leader. The Shanghai did not, which is why it caught on the roller in the Rolleiflex. The film path on Rolleiflexes has the film coming off of the spool and under a roller before passing the gate and onto the take up spool, so if the leader-film transition isn't flat it's likely to jam... which is what happened to me. I'd guess this wouldn't be a big issue with cameras that have a simpler film path than the Rolleiflex (which is most cameras). 220-capable Rolleiflexes aren't exactly common, but the construction of the rolls I have (admittedly, I've only opened two so far) isn't wonderful. I put the other in a Fuji 645 folder than take 220, and it did feed ok with a few bumps. Next step is to develop the rolls and see what I get.

 

[GP3 Offical Account]

I'm going to shoot the first 220 roll during the coming days.

This reminds me that I don't know how to develop the film. My standard developer is ID-11. I haven't found dev times for ID-11 or D-76 (or any dev times) on the "official" page where I bought the film.

"GP3 Official Account", do you have official recommendations?

D76 stock solution 7mins

 

[Alan Johnson]

Mr GP3 Official,
Are the packs for all the new production of GP3 in 120, 220 and 620 marked "Shanghai Jian Cheng Technology Co Ltd" or "GP3 New"?
I ask because as of Nov 2021 there is a small amount of GP3 still for sale with different marking on the pack.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

D76 stock solution 7mins

Can you do the world a favor and start packaging Portra 400 in 220 if Kodak won't?

 

[AgX]

To do so Kodak Alaris would have to sell them big rolls of Portra 400. I do not see a point for them doing so.

 

[MattKing]

To do so Kodak Alaris would have to sell them big rolls of Portra 400. I do not see a point for them doing so.

And with custom edge printing too.
I have a feeling that might not be in accord with the agreement reached between the Kodak Limited Pension Fund and the UK Pension authorities and Eastman Kodak's Trustee in Bankruptcy ....

 

[mshchem]

Can you do the world a favor and start packaging Portra 400 in 220 if Kodak won't?

Would you use 220 Portra? Is there a market for 10,000 rolls a year, at $30 bucks a roll??
Just isn't any way to support quality production of 220 film.

Check this out, new Fuji Digital camera with built-in Instax printer.

https://www.fujifilm.com/jp/en/news/hq/7203

 

[MattKing]

How so? Isn't this pretty much what's already happening with Kodak's Lomography and Cinestill arrangements?

Those are part of Eastman Kodak's toll coating business - one isn't a current still film emulsion, the other isn't even still film designed for a still film process, and most important of all, neither of them are sold as a Kodak film.
As the Cinestill film is modified motion picture stock, Kodak Alaris has no rights with respect to the marketing.
It is possible that the Lomography product is made available through or with the assistance of Kodak Alaris - they are the ones with all the still film distribution infrastructure - but as they aren't Kodak branded product, I don't see how they are caught by the "exclusivity" they enjoy.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Would you use 220 Portra? Is there a market for 10,000 rolls a year, at $30 bucks a roll??
Just isn't any way to support quality production of 220 film.

Check this out, new Fuji Digital camera with built-in Instax printer.

https://www.fujifilm.com/jp/en/news/hq/7203

Not something I'd buy, but I'm sure it will click the boxes of the younger crowd. If they put a small zoom on the front of that I think they'd have a screaming seller. One way to keep the Instax film fade from fading I guess?
Back to the topic I think we're starting to gain the trust of the film manufactures and we'll see new films popup from time to time. I think that era of uncertainty of weather or not there were going to be enough film shooters left after the digital explosion is now pretty well gone. The manufactures can now gage their production according to sales and demands. Another words the film market has mostly stabilized. JohnW

 

[Cholentpot]

Not something I'd buy, but I'm sure it will click the boxes of the younger crowd. If they put a small zoom on the front of that I think they'd have a screaming seller. One way to keep the Instax film fade from fading I guess?
Back to the topic I think we're starting to gain the trust of the film manufactures and we'll see new films popup from time to time. I think that era of uncertainty of weather or not there were going to be enough film shooters left after the digital explosion is now pretty well gone. The manufactures can now gage their production according to sales and demands. Another words the film market has mostly stabilized. JohnW

Not for here in this thread but I don't think Instax is a fad at this point. It's going on 20 years strong.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

To do so Kodak Alaris would have to sell them big rolls of Portra 400. I do not see a point for them doing so.

220 was a niche but necessary product in a few ways. Back when Kodak killed it 220 was a big part of a movement in the wedding/portrait world who were embracing film in a big way. They were shooting Contax, Hasselblad, and Pentax 645 cameras and having 32 frames per roll throughout a series of 5 or 6 inserts could keep you moving for a long time. Weddings these days require a crap-ton of shooting so slow downs are not good. Having a dedicated film loader wasn't strictly necessary if you could preload all your inserts with 220, but with 16 shots per roll it definitely is. For this group, the loss of 220 was a huge deal and really took the wind out of their sails. Since then prices have really gone up too, so a lot of these folks have since gone back to digital. Even José Villa, the OG of the Contax 645 thing, is shooting a lot of digital now. He's probably the most sought after shooter out there for the wealthy and celebrity crowed so it would be nice for Kodak if he was still in it for film.

IMHO costs are less of a problem for film than just workflow simplicity. Make it easy to get film, have it processed, get scans or whatever you are seeking, and people will do it. Put up hurdles and people drop out. If 220 came back even at $35 per roll, the people who need it would buy it by the case.

Kodak I know didn't really have a choice but to kill 220, I understand that. But if there was a way to start having it produced again, they should look into it.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not for here in this thread but I don't think Instax is a fad at this point. It's going on 20 years strong.

That's true, but I didn't think Polaroid was a fade either.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

That's true, but I didn't think Polaroid was a fade either.

Didn't you hear? A bunch of people moved heaven and earth to bring instant film back to Polaroid cameras and now have rights to the name. You can buy "Polaroid" film at every Target and Walmart in the US and A. This is not an endorsement of the quality of the images but it exists and is way better than it was when they called it The Impossible Project. The B&W film is quite good. The 8x10 film is the best thing they sort of make....sometimes.

 

[faberryman]

Weddings these days require a crap-ton of shooting so slow downs are not good. Having a dedicated film loader wasn't strictly necessary if you could preload all your inserts with 220, but with 16 shots per roll it definitely is. For this group, the loss of 220 was a huge deal and really took the wind out of their sails.

Are wedding photographers shooting all film, or film as an add-on to digital? I was at a wedding a couple of years ago and the photographer had both a digital camera and a film camera strapped on, though I didn't see her actually take any pictures with the film camera. Maybe she shot the standard bride and groom and family shots on film and used the digital camera for the candid shots at the reception. Of course this was not a celebrity affair. Different rules may apply to those.

If 220 came back even at $35 per roll, the people who need it would buy it by the case.

Seems like it would be cheaper to hire an assistant to follow you around reloading your film backs with 120. I saw this video about Platon, and he had several Hasselblads, and he had an assistant handing him another camera with fresh film as he needed it, saving the time and interruption of detaching and attaching the film backs.

 

[Cholentpot]

Are wedding photographers shooting all film, or film as an add-on to digital? I was at a wedding a couple of years ago and the photographer had both a digital camera and a film camera strapped on, though I didn't see her actually take any pictures with the film camera. Maybe she shot the standard bride and groom and family shots on film and used the digital camera for the candid shots at the reception. Of course this was not a celebrity affair. Different rules may apply to those.



Seems like it would be cheaper to hire an assistant to follow you around reloading your film backs with 120. I saw this video about Platon, and he had several Hasselblads, and he had an assistant handing him another camera with fresh film as he needed it, saving the time and interruption of detaching and attaching the film backs.

I shot a wedding a little while ago. Used 98% digital and used the film for a few shots. It's nice to have it as an option.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Are wedding photographers shooting all film, or film as an add-on to digital? I was at a wedding a couple of years ago and the photographer had both a digital camera and a film camera strapped on, though I didn't see her actually take any pictures with the film camera. Maybe she shot the standard bride and groom and family shots on film and used the digital camera for the candid shots at the reception. Of course this was not a celebrity affair. Different rules may apply to those.



Seems like it would be cheaper to hire an assistant to follow you around reloading your film backs with 120. I saw this video about Platon, and he had several Hasselblads, and he had an assistant handing him another camera with fresh film as he needed it, saving the time and interruption of detaching and attaching the film backs.

There was a sort of thought that the real-deal folks were 100% film but I think that faded away even before 220 was kaput. The fact is that reception photos don't need to be shot on film. Personally I endorse a hybrid shooting system but differently than the way most people practice it. (wedding shooters are kind of obsessed with having their digital photos match their film scans which means they're shooting one scene on both, which I think is a mistake). Anyway I know of one or two all-film shooters but I know of a lot more who shoot mostly film and integrate some digital. Some of my favorites are running a Rolleiflex for film and Leica digital cameras such as the M10 or SL system. But really the home run has been the GFX system...

On the film side though I have a few clients who are mostly 35mm at weddings and I think their work is fantastic. 35mm offers a lot IMHO and unless you're doing a group of lots of people, the quality is there. I find that the grain is a problem when you have a big group...it just doesn't work as well, you want that smoothness that you get from 645. I left the weddings game this year but if I was doing all film I'd be shooting 80% F6, 15% Rolleiflex, and 5% Pentax 67. I'd definitely have a loader with me. Group shots on 6x7 are really something...and catching moments with a Rollei is just magic.

On the last point, you are problem correct that paying someone even $200 is probably cheaper than buying all 220. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it on the market...family sessions, engagement sessions, they still would benefit. Hell even having a 12/24 Rolleiflex in any situation would be nice. My wife is very patient during my 220 reloads.

 

[mshchem]

No doubt 220 is cool. Looking at old Kodak catalogs of all the different films, cut paper sizes. It's mind boggling.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Didn't you hear? A bunch of people moved heaven and earth to bring instant film back to Polaroid cameras and now have rights to the name. You can buy "Polaroid" film at every Target and Walmart in the US and A. This is not an endorsement of the quality of the images but it exists and is way better than it was when they called it The Impossible Project. The B&W film is quite good. The 8x10 film is the best thing they sort of make....sometimes.

I have to admit that I'm behind the times concerning the new Polaroid products, but it certainly is good to know. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

There was a sort of thought that the real-deal folks were 100% film but I think that faded away even before 220 was kaput. The fact is that reception photos don't need to be shot on film. Personally I endorse a hybrid shooting system but differently than the way most people practice it. (wedding shooters are kind of obsessed with having their digital photos match their film scans which means they're shooting one scene on both, which I think is a mistake). Anyway I know of one or two all-film shooters but I know of a lot more who shoot mostly film and integrate some digital. Some of my favorites are running a Rolleiflex for film and Leica digital cameras such as the M10 or SL system. But really the home run has been the GFX system...

On the film side though I have a few clients who are mostly 35mm at weddings and I think their work is fantastic. 35mm offers a lot IMHO and unless you're doing a group of lots of people, the quality is there. I find that the grain is a problem when you have a big group...it just doesn't work as well, you want that smoothness that you get from 645. I left the weddings game this year but if I was doing all film I'd be shooting 80% F6, 15% Rolleiflex, and 5% Pentax 67. I'd definitely have a loader with me. Group shots on 6x7 are really something...and catching moments with a Rollei is just magic.

On the last point, you are problem correct that paying someone even $200 is probably cheaper than buying all 220. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see it on the market...family sessions, engagement sessions, they still would benefit. Hell even having a 12/24 Rolleiflex in any situation would be nice. My wife is very patient during my 220 reloads.

I retired from the wedding business before digital was really born, but if I were doing it today it would be with my Sony A7RII or maybe a digi Medium format back on my one Hasselblad body and one of my other 'blad bodies with a film back. The best of both worlds and a 100% foolproof setup. No more lost sleep and worrying whether or not you or the equipment functioned to the optimum while waiting for your proofs to comeback. When digital was going strong I set my daughter-in-law and her best friend up in the portrait/Senior picture business. Neither one knew an f-stop from a shutter speed, but they made a very good business. Neither one would have been able to handle film and the waiting for results would have killed them and their business. Both mediums have their good and bad points, but digital does make a photographers life real easy compared to yester year. JohnW

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Both mediums have their good and bad points, but digital does make a photographers life real easy compared to yester year. JohnW

Except with digital the barrier to entry is basically non-existent so you have every wayward shutterbug with a Squarespace website nipping at your heels. It's very easy to create clear, nice looking images. It's very much more difficult to create a successful business that is sustainable long term.