Shanghai GP3 and Tri-X 320 in LF

[braxus]

There are Chinese sellers selling the GP3 film in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes. The 8x10 stuff is only a little over $80 US dollars, so Im wondering if its worth a look? Anyone use this stuff, and how does it compare to other 100 speed films available in these sizes? Or should I just stick to something like Adox CHS II 100 or Ilford Ortho 80 Plus?

I have only used the 400 version of Tri-X, as I know the 320 version is only on sheet films. I also know the 320 version is more typical for studio use. But how does the look of the two films differ, depending on subject matter? Is it only meant for studio flash use, or can it be used in natural lighting as well? What does it look like if used outdoors? My only other option is to use TMAX 400 which is available in 4x5 and 8x10.

 

[Michael Teresko]

There are Chinese sellers selling the GP3 film in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes. The 8x10 stuff is only a little over $80 US dollars, so Im wondering if its worth a look? Anyone use this stuff, and how does it compare to other 100 speed films available in these sizes? Or should I just stick to something like Adox CHS II 100 or Ilford Ortho 80 Plus?

I tried a box of GP3 4x5 from a Chinese seller when I first got my Intrepid and there are serious emulsion flaws in every sheet I've tried. One corner has a large mottled area that's very noticeable. I've stuck with Kodak and Ilford since.

 

[braxus]

Ok thank you for that info. I guess you get what you pay for. I'll stick with the more common stuff.

Anyone on the Tri-X info? Im told TX320 looks more like HP5+ then any Kodak film.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Tri-X 320 is a long toe film, unlike Tri-X 400 (which is not available in LF) or HP5. They will give different "looks".
Two points:
1. This information is readily available in the companies' technical publications. You might consider reading them.
2. Or, you could buy some of each, and try them out.

 

[destroya]

i used a 25 sheet box of GP3 in 4x5 that i got a few months ago. had no issues with it. it was a nice film to learn with and produced great images. i would have no issues buying more. reminds me a little of the old plus-x

 

[braxus]

Tri-X 320 is a long toe film, unlike Tri-X 400 (which is not available in LF) or HP5. They will give different "looks".
Two points:
1. This information is readily available in the companies' technical publications. You might consider reading them.
2. Or, you could buy some of each, and try them out.

I'm not one for fully understanding graphs and extrapolating what kind of look I'll get from the film. It's all Greek to me. I understand better when I see images. As for buying a box of each, I could do that, though with 8x10 that's quite an expensive test.

 

[guangong]

At one time TriX Professional 320 was available in 120 rolls, and I used it back then. The MF film also had a slightly rough surface which permitted post development alterations. I never used TriX in LF, therefore cannot offer any opinion. 320 produced very pleasant images.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Yes, I can certainly understand the cost factor! So in a nutshell, HP5 has a long very straight contrast curve. The contrast is the same for shadows, mids and high lights. TX320 is "all curve", not much straight section. So the contrast in the shadows, mids and highlights are all different. It was originally designed for studio work. I prefer straight curves but it's entirely subjective. Tri-X 400 has a straighter curve and to my eye produces negatives and prints that are quite similar to HP5 ( I use mostly 120).
Drew Wiley might have valuable insight on how these films work in 8X10. Good luck, have fun!

 

[138S]

There are Chinese sellers selling the GP3 film in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes.

If you want a cheaper sheet film try FP4, HP5 or Delta 100 which are very good, as good as Kodak in practice. GP3 is very easy to scratch when emulsion is wet, it would be extremly painful to use GP3 if you don't play extreme care. Also latitude, resolving power and grain are not the same compared to ilford/kodak, for sure you may make amazing photographs with GP3, but if you are starting you will probably get better initial results with ilford.

If you want to go GP3 first try it in 120 or in 135, learn how to use it, compare to ilford choices and decide, before doing that I'd prefer ilford sheets. Learn cheap how a film works with 35mm rolls.

I also know the 320 version is more typical for studio use. But how does the look of the two films differ, depending on subject matter? Is it only meant for studio flash use, or can it be used in natural lighting as well? What does it look like if used outdoors? My only other option is to use TMAX 400 which is available in 4x5 and 8x10.

You can use TXP 320 for everything, while TX is long toe TXP has a bit shorter toe (mid size), so the way shadows are compressed is a bit different. Also TXP, (depending on EI and processing) may deliver a bump in midtones that likes portrait photographers.

TXP is a more a classic film with S shape that sometimes may allow an easier to print negative, while TMX delivers a linear negative that is more flexible but sometimes it may command a more elaborated printing technique. In fact the sensitometric footprint of TXP may allow to adjust the tonal scale in the negative while the linear TMX capture delegates the entire tonal manipulation job in the printing process. No way is better than the other... if you are to scan then this is mostly irrelevant, as you easily manipulate the tonal curves in Photoshop.

With Delta 100, HP5 and FP4 you may get similar results than with TMX or TXP, with the right technique.

 

[Lachlan Young]

TX is long toe TXP has a bit shorter toe

That's back-to-front - Tri-X 400 has a shorter toe, TXP longer.