Shanghai GP3 in Pyrocat HD disaster

Hi all,

My first attempt to process Shanghai GP3 in Pyrocat HD turned out to be an utter disaster! Details as follows:

1+1+100 dilution @ 20 degs celcius, 8 minutes with 1 minute agitation for the first minute followed by 5 secs every 1 minute. I used a 5 minutes water stop bath followed by 3 minutes in Ilford Rapid Fix.

I've attached 3 of the 8 shots from the first roll. Any advice will be appreciated. Thanks !

From the examples it appears that the film was seriously underdeveloped. This could be caused by several things, some of these are:

1. The developer has lost some activity.
2. The developer was mixed incorrectly.
3. The developer was diluted incorrectly.
4. This film does not respond well to staining developers.
5. The developing time was too short.
6. The developer temperature was too low.

Check your process.

I think that 8min is wrong time. try something like 14-15min with 5sec per 2-3min agitation

It actually looks very fogged to me. There is also the number from the backing paper imprinted on the film if anyone hasnt noticed.

What city is shown in the middle picture? The three buildings with a huge roof garden spanning the buildings looks quite wild.

I develope GP-3 for 14 mins at 70f, very good film for the price, and the fact it's Chinese. I have a large stash of 120. Five minutes for water stop is too much, 60 seconds maximum, or two 30 second rinses for stop would work better. I like to use acid stop diluted half strength followed with 30 seconds water rinse then fix in TF-4 for two minutes. The water rinse only helps prolong the life of my fixer.

As Rick and Relayer indicate it's under-development. Virtually all films except Foma need around 14 - 16 minutes (normal exposure) in Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 @ 20ºC wirth normal agitation 5 secs every minute.

Ian

regarding the number imprint, it is from the paper backing. it indicates that the film was poorly stored. if this film is stored at room temp. for long periods the backing imprints itself. i managed to eliminate this problem by buying from good dealers that don't have old stock lying around (and by storing it in the fridge once it comes in). it can also happen by leaving the film in the camera for a long time 3-4 days onwards is pushing it.

i'm developing this film in pyrocat hd (metol and sodium hydroxide) at 1:1:200 for 60 min. continuous agitation for the first minute then 5 inv. every 10 min. this film is rather resistant to fogging.

ps i meant chemical base fog.

As for the paper backing imprint, I notice that the original poster is a 35mm shooter only and as such, don't think that can be due to paper backing.

That sure sounds like significant underdevelopment given the Pyrocat dilution you're working with. Check the Massive Dev Chart www.digitaltruth.com for some time/temp combinations as a starting point.

i hope its 35mm. where did you get it from?

I'm more of a PMK 1+2+50 kind of guy, but I have learned that pyro is a slow developer.

So either (rarely), wait, (agitating in front of the TV, and try not to loose track of agitaion rate) , or (much more often) crank the temperture higher to get processing times down. I usually PMK at temperatures around 24C maintained with a water tempering bath to keep times under 10 minutes for the different films I dance through this soup

The precise time I don't recall, because I work my times from a development number that is fed into a dial calculator shipped with old Kodak darkroom datguides.

The OP left a clue as to the format, "three of eight shots", tells me he was shooting a 6x9 camera. The number placement does indeed verify 120 roll film, and that the numbers had printed through. The last shot has some massive flair, but still a nice shot. A piece of black electricians tape over the red window will help some of this, especially on bright days. Enough light could be entering through the window to cause the imprint.

Nicholas Lindan said:

What city is shown in the middle picture? The three buildings with a huge roof garden spanning the buildings looks quite wild.

Click to expand...

Hi Nicholas,

That is s shot of the commercial area of Singapore from the Marina Barrage. The building with the roof garden is the Marina Bay Sands. Its an Integrated resort (with Casino) and a huge infinity pool at the top. That's the roof garden you're looking at.

And if you think the building looks wild from ground level, here's a view from the top !

p.s to be quite candid, I was composting my shot when she stepped in front of me, it really wasn't intentional !

Ian Grant said:

As Rick and Relayer indicate it's under-development. Virtually all films except Foma need around 14 - 16 minutes (normal exposure) in Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 @ 20ºC wirth normal agitation 5 secs every minute.

Ian

Click to expand...

Thanks Ian, I got my time by referring to the Massive Developer website's timing for PMK and reducing it by 20% (since that was what Sandy recommended). I'll try 14 minutes since that is what Rick is using as well. If it turns out, I'll let you all know

el wacho said:

regarding the number imprint, it is from the paper backing. it indicates that the film was poorly stored. if this film is stored at room temp. for long periods the backing imprints itself. i managed to eliminate this problem by buying from good dealers that don't have old stock lying around (and by storing it in the fridge once it comes in). it can also happen by leaving the film in the camera for a long time 3-4 days onwards is pushing it.

i'm developing this film in pyrocat hd (metol and sodium hydroxide) at 1:1:200 for 60 min. continuous agitation for the first minute then 5 inv. every 10 min. this film is rather resistant to fogging.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head... the film was in my camera for a week and to aggravate matters, my camera was in my boot all the time. Ok, just learnt something . Thanks !

Rick A said:

The OP left a clue as to the format, "three of eight shots", tells me he was shooting a 6x9 camera. The number placement does indeed verify 120 roll film, and that the numbers had printed through. The last shot has some massive flair, but still a nice shot. A piece of black electricians tape over the red window will help some of this, especially on bright days. Enough light could be entering through the window to cause the imprint.

Click to expand...

Well analysed Rick, you're absolutely right on the format used

Actually, my camera came with a slider to block out the window but needless to say, being a 35mm shooter, I had always been able to see the film counter so I left mine open! Ok, that's another lesson learnt

my experience with the imprint was not due to the little red window. i have a bronica s and a rolleiflex - none which have the window. this problem can also occur with a brand new roll in the package.

Dear All,

When the film numbers show through onto the developed film roll it is called ' wrapper offset '

This is more common than people imagine.

Fundamentally its down to the quality of the film, its sensitivity (speed) and the quality of the wrapper used ( high quality 120 Film wrapper is a very special and expensive product ) It can happen with just about any film, yes, it can be caused by loading in bright light, something none of us ever do of course! and red window camera's are more prone obviously, but it can happen in any camera.

To lessen the risk, especially with red window camera's, always try and avoid loading a camera days or weeks before exposing the film, always use the window cover ( if it has one ) avoid elevated temperatures, and store the loaded camera somewhere dry, cool and dark. Once the film is exposed, remove it immediately and process promptly, if it is not possible to process promptly, remove teh film from the camera and store the exposed film somewhere dry, dark and cool.

Finally......many have commented ( complained ) on the lightness of the printing of the frame exposure numbers on ILFORD 120 film, this reduced print density helps significantly lessen the risk of wrapper offset on our products....by reducing the contrast between printed and unprinted areas on the wrapper it means less chance of the offset 'print out' on the film itself.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Athiril said:

There is also the number from the backing paper imprinted on the film if anyone hasnt noticed.

Click to expand...

Good catch! Your eyes are better than mine. Even now knowing that they are there I cannot see them clearly.

Simon R Galley said:

Dear All,

When the film numbers show through onto the developed film roll it is called ' wrapper offset '

This is more common than people imagine.

Fundamentally its down to the quality of the film, its sensitivity (speed) and the quality of the wrapper used ( high quality 120 Film wrapper is a very special and expensive product ) It can happen with just about any film, yes, it can be caused by loading in bright light, something none of us ever do of course! and red window camera's are more prone obviously, but it can happen in any camera.

To lessen the risk, especially with red window camera's, always try and avoid loading a camera days or weeks before exposing the film, always use the window cover ( if it has one ) avoid elevated temperatures, and store the loaded camera somewhere dry, cool and dark. Once the film is exposed, remove it immediately and process promptly, if it is not possible to process promptly, remove teh film from the camera and store the exposed film somewhere dry, dark and cool.

Finally......many have commented ( complained ) on the lightness of the printing of the frame exposure numbers on ILFORD 120 film, this reduced print density helps significantly lessen the risk of wrapper offset on our products....by reducing the contrast between printed and unprinted areas on the wrapper it means less chance of the offset 'print out' on the film itself.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Click to expand...

Thanks Simon,

Seeing that:

1) I loaded the film in bright light, because I wasn't sure how it worked and needed to see where everything fits;
2) I merrily kept the film in my camera in my car boot for over a week;
3) Singapore is anything but dry with high humidty all year round and
4) our temperatures even at night is well over 23 deg celcius

guess I broke every rule there was .

Thankfully, this was a cheap and experimental roll !

Dear Toledosun...

You are not the first...and will not be the last, as you say nothing spoilt.....

Simon.

Thanks to Rick, here's the result of my second test roll

Simon R Galley said:

Dear Toledosun...

You are not the first...and will not be the last, as you say nothing spoilt.....

Simon.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I'll like to thank everybody for the many helpful advice that I've received on this thread, especially Rick, who provided me with his workflow.

My second test roll was a success, by my standards. I've attached a sample so that all of you can see the difference as a result of the change in workflow. With Rick's workflow, I can happily say that this looks so much better

I can also conclude that "light leak" was not a cause of the imprinting of the numbers since I did not have that problem here. It's more likely caused by the reasons pointed out by Simon.

Once again, many thanks to all and I'll post a "real" shot soon

Apologies for the long post but I thought I should document my adventure with GP3, just in case it happens to anybody else. Once again, thanks to all who offered me valuable advice on this thread, I learnt a lot

Just to wrap up, I celebrated too soon... subsequent attempts came out a disaster (see 1st pic "test-2"), especially in the darker areas. The dark tones came out "blotchy", light tones fared much better. Most shots had the numbers/dots imprinted into the film.

Anyway, I tried five rolls before I finally realized... it wasn't me, it was the film !!!! My friend passed me these rolls and he had them for about a year. He shot two rolls and one had the same problem as I did.

It turns out that GP3 really doesn't store well in hot, humid climates like Singapore. This problem was also mentioned in another site:

http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2010/09/shanghai-gp3-caffenol-c-l.html

So, for the benefit of others who may face a similar problem, poor storage (in our case, film was kept for about a year, under tropical conditions, in a non-airconditioned room) may lead to the film looking a) blotchy in the dark areas; b) imprinting of numbering on the film and c ) film comes out looking "underdeveloped", as per my initial shot.

Anyway, I've shot a roll from a another batch and this time, 16 mins with agitation every 4 mins works fine (see 2nd pic "symmetry"). No numbers imprinted on the negatives, and no blotchy dark tones..

Rest of the roll can be viewed here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunkm/sets/72157627595739127/with/6168730253/

p.s. for those who are stuck with lots of GP3 with this problem and don't want to throw it away, you can try extending the development time (in my case, I went as far as 24 mins with 5 secs agitation every 4 mins) and you can improve the image quality somewhat, even though the numbers will still be imprinted on the film (see 3rd and 4th pic "scan 1" and "scan 2").