Shanghai GP3 in Pyrocat HD disaster

[Teri-twn]

Maybe the film had been heat transferred by pre-owner or distributor, so the white marks on backing paper transferred into the emulsion before you develop. I have tried develop with none-exposure rolls as attachment https://www.flickr.com/photos/26863765@N07/15572125002/; hope it will help someone has such backing issues on 120/220. My experience there is almost no fog in normal GP3 film, base desity is 0.05-0.06 only.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Worth adding I think now this thread has been resurrected that many posts here attest to the batch variation in the film. Consensus being that the 2016 expiry is more consistent and of higher quality. Not from personal experience although I have a block due hence my research.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Worth adding I think now this thread has been resurrected that many posts here attest to the batch variation in the film. Consensus being that the 2016 expiry is more consistent and of higher quality. Not from personal experience although I have a block due hence my research.

Yes, the new stuff "2016" is in a different league and that's from experience. Let us know what you think of it when you get a chance to use it. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

Maybe the film had been heat transferred by pre-owner or distributor, so the white marks on backing paper transferred into the emulsion before you develop. I have tried develop with none-exposure rolls as attachment https://www.flickr.com/photos/26863765@N07/15572125002/; hope it will help someone has such backing issues on 120/220. My experience there is almost no fog in normal GP3 film, base desity is 0.05-0.06 only.

I was wondering the same thing as to "heat transfer" of the numbers and the fogging too. A nice, dark brown, green, black shipping container sitting on top-deck of a freighter might do it. One long trip in the hot sun would fog and bake those number in to the film. Or it could be inspection X-rays, but I doubt that. Whatever it was I hope that it doesn't happen again 'cause this is a pretty decent film at a fair price. John W

 

[Chris Livsey]

Yes, the new stuff "2016" is in a different league and that's from experience. Let us know what you think of it when you get a chance to use it. John W

I will, it has arrived at home today. exp 2016-07 BN 5105 0
Given the threads I will shoot half a roll and develop to see what unexposed looks like as a control.
Weather is not conducive to 100iso at the moment though.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I will, it has arrived at home today. exp 2016-07 BN 5105 0
Given the threads I will shoot half a roll and develop to see what unexposed looks like as a control.
Weather is not conducive to 100iso at the moment though.

My last two batches were 2016-6 BN-5103 so yours is about a month later production. I'm going out to test two Zeiss folders today with GP3 and will post the test in a couple of days. I'm also going to shoot FP4+(Hasselblad 80mm Planar) and Ultrafine Xtreme(Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar) along side the two Zeiss folders to compare. I'm souping all in Pyrocat-MC semi-stand. Should be fun! John W

 

[Chris Livsey]

Interesting batches run so close together. Small, relatively, coating machine or maybe it's not the master roll they batch number on but the cutting or packing run?

Looks like mine will be in Pyrocat HD, which is mixed as I really haven't much else ready having cleared out the smelly bottles. Playing with a H1 at the moment with a CF lens adapter due which will release me from just the 80mm HC into the CF bag of lenses.

I have some Plus-X pan (1977 exp) that I will shoot alongside as the emulsion is said to be similar.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Quick update, test roll in Pyrocat HD 15 mins semi-stand, still drying but shows good contrast and two clear frames mid-roll (deliberate) are clear of any backing paper print through it appears. Closer check when dried. I see what is meant by the film inprint it is just on the edge of the frame (6x4.5) very annoying if you like to scan including frame margins. The Hasselblad H1 inprint is well inside it !!
Looks like previous observations on base density are correct, very low visually. A reversal candidate!!

 

[JW PHOTO]

Quick update, test roll in Pyrocat HD 15 mins semi-stand, still drying but shows good contrast and two clear frames mid-roll (deliberate) are clear of any backing paper print through it appears. Closer check when dried. I see what is meant by the film inprint it is just on the edge of the frame (6x4.5) very annoying if you like to scan including frame margins. The Hasselblad H1 inprint is well inside it !!
Looks like previous observations on base density are correct, very low visually. A reversal candidate!!

I did a roll in Pyrocat-MC 2-bath since the shots were on a bright day with clouds at Lake Michigan. It tamed the sun reflection on the water perfectly, but I had to print on grade 3 paper. Still looks nice, but I'm playing more with it still. I actually think my standard time/agitation with P-MC would have worked just as well and I think I'm going to stick to that 95% of the time. John W

 

[Chris Livsey]

Just on the document scanner/printer as my flatbed is O/S, maybe a new 850 lies in my future?
Shows the print down RHS, as viewed with logo impinging on the frame in the second frame down.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I had my first real setback with GP3 yesterday. A few days ago I developed two rolls at the same time in Pyrocat-MC as a 2-bath and printed a couple yesterday. Well, to make a long story short I seem to have some emulsion/developer defects or something. I have squiggly, uneven patterns in the sky on some shots and also areas that look like residue was on the negative when printed. I looked with a loupe and it's really hard to see, but it's there. The spots that look like residue actually look as if there is stain missing in tiny little areas, which makes them print as darker spots on the print. I'll try scanning the two worst negatives tonight and post. I had no problem with PC-glycol and Rodinal developers. Also used WD2D+ and WD2H+ pyro before with GP3 and no problems there either. Live and learn I guess? I used a two reel SS tank and the pour out - pour in method. I wonder if I should have used two separate tanks for A and B and used the pull and dunk method instead? John W

 

[Athiril]

I tried GP3 in dilute catechol based developer, like Obsidian Aqua as recommended on here, I might have added too much sulfite at the start to prevent immediate oxidation during mixing as there was no stain present on the developed negatives, could also indicate doesn't have a particularly high affinity for staining. I'd need to try again to make sure.

 

[Chris Livsey]

could also indicate doesn't have a particularly high affinity for staining. I'd need to try again to make sure.

Stained well with Pyrocat HD
5 min pre-soak 1:1:100 15min semi stand 72F water stop.

 

[Rick A]

I'm using PMK Pyro these days, 1+2+100 for 9 minutes @ 70f, no issues and stains well. I'm still shooting a 2014 dated batch. I still haven't seen any print through of numbers or gotten any residue, but I do caution about the cheap arsed tape they use, I remove it prior to developing as it could (and has for others)leave artifacts on the film.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm using PMK Pyro these days, 1+2+100 for 9 minutes @ 70f, no issues and stains well. I'm still shooting a 2014 dated batch. I still haven't seen any print through of numbers or gotten any residue, but I do caution about the cheap arsed tape they use, I remove it prior to developing as it could (and has for others)leave artifacts on the film.

I had one roll screw up due to tape in a Hasselblad back and I think it's from the reverse curl of the film feeding in the 'blad back that caused the tape to come off. My roll-film folders, Pentax 67 and Rolleis don't have that problem. I think I might just stay with Rodinal and WD2D+/WD2H+ for now. John W

 

[chiller]

I purchased some of the J&C version of this film in 2004 when in America [10 rolls = red fire cracker paper wrapper] . I shot one roll and processed in rodinal with no problems and nice results. I returned to Australia and promptly froze and forgot the film. Most of my photography these days is 5x4 but I do enjoy my medium format so last year decided to check if my old Shanghai had any of the issues reported with newer film. The old 2004 film still processed very nicely with virtually no change in base fog. No print through or backing numbers. I ordered a 20 roll pack off ebay and it was a 2015 batch and this time sealed in a silver foil wrapper. I'm tight so shot a single roll and cut it into 3 segments and used 2 developers and 3 methods to see how the later film behaved.

[1] Rodinal substitute 1:50 5 minutes prewash - 15 minutes development 21c - Jobo
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

[2] TEA developer 1:100 5 minutes prewash - 10 minutes development 21c - Jobo
2 gms Ascorbic acid
3 gms Pyro
.5 gms Phenidone
TEA to 50 mls

[3] Tea developer as above 1:250 agitate 60 seconds then stand for 60 minutes - no prewash

Satisfied the 2015 batch is fine I got a further 10 rolls and this batch is 2016. Again silver foil and tested the same.
Film is close to box speed, I rate it at 80 iso and use a Spectra Incident meter.
Tonality is good, sharpness and grain are good and the film over a span of 10 years prints the same. The film stains beautifully with a Pyro developer.

Overall a good general film something like the results from Plus X and similar in ways to APX 100 - I said similar not the same I've compared both as I still have 40 rolls APX 100

I haven't experienced the circles and numbers on the developed film.