Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,624   Posts: 1,647,875   Online: 1111
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,233
    Images
    110
    Dann,

    This is very interesting report , when it comes to photography I am extremelly slow , may be 20 rolls a year with 35mm and faraway less with 120. I think it would be better to find tri x or fp4 for few rolls for few months. It would be more expensive but I dont want to see the lost rolls when it takes months to expose even single roll.

    Thank you,

    Umut
    ,___,
    [O.o]
    /)__)
    -“–“-

  2. #12
    hdeyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Canada and Southern France
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    326
    I would use the good stuff, if I were you. It sounds like you are a careful photographer, and to have what may be an important picture ruined by bad film would be very upsetting.

  3. #13
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5

    Shangai 120 , Ebay, your experience ?

    I bought several bricks of this when.it was still in production. And when it was new it was only mediocre. I relegated it to things like testing shutter repairs, etc.

    I would not use it for anything I care about.
    Last edited by michaelbsc; 08-19-2014 at 10:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  4. #14
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,057
    Images
    4
    It was a terrific film capable of great results. I've posted examples here and elsewhere. Nothing mediocre about it. I bought over 100 rolls brought back for me by my father in law from Beijing. It's complete downfall was that it does not age well at all with the paper backing etching numbers and arrows into the film over time and the results getting mottled probably from some kind of out-gassing or acidity or chemical reaction of the backing paper to the film. My remaining 20 or so rolls I use for practicing loading with my 4x5 roll film backs or in testing focusing accuracy of my older MF cameras. Shame. I got some truly fantastic results at one time with this film and only paid about 75 cents a roll.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  5. #15
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Sintchak (rich815) View Post
    It was a terrific film capable of great results. I've posted examples here and elsewhere. Nothing mediocre about it.
    I agree that when it was good it was good. Search the archives here from some years ago and you'll find me defending it. Sometimes vehemently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Sintchak (rich815) View Post
    My remaining 20 or so rolls I use for practicing loading with my 4x5 roll film backs or in testing focusing accuracy of my older MF cameras. Shame. I got some truly fantastic results at one time with this film and only paid about 75 cents a roll.
    But here I rest my case. I won't be using my last 20 rolls of Tri-X for testing.

    I really wanted the Shanghai 120 to be the first of a wave of savior films coming from SE Asia. Didn't work out that way.
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    prince george bc canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    178
    I just developed my first roll (older stock) and it looks very nice. I ordered 20 rolls of 2016 stock from Ebay.

    However, I feel like summicron1, that supporting Ilford, Fuji and Kodak is the way I'm going. I'd use this film to test "iffy" cameras (I collect) to see how they work, light leaks, etc . . . and if I get good printable results, that's a bonus.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    Very poor quality control (just like Ultracrap, oops, I mean Ultrafine). Best to avoid it. It's cheap for a reason.
    I totally agree about the Ultrafine junk, but the newer 2016 expiration date stuff is as good as anything. The backing paper/masking tape could be improved upon, but I can live with it. Also, I don't think it has as efficient a annihilation layer as say Kodak films, but I rather like the looks of it that way and it seems to glow more in the highlights. It worked just great in Rodinal 1:100 1 hour stand developed, but was fantastic in WD2H+ pyro. I am away from home at my lake cottage and will scan the GP3 negs from WD2H+ pyro when I return home and post the results. I think it's a darn good film for the money and I wouldn't be afraid to use it on something much more important than a stupid camera test either. JohnW

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2
    I've brought two of these over the past year (http://www.ebay.com/itm/400435977596...84.m1497.l2649 ), and so far all 20 rolls were great. I didn't have any of the problems other people were having ....

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by daniel0663 View Post
    I've brought two of these over the past year (http://www.ebay.com/itm/400435977596...84.m1497.l2649 ), and so far all 20 rolls were great. I didn't have any of the problems other people were having ....
    What was your expiration date and was it in a silver plastic wrap? I've only been really happy with the 2016 stuff so far. I'm keep one roll on the shelf, unrefrigerated, and will check it in a year(if I'm still around) to see if there is the number bleed through like the stuff I got before. Time will tell I guess. JohnW

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    prince george bc canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by JW PHOTO View Post
    I totally agree about the Ultrafine junk, but the newer 2016 expiration date stuff is as good as anything. The backing paper/masking tape could be improved upon, but I can live with it. Also, I don't think it has as efficient a annihilation layer as say Kodak films, but I rather like the looks of it that way and it seems to glow more in the highlights. It worked just great in Rodinal 1:100 1 hour stand developed, but was fantastic in WD2H+ pyro. I am away from home at my lake cottage and will scan the GP3 negs from WD2H+ pyro when I return home and post the results. I think it's a darn good film for the money and I wouldn't be afraid to use it on something much more important than a stupid camera test either. JohnW

    Oh, I agree, JW . . . the older roll I developed looks excellent, and I won't hesitate to use it at anytime . . . my post above was a bit clumsily worded and didn't quite say what I was wanting to say. I couldn't edit because it was past time when I re-read it.

    Actually, camera testing is the most important use for film I have - I'm an avid collector. I think Shanghai's a great idea for this because it doesn't cost that much. If the new stuff's as good as you say, I'm sure it'll get more "exposure" than that. I will try it 1:100 in the Rodinal . . . . i've never stand developed before and that's something I'll have to try. And in a camera test, I think it's important to use good film. And Shanghai is a good film - that's why I ordered 20 rolls. As a new pensioner, I will always try to save a few bucks when I can.

    I want to try the new stuff in both my C330, and the 6x7 back on my Linhof, before I commit to using it as a standard in these cameras, my users. I try to use as many Kodak and Ilford products as possible, because they are part of my heritage and I'd like to do my part in keeping them around . . . I've mentioned before I'm not partial to FP4 but use HP5 in bucketloads, and I'm still struggling with the replacement for Plus X. I used Plus X in medium format especially if I was planning enlargements 8x10 and up. I wanted that extra two stops for handholding whenever possible so I mostly use HP5 for general use.

    By the way, a few years ago when I bought the older Shanghai, I seem to remember that it was also available in 35mm. Was it, or is that my imagination? You might be interested to know that in 35mm, I've settled on Arista 100 Edu as my replacement for PlusX - I have printed that film, and I really like it. It's quite close to Plus X, I think, especially developed in D76 1:1. Probably the best replacement for Verichrome Pan available. I tried to like FP4 and TMax 100 better but didn't. I'll use TMax only if I want to make an 11x14 from a 35mm - not a likely scenario. It will be my go-to, though, in half frame.

    I'm really going to be interested in printing the old Shanghai, hopefully this weekend. I'll let you know as soon as I do.
    Last edited by moltogordo; 09-11-2014 at 03:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin