Topic: Cheap B&W film

[Paul Mitchell]

http://www.pixel-store.co.uk/index.html

Came across this on another analogue site, 120 film x3 for £6.99, there's lots of debate as to the manufacturer - apologies if it's been mentioned before

Paul

[jojonas~]

I am entranced :O http://www.pixel-store.co.uk/productdetail=hippystrap.html

[Ezzie]

Could very well be Shanghai GP3 by the looks of it. Got nothing against the film, indeed I rather like the mid-tone rendition especially. But have had a few run ins with the backing paper imprinting issue.

[Francois]

The backing paper problem should be long gone by now, so I wouldn't worry about that.
I must admit that they have some pretty sweet straps there... I'll have to look at the site again when I'm on the computer...

[KevinAllan]

"Also available in 4 x 5, 5 x 7, 10 x 8 and 35mm too"

That must narrow down the possibilities a lot ... not aware of Shanghai GP3 being available in those sizes.

Fomapan 100 perhaps ?

[Terry]

Shanghai is available in all the popular sheet film sizes.  The best part is that there's no backing paper!  I've bought some from Isaac Chen on eb*y and quite liked the results but these days it's become more expensive. 

[KevinAllan]

Shanghai is available in all the popular sheet film sizes. 

To make up for my error regarding GP3, I offer filmwasters news of the availability of Kodak Tri-X Pan 320 in 220 format:
http://www.filmsnotdead.com/product/kodak-tri-x-320-220-expired/

The price is £3.50 per roll which (even I can do this maths) equates to £1.75 for a 120 roll.
As I have 2 cameras that can take 220 film I purchased a five-pack and have shot one roll at ISO200 to allow for age as the film expired in 2006;  results here:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=txp320&ss=0&ct=0&mt=all&w=33186310%40N03&adv=1

[jharr]

To make up for my error regarding GP3, I offer filmwasters news of the availability of Kodak Tri-X Pan 320 in 220 format:
http://www.filmsnotdead.com/product/kodak-tri-x-320-220-expired/

The price is £3.50 per roll which (even I can do this maths) equates to £1.75 for a 120 roll.
As I have 2 cameras that can take 220 film I purchased a five-pack and have shot one roll at ISO200 to allow for age as the film expired in 2006;  results here:

https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=txp320&ss=0&ct=0&mt=all&w=33186310%40N03&adv=1

It is also pretty simple to cut these in half and re-roll as 120.

[Late Developer]

Thanks Paul and Kevin.

I've just bought 5 rolls of TXP 220 as I have an A24 for the 'Blad and my Fuji GW690iii takes 220 (thus giving me a whopping 16 shots on a roll of 220) 

[KevinAllan]

I looked at the developing chart that studentphoto store provide for this "unidentified" film:

http://www.studentphotostore.co.uk/Developer.pdf

and then compared it to a couple of films on the Massive Dev Chart. My first try was Fomapan 100 but the times are quite different. Next try was Shanghai and the results from the Massive Dev Chart are identical in terms of the range of developers quoted and the recommended times:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Shanghai&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C

So I think we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt, that this is Shanghai film

[jojonas~]

I looked at the developing chart that studentphoto store provide for this "unidentified" film:

http://www.studentphotostore.co.uk/Developer.pdf

and then compared it to a couple of films on the Massive Dev Chart. My first try was Fomapan 100 but the times are quite different. Next try was Shanghai and the results from the Massive Dev Chart are identical in terms of the range of developers quoted and the recommended times:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Shanghai&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C

So I think we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt, that this is Shanghai film

that often ends up being a good way to figure it out

[Jon Butler]

If your  serious about making quality B&W film images way bother with this, use Ilford and get  guaranteed results. Good film may not be cheap but it's good value to me.
J.

[KevinAllan]

If your  serious about making quality B&W film images way bother with this, use Ilford and get  guaranteed results. Good film may not be cheap but it's good value to me.
J.

I agree with Jon, I much prefer to stick with Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. The cost of film is a very small proportion of everything I spend on photography - petrol being the biggest cost - and I don't want to take the chance of a lot of effort in getting to a good location in the right light being spoilt by the wrong film choice.

Personally, I wouldn't touch Shanghgai film with a bargepole.

But when the rare chance comes up to buy good Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji film at a good price, then I take up the offer.

[Kayos]

I too agree with the above, the only "cheap" film I use is Retro 400s, or cheap colour film for testing cameras. I'm more than happy to pay £5+ for a roll when I look at the finished prints

[Francois]

Strangely, even though I love good film, these days I'm growing a soft spot for cheap stuff. There's something about chunky grain and imperfections that I like... Just like that fomapan that has been growing on me for a while now.

[Terry]

I liked the results I got with the 5x7 Shanghai, but these days Arista is cheaper!  If I really want a good neg, I'll use some FP4.  Or Neopan.

[mhcfires]

Shanghai GP# is probably the worst film I have ever used. I just developed a roll and there were those backing paper marks on the entire roll. I won't buy it again, Ilford or Kodak for me. I'm not going to save a few pennies and have a fail like that. I've not tried their sheet film, but I think I don't want to.


m

[Late Developer]

The Tri-X 320 arrived at the weekend and it expired in 2006.  It's been kept in a fridge since but, from what I can gather, B&W film tends not to go off as badly as colour film.  Nevertheless, I'll be shooting it at ISO 160 to be on the safe side and, as it's purely a bit of fun, I won't be using it for anything where the end result is important to me - i.e. it is film to be "wasted".

[Francois]

160 should be right on the money by now.