GP3 Shanghai 120 film

Dear all,

 

Ju8st to let you know, I bought 10 rolls of GP3 Shanghai 120 film and develop it

today. The results are amazing. Comparable to HP5 in grain. And I paid 18

australian dollars for 10 rolls!

As it is supposed to be a 100ASA film, grain "comparable to HP5" does not sound that attractive.

 

For sure it is amazing, that such a cheap product gives negatives with a picture on it. I still would not bother to waste my time with it.

 

Georg

If you consider that Kodak has been buying controlling interest in Chinese film companies, or buying them outright, we may soon all be using "cheap" Chinese film. A lot of the kodacolor Gold film sold in the U.S. now is made in China and seems no different that the same film made in the U.S.! The price of Kodacolor sure is reasonable these days.

I use a cheap Chinese film, and I love the results, but...

The stuff is extreemly prone to chipping. I say "chipping" because the emulsion simply chips off rather than just getting scratched. I am wondering why it does this. I have TMX negatives and i have these negatives, and it has never happened to TMX. In fact, I have never seen it happen to any film I have ever used. But now it is so common, that many of my favorite negatives can only be scanned and fixed in photoshop, or printed with ugly black marks on them. It is a very frustrating thing to have happened, especially sense I loved the film otherwise.

So...Be careful, just in case.

Matt

The law of the market: You get what you pay for. This is where Chinese technology as a

whole (no pun intended) is right now. At a recent car show of Chinese cars, their concept

car had dashboards made of bamboo and had bath mats! I am not kidding. I used to wear

Doc Martin shoes before they started to be manufactured in China. I tried the Chinese

ones and they were awful: stiff as hell, did not fit right etc. I heard that Doc Martins was

going to produce some of their "Classic" models back in England. Maybe they already

have. I used to have a Chinese voltage transformer: electrocuted me whenever I used it!

100 ASA film giving you grain as HP5; not a good deal.

Another issue about this film is that it curls. Never seen that amount of curl in other films. I have tried everything (weights, books etc) but the curl is there. The film itself is ok but it acts like a spring. Quite difficult to handle in a scanner.

Richardson, Can you please share how you souped it? I bought a roll of it today and the

times on box say D76 20C 6-10 minutes. I am hoping someone can narrow the 6-10

minutes to a more specific number.

GP3 needs 8 minutes in D76 stock solution according to ebay sellers of the stuff. The cost of buying it is $AU18.but you do have $12 postage as well so really its $30. Apparently you can use a hardener in the development to stop chipping and increase its durability. I'm goping to give it a whirl, I hope the grain is a bit less than HP5400. Photos in the flickr shanghai pool indicate that it is.

Anyone tried this film in Rodinal? I haven't even tried this film yet, but the best deal other than Chinese film I've found is the Fuji Acros 100. I rate it at E.I. 80 and develop in HC110 Dil. B. I'm thinking if suppliers of the major B&W films (Ilford, Kodak, Fuji) raise their prices too much or discontinue some of their popular emulsions, that the Chinese films may attract a bigger following. Also, over time, R&D or the acquiistion of a more modern coating facility may help QC and grain issues. My 2 cents worth.

Oh yeah, I can't speak for developing times of GP3, but with D-76 there is a certain amount of flexibility with most B/W films. Even with Rodinal to some degree. I accidentally souped a roll of Across in Rodinal that had been loaded in a tank the week before. I thought it was my last roll of APX 100 so I developed accordingly. Still very printable. FWIW, when I do try some GP3 I will likely try to determine a time for HC110 since that is my main developer.

<p>I've got a roll of Shanghai 120 drying as I type. The film scratches pretty easily so don't squeegee it to remove water marks after the final wash... it will scratch the film. For some reason the wet film is more delicate than any I've used. Use Photo-Flo; just 2-3 drops in a small processing tank, or a capful in a gallon is all you need. Photo-Flo is the best way to remove water marking, but will scum the film if too concentrated.... just for the folk who may not have used the product.</p>

<p>The film also seems to be less stiff with less curl than some of the "real" films I've shot over the decades. Flatness isn't much of a problem when looking at the negatives on a light table or mounting them in the enlarger. </p>

<p>For the price, the ChiCom film cannot be beat. Sure I can beat its grain and tonality with a premium film... at 4x the cost. But, it's still a good film for everything a hobbyist will shoot.</p>

<p>A couple other things is that the black paper backing is thicker than Americans roll films, and in auto-advancing cameras will space out your negatives... good for a camera (my Kiev 60) that has too tight spacing to begin with. If you use it in a manual advance camera you'll be frustrated to learn that the marks on the paper backing are almost invisible through the red window, making it hard to see the frame numbers.</p>

<p>One last thing is that the negatives are not number marked on the film edges, for all the problem that is/isn't.</p>

<p>The early comments about grain reminded me of my first experience with Lucky Colour film back around 1994 -- I described it to whoever was unfortunate enough to be nearby that it was quite remarkable: A 100-speed film with the grain of a 400-speed film! Lovely packaging back then, though...</p>

<p>Now if only they'll produce B&W 220. </p>