Author Topic: Shanghai GR3 100 ISO Rollfilm - Mistery Effect (Read 4239 times)

Klaus · « **on:** March 01, 2017, 08:33:41 PM »

In the last weekend thread I had shown a shot taken on this film using my GW690iii - recent acquisition. Very grainy. Developed and scanned by a commercial lab, so no details. Film is dated BBE 2014 so should still be good for average photography.
I looked at another shot (reflections) and noticed clearly in the top right corner some dots. I know that the backing paper on 120 film has these warning dots for the old red film counter window cameras, How would this have got through to the negative? Haven't got the foggiest - pun?!
I do like the grain effect though - no processing done on this frame.

02Pilot · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2017, 08:42:47 PM »

IIRC, there was a bunch of the Shanghai film going around that had exactly this problem. Don't recall if there's a solution, but I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Francois · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2017, 08:54:36 PM »

Sadly there wasn't a solution.
It was not caused by light passing through the negative but by the ink on the paper sticking to the emulsion...

I would just consider it as an artifact as there's not much else to do about it unless you want to spend a whole lot of time with Photoshop.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2017, 09:35:36 PM »

However, I would gladly use film like this - that photo looks awesome. If you want to get rid of it, the please send it my way.

Indofunk · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2017, 09:43:02 PM »

If there's any way to accurately predict where the dots are going to be (always on the left side of the frame?) then you can probably use them to good artistic advantage.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2017, 09:49:38 PM »

As it's on the shiny side, couldn't you try ... soap? ink solvent? grinding paste? sandpaper?

astrobeck · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2017, 09:50:35 PM »

I totally love the effect of the backing paper dots on the negative and subsequent print.
It kind of reminds me of some of the washi film stuff I've seen..
Love it.

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2017, 10:29:22 PM »

It really does look like washi film.
I don't know where the paper texture comes from but you should definitely embrace it.

Indofunk · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2017, 10:37:37 PM »

Quote from: Sandeha Lynch on March 01, 2017, 09:49:38 PM

sandpaper?

Klaus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2017, 11:05:34 PM »

Many thanks for all your comments - clearly this is due to the backing paper bleeding onto the film. I had rotated the image so need to remember the dots will be in the bottom right corner.

Well, certainly this roll has produced some interesting images. Still got eight rolls left so I will bear this in mind - definitely won't give them away just yet. I am also nearly ready to develop B&W film again so will see what my developing skills will produce.

As a bonus here is another image, Grand Union Canal boat at Uxbridge lock.

astrobeck · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2017, 11:28:43 PM »

I have also read that this film is subject to reticulation more so than others...so that could be used to advantage too!

I'm with Ed. If you want to send some out..I'll send you my address. But I would hoard it !!!

Have fun and please share more photos.
Beck

JoeV · « **Reply #11 on:** March 02, 2017, 12:49:37 AM »

I've also seen some 120 Lomography color film with this same problem.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2017, 07:45:58 AM »

yeah, if you're into this you should look into lomography rolls. latest I heard was that all their 120 films use this backing paper now.

Late Developer · « **Reply #13 on:** March 02, 2017, 01:03:12 PM »

Unless it was the look I was anticipating (and wanted), that would drive me absolutely nuts. I've used some really out of date film in the expectation that it wouldn't be perfect and I can live with that. However, the film is a mere 2 years out of date so, unless it's been treated very badly, having been shot through one of the finest lenses ever made, it should produce nice, crisp photos.

But that's just me. It's scary how much of a control freak I've become as I've got older

Klaus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2017, 08:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on March 02, 2017, 01:03:12 PM

Unless it was the look I was anticipating (and wanted), that would drive me absolutely nuts. I've used some really out of date film in the expectation that it wouldn't be perfect and I can live with that. However, the film is a mere 2 years out of date so, unless it's been treated very badly, having been shot through one of the finest lenses ever made, it should produce nice, crisp photos.

But that's just me. It's scary how much of a control freak I've become as I've got older

Certainly not an effect I am looking for, unless I can control it more. BTW there's a good picture on this weekend's thread using the Shanghai film. I have been advised to pre-soak the film for 5 minutes which should lessen the impact.

On the other hand here is a quick test picture taken on a Fujifilm Neopan 400CN, expired 2005!
Ignore exposure and contrast just shows what can be done with the GW690, and old film stock.
Definitely the Shanghai seems to be hit or miss quality wise.

Francois · « **Reply #15 on:** March 03, 2017, 08:23:54 PM »

What's a bit funny with Shanghai film is that it can either be really great or abysmally bad. There's not really any middle ground with it.
I have limited experience with it but I must have been lucky when I got my roll of good film.

Faintandfuzzy · « **Reply #16 on:** March 03, 2017, 09:43:01 PM »

Very much like Film Washi. Love it!

Klaus · « **Reply #17 on:** April 08, 2017, 11:01:15 AM »

Had another go with this film, following advice to pre-soak film for five minutes which may get rid of some of the effect, but didn't work as you can see. Bonica ETRsi, Ilfosol3 for 7 minutes. Pondering: get rid or keep for special projects? Might be interesting for oldy worldy effect, as long as post-processing doesn't become a chore ....

Aksel · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2017, 09:53:05 AM »

I like it and would keep it, use the effect to your advantage =)
Hope my 30+ years out of date Russian film looks something close to this.

mhcfires · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2017, 04:49:17 PM »

I still have five or six rolls of this stuff. The first two rolls showed the dots, bleed through or whatever you want to call it, so I haven't used it since. I'll give it to someone local, but It isn't worth the money to ship it, or even the effort. If I weren't such a cheapskate I would just toss it. GUess I'm too much of a hoarder

m

gsgary · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2017, 05:10:15 PM »

I use Foma 400 in my Fuji GW690III and it is great and not expensive

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2017, 05:20:03 PM »

m, it's not a bug but a feature. Sell'em for 10 bucks a roll.

I once bought 2 packs a 10 rolls. The first brick was fine, strong curl but a very good emulsion usable up to EI 400 in Caffenol. Used up in a couple of months, I was delighted. The second brick was in the cooler, the first rolls were still OK, but after only 1 year the last rolls showed the same faults as discussed here.

A pity. After those problems became obvious, the film disappeared as fast as it became popular, probably because the merchands were flooded with complaints. Would be interesting whether the film is still produced and sold in China.

mhcfires · « **Reply #22 on:** April 10, 2017, 09:00:07 PM »

Reinhold,

My first roll was satisfactory, I bought one brick. Yes, there was an unreal curl, but I could deal with the curl. I only had the stuff about two months, kept cool, not refrigerated, when I noticed the obvious problems. I have since used the film for practice rolls, teaching a few friends how to load stainless reels for developing. With the obnoxious curl, if you can load a reel with this crap you will rarely have problems. I just checked my stash and I have four rolls. Not sure what I'll do with them, but I surely won't use them for anything that might be important to me. As for selling them, I don't have that kind of chutzpah. Give them away, yes, but I don't have the chutzpah to sell that stuff, not even to an enemy.

m