Doing more with less

[sully75]

It's amazing to me that people can get lovely results with crappy chinese film but they do:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7172/6429800433_79354d60ba_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cr2512/6429800433/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cr2512/6429800433/) by Roman Aytmurzin (http://www.flickr.com/people/cr2512/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7022/6443094341_0b803f0f2b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cr2512/6443094341/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cr2512/6443094341/) by Roman Aytmurzin (http://www.flickr.com/people/cr2512/), on Flickr

I wonder if (god forbid) everyone else went under, Foma, Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, would the Chinese be affected as far as raw materials go? I'm guessing they'd probably figure it out.

If I could get results that good with any film at any cost I'd be pleased. Plenty more on his flickr page. A reason for optomism...

[Mark Woods]

Nice.

[Ari]

The Shanghai stuff is pretty good, I used it for the better part of a year; the price is very good.
I switched back to TMX400 after processing 6 sheets of it last summer; the differences are there.
Still, for learning, or general stuff that isn't critical, you can't beat Shanghai.

[David R Munson]

I'm shooting it now because I've got a local source for it and the price is right. I haven't been able to scan or print anything yet, but the negatives themselves look excellent. The look of a given film may or may not be to one's liking, but outside of true technical problems like bad coating, etc, I don't think anyone can really dismiss any given film as not being able to produce good results. One of my favorite 35mm films is Fuji 100SS, which has been around forever and which most people use to make completely lackluster images, but which I love. I'm confident that the negatives I'm making on Shanghai GP3 are very good negatives and when I finally have the means, will scan or print well. The big names produce excellent film, yes, but they aren't the only ones. It isn't doing more with less so much as doing more with materials that people haven't given much of a chance. People have proven that good work can be done with these films, so now it's time that more people go out and follow suit.

[Jay DeFehr]

Roman does beautiful work, whatever his materials. I've used a lot of cheap, second and third tier films, and have gotten some very nice images. That being said, I will always opt for TMY-2 or Acros, when available.

[akfreak]

Very nice work indeed

[cr2512]

thank you Paul and Jay and Mark and Akfreak ! :)
I think this film not bad at all but very thin, both a base and emulsion, It makes non usable for serious work with alt printing. Therefore this film so cheap.

[ic-racer]

Controlled lighting is an easy task for any film (even digital). Its the 'uncontrolled wild' where one needs a film like T-max to capture an extended tonal range on the negative so you have plenty of detail in the print when you dodge and burn.

Having mentioned the above, I do want to try the Chinese film, because T-max 8x10 is kaput.

[Steve Smith]

Perhaps the film isn't 'crappy' then.


Steve.

[Mark Sawyer]

If money was no object, I'd use only Ilford. Money being an object, I often use cheaper eastern European films (Efke, Foma...)

[Tom J McDonald]

I've used the film too and I like it.

I wonder how much, if any, photoshop retouching has been applied.

[Pawlowski6132]

I guess it's not crappy huh?

[Jay DeFehr]

I have no experience with the Chinese films but have seen results and talked to a number who have tried it.

The #1 complaint was simple: Quality Control. Having lost fine images due to coating defects and such doesn't inspire confidence in the film. And no, many of us do not shoot 2 or more sheets of film on any one subject. Using Ilford or Kodak films takes a lot of worry about quality away.

As more and more LFPs scan and print digitally, small defects tend to matter less. Pinholes, etc. can be edited away in post. I don't think large defects that would render an image unsalvageable are very common.

My standard for crappy film is Polypan F. This stuff is really bad in almost every measurable way, but even so, I've seen some beautiful images made with it. It doesn't mean the film is good, it just means bad film can be overcome, at least occasionally.

[photobymike]

I have no experience with the Chinese films but have seen results and talked to a number who have tried it.

The #1 complaint was simple: Quality Control. Having lost fine images due to coating defects and such doesn't inspire confidence in the film. And no, many of us do not shoot 2 or more sheets of film on any one subject. Using Ilford or Kodak films takes a lot of worry about quality away.

My time is worth more than the difference of the cost of the very best i can get. When i am doing a photo job, i need not to worry about the film.

[atlcruiser]

I bought a bunch in 45 and it was good...good enough. I did see issues between the different packs of 25 (I bought 100 sheets is 4, 25 sheet packs.)

I but HP4+ in 810 from B+H for about $96 for 25 sheets. Order Mon arrive Wed. I can buy the Shanghai for about $10 cheaper for $25 sheets but it takes up to 2 weeks to arrive. Good stuff but not worth it for 810.

What these photos really show me is that the photographer is the key....camera, film etc.... are just tools. Very nice photos and thanks for posting them.

[SamReeves]

If money was no object, I'd use only Ilford. Money being an object, I often use cheaper eastern European films (Efke, Foma...)

Yup, I gotta budget it myself. I've been pretty happy with the results from Foma.

[Max Hao]

Hi folks,
I live in China and might have a better chance of getting films made here. There were 3 major films in large format namely Lucky, Era and Shanghai. I have used all three. IMO, the ranking in terms of tonality is Lucky > Era > Shanghai. I overheard Lucky used some of the stuff left by Kodak when their marriage broke up, and I believe it because the tonality suggested good amount of silver. Era is discontinued so no need to say anything. Now ranking in terms of quality control is Era > Shanghai > Lucky. Too bad Era went quiet. Shanghai is still producing on a regular basis. Lucky will produce based on orders. I got lots of scratches on Lucky films, even scanning and PS editing is a pain to get a good image. Someone purchased a stock of Lucky in 810 and said it is scratch free. I haven't had much luck of getting a good batch of Lucky in 4x5. On the Shanghai film, I think the emulsion is a bit fragile. Sometimes I could see the edge of the emulsion falling off after washing. But Shanghai is generally good and has less defects, if there are any I could still live with it. I don't like the look of images produced by Shanghai though. The mid tones is very weak. I will have to try to expand the mid tones, but with limited success. I would be interested to hear what would be a good method to get a good midtone.

[jp]

Shanghai film is $61.38 for 50 4x5 sheets on ebay.

A browse at B&H puts Shanghai (which they don't sell) above Ilford in cost and below Kodak. Kodak being $68-75. I don't see what the special deal is regarding Shanghai's price unless there's some webstore that sells it for way less.

Arista EDU (foma) is $30 at freestyle. It's capable of good stuff, but is more fragile than Kodak/Ilford, has worse reciprocity, and sometimes has flaws. I use it. I keep it in my camera bag as a slower speed film option than my normal tmy2. If I need a slower speed film or if I run out of tmy2, I use this.

[E. von Hoegh]

When I first got my 4x5, I used alot of EFKE PL100; this was when the Iron Curtain was still up. The negatives look pretty good judging by my present day standards. The limiting factor then as now is the photographer.:o