Shanghai update . . .

[moltogordo]

I ordered 20 rolls of Shanghai in 120 back in September or so. I have the 2016 dated stuff. So far into roll #10, no problems. I've had no print through of frame numbers, no quality control issues, and the curl on the film is nowhere near what my first 2 rolls (2012 dated) were. Quite manageable in the darkroom.

I've settled on Xtol 1:1 at 68F, for 8.5 minutes and have been getting fine negatives that print beautifully. I've become a fan, and have ordered 20 more rolls.

I use a lot of 120 because I shoot a lot now with my Mamiya C330 and I'm also back into large format, and regularly use a Horseman 6x9 back and a Super Rollex 6x7 back on my Linhof Color Kardan.

I like the Shanghai for general photography, on a day to day basis. I find the film a very good foil to my usual HP5+ in HC110 1:63, a combination I've used for 40 years with great confidence. I will still use FP4 in Rodinal 1:25 for portraiture because of the lovely tonal graduation of this film/developer combination, and in low contrast situations because of the fine acutance of this film in Rodinal. But Shanghai in Xtol 1:1 is really a great film on a day to day basis for every situation - it's quite a bit, at least to me, like the old Kodak Verichrome Pan.

I'm going to try it next month in 4x5 - got a box coming.

 

[moltogordo]

Try to report back on the next batch.

I will do that.

 

[Athiril]

I like Xtol Replenished, 24 celsius, 5m 45s

 

[gone]

I'm getting great results w/ this film as well. Sold all my stash of Tr-X, which I've been shooting as my daily film for over 10 years, to go w/ the Shanghai. I wonder if its available in 35mm rolls? So far, the only issue is that one roll ended mid frame on the last shot. Not happy about that.

With Rodinal, I give it 8 minutes at 68 Degrees at 1:25, and meter it at 125 ISO w/ a yellow filter. The print file notes say it was given 10 minutes at 68 degrees w/ another camera, and those negs look fine too, so go figure. There's some leeway here, obviously.

With TD-16, a longer lasting variant of D76 that Photographers Formulary sells, I've only developed 2 rolls, and they got 10 minutes at 68 degrees w/ the metering at 80-100 w/ a yellow filter.

I haven't worked w/ this film much using Microdol-X, but it has given me better tonality compared to Rodinal. I got nice negs using it full strength at 68 degrees for 11 minutes. I forgot to jot down what I metered it at, but the notes say it would probably work better if metered between 25 and 50 ISO w/ a yellow filter, which makes sense, as you lose speed using MIC-X full strength. You can get it back by diluting it, but then you lose the beautiful, grain less tonality. Don't see the point.

1st shot is an Argoflex TLR w/ Rodinal

2nd shot is an Agfa Isola w/ TD-16

3rd shot is w/ the Argoflex again in Mic-X (accidentally washed the film at 130 degrees for 30 minutes w/ no ill effects!)

Last shot is w/ the Isola again in D76. Can't find the times and temps, but they were probably similar to the TD-16. Maybe a little less. It's D76, so it won't much matter if its a little off one way or the other.

I love 3 element lenses, and often wonder why they messed things up with all those extra, unnecessary elements :}

 

[JW PHOTO]

JUST ANOTHER JUNK FILM FROM CHINA!

I wish people would stop saying how great this Shanghai GP3 film is and spread the word that is just another cheap Chinese junk film. The more people tote this GP3 film the higher the price will be driven and it's already as high as I want to pay. That said, I just put a roll of 2016 exp. date GP3 through some Pyrocat-MC and the negatives look really nice. I'll proof them later today and see what they print like. I have used GP3 with Perceptol 1+3, WD2D+ Pyro, WD2H+ Pyro and Rodinal 1+100 stand. Of all of those combo's I like the looks of Rodinal 1+100 full-stand about the best, but in truth, they all look good. So, let's close this thing down so as to keep our secret a secret. The secret really is that this latest batch is a very fine film indeed, but you didn't hear that from me. John W

 

[Xuco Martin]

And who is the provider of this garbage dump where you get it?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Who prints Shanghai GP3 in the darkroom?

I have never used a film that gives me more emulsion defects, such as dust on the film, as Shanghai. That makes printing it in the darkroom a royal pain in the neck, because of all the work I have to do to make the print presentable, in terms of spotting, knifing, and retouching it.
The same picture shot with Tri-X, HP4, FP4, Acros, or TMax I may have 4-5 spots in a 16x20 print. Shanghai GP3 treated exactly the same gives me many dozens of spots. Takes forever and it's a lot of lost time that I could use making more prints.

Efke was that way too, and Foma isn't much better. Scanning seems to work better, because it's so easy to retouch a neg scan compared to spotting prints.

 

[fotch]

Who prints Shanghai GP3 in the darkroom?

I have never used a film that gives me more emulsion defects, such as dust on the film, as Shanghai. That makes printing it in the darkroom a royal pain in the neck, because of all the work I have to do to make the print presentable, in terms of spotting, knifing, and retouching it.
The same picture shot with Tri-X, HP4, FP4, Acros, or TMax I may have 4-5 spots in a 16x20 print. Shanghai GP3 treated exactly the same gives me many dozens of spots. Takes forever and it's a lot of lost time that I could use making more prints.

Efke was that way too, and Foma isn't much better. Scanning seems to work better, because it's so easy to retouch a neg scan compared to spotting prints.

Why buy expensive, quality equipment, spend time getting a good picture, then use low or no quality film? Never figured this out.

 

[R.Gould]

Thomas,
You must have a dust problem with Foma, I very rarely indeed get dust spots when printing Foma, bearing in mind that it is they only film I use, can't comment on Shangai as it is not available this side of the pond, at least I have never seen it Years ago Efke was a good clean film but in latter years although I loved the tonality of it I couldn't use it as I spent too much time spotting, but, at least for me, Foma 200 and 400 are as clean to work with as either Kodak or Ilford

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,
You must have a dust problem with Foma, I very rarely indeed get dust spots when printing Foma, bearing in mind that it is they only film I use, can't comment on Shangai as it is not available this side of the pond, at least I have never seen it Years ago Efke was a good clean film but in latter years although I loved the tonality of it I couldn't use it as I spent too much time spotting, but, at least for me, Foma 200 and 400 are as clean to work with as either Kodak or Ilford

That's just it, though. I never have dust problems with Kodak or Ilford procuts. I live in an area where humidity is basically bone dry in the winter (Minnesota), which probably doesn't help issues such as static electricity (and subsequent dust). I have used a lot of Foma film, especially 100 and 400, and they have always given me more grief than Kodak and Ilford, in the spotting department. It is that uneven reliability that makes it so difficult for me to justify buying these films.
In the humidity of summer, it's less of a problem, but the trend is still there that I always have more spotting to do with films that are not Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji. Go figure.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Shangai as it is not available this side of the pond

Outside China, as far as I know, only a handful of shops ever got Lucky, ERA or Shanghai films.
In the UK, only Mr. Cad had Lucky B&W films.

They are available via Ebay.
And that's how most people in the West got them.

About Foma, just a reminder they are an ISO 9001 certified company, as it is Harman Technology: http://www.foma.cz/en/ISO-9001
Don't have a clue about Kodak.
Any dust I have on negatives is my fault.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Who prints Shanghai GP3 in the darkroom?

I have never used a film that gives me more emulsion defects, such as dust on the film, as Shanghai. That makes printing it in the darkroom a royal pain in the neck, because of all the work I have to do to make the print presentable, in terms of spotting, knifing, and retouching it.
The same picture shot with Tri-X, HP4, FP4, Acros, or TMax I may have 4-5 spots in a 16x20 print. Shanghai GP3 treated exactly the same gives me many dozens of spots. Takes forever and it's a lot of lost time that I could use making more prints.

Efke was that way too, and Foma isn't much better. Scanning seems to work better, because it's so easy to retouch a neg scan compared to spotting prints.

Thomas,
I almost always agree with your comments here, but not this one. I do if you were using the old emulsion lots of GP3, but this new 2016 expiration dated stuff is not like the old crap. And I do mean "old crap". I just ran a roll through my Pentax 67 and dipped it in Pyrocat-MC. I see no defects in these negative at all. After reading your comment I went into my darkroom and closed the door. I printed an 11x14 from one of those negatives and it is as good as can be. No dust, no flecks, no scraped emulsion either. Those are all the problems I've had in the past with Foma and now stay away from that. Do I like other films better than GP3? Yes, but for testing older cameras I repair the GP3 film works well. It does have a couple of flaws and those are the tape that holds the film to the backing paper leaves something to be desired and with certain developers there seems to be some "curl". I have nothing going for tomorrow and have decided to do a side-by-side test between Ilford FP4+ and Shanghai GP3. I'm going to load two backs for my Hasselblad and shoot exactly all the same shots on both backs. I'll use my Luna Star F light meter in incident mode, use the same lens, tripod, mirror-up, cable release, same ISO64 and same film developer. In fact I'll let you pick the developer. Your choice is Pyrocat-MC, Rodinal 1+100 1hr stand, WD2H+ Pyro, WD2D+ Pyro or Thornton's 2-bath. I think the Rodinal 1+100 stand or Thorton's 2-bath would keep things a little more equal, but it's your choice. I'll then scan the negatives on my Coolscan LS8000 scanner with class carrier. Plus, I'll print some of the negatives and scan those prints also. I'm curious myself how these two films compare since I'm a fan of FP4+, FP5+ and really like PanF+ This should be a fun project! John W

 

[Athiril]

Who prints Shanghai GP3 in the darkroom?

I have never used a film that gives me more emulsion defects, such as dust on the film, as Shanghai. That makes printing it in the darkroom a royal pain in the neck, because of all the work I have to do to make the print presentable, in terms of spotting, knifing, and retouching it.
The same picture shot with Tri-X, HP4, FP4, Acros, or TMax I may have 4-5 spots in a 16x20 print. Shanghai GP3 treated exactly the same gives me many dozens of spots. Takes forever and it's a lot of lost time that I could use making more prints.

Efke was that way too, and Foma isn't much better. Scanning seems to work better, because it's so easy to retouch a neg scan compared to spotting prints.

I printed Rodinal 1+100 stand GP3 once in the dark room, suffice to say, if I ever stand normal film, it's diluted more than 1+100, 1+100 is too contrasty for GP3, even for grade 0, I had to use slimt to print it. I just use it with Xtol now and it looks very nice.

Shanghai. I wonder if its available in 35mm rolls?

120 and 4x5 and 5x7 only iirc.

Thomas,
I almost always agree with your comments here, but not this one. I do if you were using the old emulsion lots of GP3, but this new 2016 expiration dated stuff is not like the old crap. And I do mean "old crap". I just ran a roll through my Pentax 67 and dipped it in Pyrocat-MC. I see no defects in these negative at all. After reading your comment I went into my darkroom and closed the door. I printed an 11x14 from one of those negatives and it is as good as can be. No dust, no flecks, no scraped emulsion either. Those are all the problems I've had in the past with Foma and now stay away from that. Do I like other films better than GP3? Yes, but for testing older cameras I repair the GP3 film works well. It does have a couple of flaws and those are the tape that holds the film to the backing paper leaves something to be desired and with certain developers there seems to be some "curl". I have nothing going for tomorrow and have decided to do a side-by-side test between Ilford FP4+ and Shanghai GP3. I'm going to load two backs for my Hasselblad and shoot exactly all the same shots on both backs. I'll use my Luna Star F light meter in incident mode, use the same lens, tripod, mirror-up, cable release, same ISO64 and same film developer. In fact I'll let you pick the developer. Your choice is Pyrocat-MC, Rodinal 1+100 1hr stand, WD2H+ Pyro, WD2D+ Pyro or Thornton's 2-bath. I think the Rodinal 1+100 stand or Thorton's 2-bath would keep things a little more equal, but it's your choice. I'll then scan the negatives on my Coolscan LS8000 scanner with class carrier. Plus, I'll print some of the negatives and scan those prints also. I'm curious myself how these two films compare since I'm a fan of FP4+, FP5+ and really like PanF+ This should be a fun project! John W

I've tested FP4+ and GP3, I prefer GP3, I like the tonality better, the grain is nice and the sharpness as a bonus. At least in Xtol. If doing stand, I found 1+150 more appropriate for FP4+, and probably for GP3 as well. It seems overdeveloped and pushed hard for FP4+ at box speed.



The most recent example I have with it (need to get some more) - flash lit

 

[Xmas]

That's just it, though. I never have dust problems with Kodak or Ilford procuts. I live in an area where humidity is basically bone dry in the winter (Minnesota), which probably doesn't help issues such as static electricity (and subsequent dust). I have used a lot of Foma film, especially 100 and 400, and they have always given me more grief than Kodak and Ilford, in the spotting department. It is that uneven reliability that makes it so difficult for me to justify buying these films.
In the humidity of summer, it's less of a problem, but the trend is still there that I always have more spotting to do with films that are not Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji. Go figure.

Ive had more problems with Kodak than, Foma, Ilford, Efke, together ... emulsion damage not my fault.
Static electricity is down to your Continental environment, we dont get much of that here, in UK.
I need to dry over bath after running hot shower as well through. I use a squeegee to cut drying time down to 12 hours to reduce exposure to dust or water marks, the film 120 or 35mm will still dry flat...
You dry in a dust filtered drying cupboard?
I do have to use a bulb blower on dry negatives (when wet printing or scanning) as they do have static charge then.
Humidity is 50-90% most of time.
I dont often use Kodak, it is normally expensive here.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ive had more problems with Kodak than, Foma, Ilford, Efke, together ... emulsion damage not my fault.
Static electricity is down to your Continental environment, we dont get much of that here, in UK.
I need to dry over bath after running hot shower as well through. I use a squeegee to cut drying time down to 12 hours to reduce exposure to dust or water marks, the film 120 or 35mm will still dry flat...
You dry in a dust filtered drying cupboard?
I do have to use a bulb blower on dry negatives (when wet printing or scanning) as they do have static charge then.
Humidity is 50-90% most of time.
I dont often use Kodak, it is normally expensive here.

No, I dry my film hanging from the ceiling in my basement, where my darkroom is. On average I get about 3-4 spots on 16x20 prints from 120 or 35mm Tri-X, HP5+, TMax, Neopan, etc, but whenever I use Foma, Efke, Shanghai or anything like that I end up spending an hour spotting each print, with many dozens of spots. I also get the dark spots with dust on the film when exposed. That had to come from somewhere.

I have never had an emulsion defect with Kodak. Ever. Not one. But I've only shot a couple thousand rolls of it (which I consider very little, by the way) so maybe I have been lucky.

Perhaps it is the environment, but since a large part of the world is frozen in the winter, with very low humidity causing lots of static electricity, it would be wise to consider that as a film maker, would it not?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Thomas,
Here in Michigan, like where you are, it seems everything I go to touch lately gives me a little ZAP. I sure will be glad when Spring finally gets here. I'm heading to the lake shore this afternoon to burn those two rolls of film and I hope the sun comes out for a while. John W, from somewhere near the Arctic Circle in Michigan.

 

[MDR]

Like Xmas I did have Problems with Kodak emulsions (but not a large number) and know quiet a few photographers that did have Problems with Kodak emulsions and switched to Ilford or Fuji but that was in the early 90's. Some small emulsion defects can happen to anybody. If you have Problems with static electricity you could ground the film attach a wire to the metal Clip and attach the other end to an object (metal object that is grounded) there are also mats for Computer work places that are grounded.

The few times I used GP3 I was quiet satisfied with the results but it will never be my main film as it just too difficult to come by. Like Thomas I mainly use Ilford and Kodak but I also like Fomapan 200 and loved Efke 50 never had any Problems with latter.

 

[WayneStevenson]

I have been using 4x5 in the darkroom. What a gorgeous film.

Though I did have a couple boxes with defects a couple years ago. But my seller over in china sent replacements. Months after I purchased them.

 

[WayneStevenson]

I do have to agree about the prices going up though. I was getting two boxes of 4x5 for around $20 shipped around 2009. Now it's around that price for one, and shipping is extra.

 

[Xmas]

No, I dry my film hanging from the ceiling in my basement, where my darkroom is.

I used to use a filtered drying cupboard till I moved and discovered running the shower was sufficient.
If Foma was more susceptible to static you would have a problem for sure.

One local chum has to do a final rinse of distilled for his Trix his other films (including other Kodak TMax emulsions) are ok, our water is hard with particles separating.

I do have problems getting dust off dry film. it is easy when scanning you push the button again, after a large silver bromide masked, burnt and dodged it is heartbreaking...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I used to use a filtered drying cupboard till I moved and discovered running the shower was sufficient.
If Foma was more susceptible to static you would have a problem for sure.

One local chum has to do a final rinse of distilled for his Trix his other films (including other Kodak TMax emulsions) are ok, our water is hard with particles separating.

I do have problems getting dust off dry film. it is easy when scanning you push the button again, after a large silver bromide masked, burnt and dodged it is heartbreaking...

Yeah, it kind of sucks to have spent 3-4 sheets of good quality fiber paper, and then have to spend an hour retouching issues from the negative.

So I use what works. At the printing stage I never find it difficult to clean my negatives. I use compressed air and a very fine brush. Even in glass carriers I end up with nice clean prints. No worries there.

I hope the new batch of film from Shanghai works better for everyone, everywhere.

 

[Kilgallb]

About Foma, just a reminder they are an ISO 9001 certified company, as it is Harman Technology: http://www.foma.cz/en/ISO-9001
Don't have a clue about Kodak.
Any dust I have on negatives is my fault.[/QUOTE]

So are most of the factories I see in and around Shanghai. I have seen two inches of dust on top of lighting fixtures inside a class 10000 clean room. You have to actually check a factory to see if it takes quality seriously. ISO9001 certification is meaningless.

I imagine Ilfordphoto and Kodak treat quality like a religion. (Their product quality speaks for itself)

 

[Roger Cole]

Agree - ISO9001 is meaningless. Proof of pudding and all that - I have NEVER had a problem with a Kodak, Ilford or Fuji film. For that matter the only problems I've had with Foma have been my doing (it does scratch easily when wet, I've since learned this and am more careful.)

I was intrigued by the suggestion this stuff was cheap in 4x5 but when I checked I found it cost more than the Arista branded Foma. I think I'll stick to Ilford for my main 4x5 and Foma to play around with. But choices are good, and I'm glad another is working out well. I might give some 120 a try.

Oh, I have a lot of respect for Thomas but I find even 3-4 defects to be spotted out on one print a very high average. I almost never have any visible flaws other than from dust on the negative at printing or, on sheet film, spots from dust on the film at exposure. I don't think I have ever seen the latter from any roll film though, just sheets.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Killgallb.

How correct you are: ISO9000 accreditation is a massive commitment throughout the business, from sales / supply chain / engineering / warehousing R&D never mind production and drives so many processes, but more importantly the 'mindset'.

In addition we have always run a TQM ( Total Quality Management ) system.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

As Simon pointed out ISO 9001 isn't a meaningless certificate.

It might be that you saw what bad practices in one country, but that doesn't mean other factories in other countries do the same.
And Harman and Foma are an example of that.