Shanghai, FP4 and Arista Edu

[Scotty230358]

Having used Foma and Ilford I would go for the Ilford. As previously reported Foma films have poor reciprocity characteristics and I have found them to be "fussy" in processing. I use Pyrocat HD and found that I had to use distilled water to make up the working solution otherwise I can get blotches over even toned areas of sky. Ilford FP4 only needs filtered tap water. Also I rate Foma at ISO 50 whereas I rate Ilford FP4 at 100. Foma builds contrast quite rapidly I find that the compensating nature of Pyrocat helps tame it. In the right situation Foma does produce excellent images but Ilford FP4 is the more consistent of the two.

[John Kasaian]

FP-4+ is a high quality film, man. If I could only shoot one of those films, it would be FP-4+ ! Arista/Fomapan 100 is a good film and you can certainly make excellent negatives with it---if that was all I could afford, I be a happy camper but it is a very slow film with byzantine reciprocity issues so IMHO not as universal as Ilford. I've never used Shanghai so I can't comment on the stuff.
Why not pick up a box of each while you're in the US and make you're own comparison?

[Tim Meisburger]

Thank you everyone for your responses. Since I don't buy often I think I will go ahead and stock up on the FP4 in 4x5, then buy a box of the Arista in 5x7 to give it a try.

[rich815]

By Shanghai do you mean the GP3 (100)? If so I can vouch for it being a nice film using it a lot in medium format. But it does have its occasional emulsion flaws. I bought a load of it for very cheap when I went back to Beijing a few years back (I lived there for 5 years in the late 90's). But frankly vs Ilford and even Arista I'd bypass the Shanghai every time unless it was much cheaper than the other two. But in the end all three are very capable films.

One example:

ECHIUM - Emeryville Marina RolleiflexSL66 80PlanarSC ShanghaiGP3 Rodinal1-50 9min45sec 22C 30secAg 03-2011 VSmac 9000 Scan-110307-0007 cr FFw by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

[premortho]

Jiri, I only hope I can get as good results as I saw on your first "here" site. They ought to give you a contract for a little pamphlet with pics, of course, using that film~absolutely gorgeous! The second "here" didn't work as well...maybe they were roll film? And the site was not easy to get around in. I almost can't see prints that small, and I couldn't figure out how to blow them up.

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Rich. I have been using Shanghai for a few years. The sheet film has a different base than the roll film and may have a different emulsion. I've never had any problem with it. I think the GP3 is more like Lucky, and has a relatively soft emulsion.

[Jiri Vasina]

Jiri, I only hope I can get as good results as I saw on your first "here" site. They ought to give you a contract for a little pamphlet with pics, of course, using that film~absolutely gorgeous! The second "here" didn't work as well...maybe they were roll film? And the site was not easy to get around in. I almost can't see prints that small, and I couldn't figure out how to blow them up.

Premortho, in the second link it uses HTML5 for zooming the images, so you need a relatively modern web browser - and preferably not the one from Microsoft (they always think they can bypass any standards and force their own way). It should work in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari... The first link uses older style gallery with JavaScript... But I'll try to think about the site design to make it more "viewer friendly"...

Your impression is a little funny too (not meant to offend, just that it's the other way round), because in the first link, the images are chronologically sorted from the oldest... and those are shot on roll film. In the second link it takes you to my blog, where the sort order is from the newest - and most (all?) are shot in sheets. That might be the reason you prefer the older pictures - they have been tried by time (and not deleted), the newer ones have yet to pass the sieve of time...

But anyway, thanks for your kind words

Jiri

[premortho]

Well Jiri, I guess I'm going to have to figure out which were on sheet film. as that's what I'm interested in. I suppose it would be too much trouble for you to tag every pic...like 4/5 fomapan 100 shot at asa64, 9.5 minutes in Rodinal, 1-50

[Jiri Vasina]

premortho, each one is tagged - if you get the image to zoom, it should display some technical information. Also, each blog post (if you go through the blog) should have tags as what camera, lens and film was used. I have included veither the shooting parameters (though I have them written down for most of my images) nor the development information - I think most of the audience on my website does not care for those technical details...

I try to include a little more info (like if I used N, N-1 development) when I post images here...

But generally I use Minolta Spotmeter F to measure the scene, for Fomapan 100 I set it at EI 64. I do a presoak with tap water. For my development routine, standard N development in Jobo 2830 with continuous agitation on Uniroller motor base is the time 10:00 min. I develop at around 20°C (I don't check the temperature, try not to develop in hot summer days...). I develop almost always in Rodinal 1:50 dilution, 7ml of developer, 350ml of solution. I use water stop bath.

For N-1 development, my time is 8:00min. For N+1 development, my time is 13:00min.

If you should need to know shooting parameters and development for a specific photo, ask me (in a PM, or through the contact ways as shown on my web. Sorry, I will not publish my email here, but I can send it to you in PM).

Jiri

[WayneStevenson]

I love Shanghai. Price has just about tripled since 2009. But still worth the price. And it prints beautifully.


Untitled by Wayne Stevenson, on Flickr

Untitled by Wayne Stevenson, on Flickr