Old 06-08-2018   #201
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl J. View Post
How long has it been since its last online availability?
In the U.S., probably more than a month. They don't expect to coat more film until the local government finishes with repairs/upgrades to their factory.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2018   #202
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,513

Manly beach, Sydney.
Ferrania P30 @iso100 in XTOL 1+1
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2018   #203
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,513
Accidentally exposed at ISO400 using sunny 11 but developed for ISO100 in XTOL 1+1. Y filter.


Manly beach, Sydney, summer 2018
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-04-2018   #204
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,607
I shot this on Sunday. Canon IVSB2, Canon 35/2.8 lens. Processed in straight D-76, continuous agitation for 6'30" at 22C.



Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2018   #205
martinjames
Registered User
 
martinjames's Avatar
 
martinjames is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 114
[IMG][/IMG]

I received my 5 rolls of P30 quite some time ago but just recently ran my first roll. This was taken using my 1930s uncoated Hektor 135 (without the UV filter that's usually on it) so the contrast is somewhat subdued to begin with. Leica IIIb. Ilfosol 3, 6 min.

Last edited by martinjames : 09-08-2018 at 17:58. Reason: image replacement
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-07-2018   #206
martinjames
Registered User
 
martinjames's Avatar
 
martinjames is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 114
BTW, today is the first time I've uploaded an image to the Gallery here at RFF, so as to copy image address, then insert it into a post. In the Gallery this image is able to be viewed larger. How does one get a larger image into the post? (original jpeg is 1000px wide). Thanks!

Update: image fixed

Last edited by martinjames : 09-08-2018 at 17:59. Reason: update
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2018   #207
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,979
In my Voigtlander Vito I (original, pre-WWII version).

__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2018   #208
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,607
Leica MP with 75mm Summilux. F1.6 at 1/250. D-76 straight.



Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-2018   #209
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,979
At an abandoned factory. Voigtlander Vito I, Ferrania P30, Rodinal 1:50

__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-2018   #210
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,979
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2018   #211
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
I've been one of the few lucky guys who had the chance to buy quite a lot of Film Ferrania P30. I did a lot of detailed testing including sensitometric tests with a densitometer and evaluating the characteristic curves of several developer combinations with P30.
Unfortunately all the results have not been satisfying. Because
- P30 is not an ASA 80 film, the speed is significantly lower, even in developers which offer very good sensivity/speed
- depending on the developer type you get quite problematic characteristic curves / tonality
- the gradation is very steep, you get very high contrast
- depending on the developer you have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail: it is impossible to get a normal linear characteristic curve with smooth tonality and good detail both in the shadows and highlights. Either the shadows are empty, or the highligths are blown out.

Film Ferrania said this has been an "alpha" version. A test emulsion. My test results show that this is true.
There is still a lot to do for FF to design a film which can compete with the established manufacturers on the market. At Photokina this September there has been information that FF is indeed currently working on re-formulating this film. That will probably take some time. And from my test results it is absolutely necessary.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2018   #212
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,628
And yet, some manage to make beautiful photographs with P30.
I wonder if some critics walked out of the initial screening of “La Dolce Vita” because the curves were problematic, and not just the ones on Anita Ekberg.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2018   #213
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
At Photokina this September there has been information that FF is indeed currently working on re-formulating this film. That will probably take some time. And from my test results it is absolutely necessary.
You would think that if they don't have the time, personnel, and resources to do the basic sensitometry for a proper ISO test, that reformulating an emulsion is going to be problematic in the near term. I think at this point they are still trying to get production of the existing P30 formulation back on line now that they actually have electricity at their facility.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-03-2018   #214
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
I've been one of the few lucky guys who had the chance to buy quite a lot of Film Ferrania P30. I did a lot of detailed testing including sensitometric tests with a densitometer and evaluating the characteristic curves of several developer combinations with P30.
Unfortunately all the results have not been satisfying. Because
- P30 is not an ASA 80 film, the speed is significantly lower, even in developers which offer very good sensivity/speed
- depending on the developer type you get quite problematic characteristic curves / tonality
- the gradation is very steep, you get very high contrast
- depending on the developer you have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail: it is impossible to get a normal linear characteristic curve with smooth tonality and good detail both in the shadows and highlights. Either the shadows are empty, or the highligths are blown out.

Film Ferrania said this has been an "alpha" version. A test emulsion. My test results show that this is true.
There is still a lot to do for FF to design a film which can compete with the established manufacturers on the market. At Photokina this September there has been information that FF is indeed currently working on re-formulating this film. That will probably take some time. And from my test results it is absolutely necessary.
I've found that using the right developer and exposing this film properly yields results that I like and can print in the darkroom to my satisfaction. No problems.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #215
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
And yet, some manage to make beautiful photographs with P30.
I've looked at almost all P30 pictures published so far (e.g. on the Film Ferrania facebook and instagram pages).
The better or acceptable pictures (from a technical point of view) were those where the object contrast was relatively low. That helps a lot when you have a film with the sensitometric problems I've described.
In higher contrast scenes either the shadows were empty with little or no detail, or the highlights were burnt with no detail.

You cannot fool physics: If you measure a film with a densitometer and make the characteristic curve you have all the relevant data and know how a film is working.
You know how the real effective speed / ISO sensivity is.
You know how contrast, tonality, shadow and highlight details are.

I've also discussed my test results with other photographers who have tested P30. And they have got the same results.
I hope FF can improve the film. I appreciate their hard work and fights for the revival of the FF factory on a smaller scale.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #216
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
You would think that if they don't have the time, personnel, and resources to do the basic sensitometry for a proper ISO test, that reformulating an emulsion is going to be problematic in the near term. I think at this point they are still trying to get production of the existing P30 formulation back on line now that they actually have electricity at their facility.
Possible.
At least from their published information, their factory building (the LRF, the former R&D center with the small pilot coating machine) is now completely finished and in operation. The team is at their working places again.
We will see whether they now focus on solving the problems with the emulsion first, and then go back to production. Or if they first will make another batch of the Alpha version trying to get cash in.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #217
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
I've been one of the few lucky guys who had the chance to buy quite a lot of Film Ferrania P30. I did a lot of detailed testing including sensitometric tests with a densitometer and evaluating the characteristic curves of several developer combinations with P30.
Unfortunately all the results have not been satisfying. Because
- P30 is not an ASA 80 film, the speed is significantly lower, even in developers which offer very good sensivity/speed
- depending on the developer type you get quite problematic characteristic curves / tonality
- the gradation is very steep, you get very high contrast
- depending on the developer you have to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail: it is impossible to get a normal linear characteristic curve with smooth tonality and good detail both in the shadows and highlights. Either the shadows are empty, or the highligths are blown out.
.
If you have performed densitometer tests with a step tablet, and created graphs of the resulting curves for a variety of developers, it would be of interest to see those, as long as each graph was annotated with the information as to the developer used, developing time, developer temperature, and exact agitation method used which resulted in that particular curve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
I've looked at almost all P30 pictures published so far ......
The better or acceptable pictures (from a technical point of view) were those where the object contrast was relatively low. That helps a lot when you have a film with the sensitometric problems I've described.
In higher contrast scenes either the shadows were empty with little or no detail, or the highlights were burnt with no detail.

You cannot fool physics:.....
I don’t think anyone is trying to fool physics, which would prove daunting in any event. P30 seems to be, as you note, a high contrast film without as much exposure latitude as something like Tri-X, susceptible to blown out highlights or dense shadows if used in high contrast situations, and thus better used in lower contrast situations. Similar to transparency films, in other words. It seems to have other meaningful characteristics as a film which are appealing, if exposed and processed correctly, which make it desirable from an esthetic standpoint, whether someone judges it’s curve to be “problematic” or not.

Looking at the same P30 pictures published so far, my I opinion is that some of them are not only acceptable, they are outstanding, a cut above what I might routinely see with some other films. That’s a personal esthetic judgment, esthetics being a club where physics is not a voting member.

The question is how to best achieve those results, for those to whom those results are important. That’s where your densitometry results could be valuable to everyone. Not the conclusions, but the results. I am not convinced, personally, that P30 needs to be improved, but it does need to be understood. Access to the raw densitometric graphs, correlated with the developers and methods which were used to produce those graphs, would help others draw their own conclusions as to how to use the film to best achieve the excellent results which are obviously possible, and what the film’s ideal operating window is. As much work as you have gone to to map out the curves, it would be extremely helpful if others could see those, if that would be possible.
Thanks in advance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #218
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,193
So just like with all photographic materials from the beginning, the current P30 has its limitations. Photographers have to come to grips with those, exploit the advantages, and work around the deficiencies. The manufacturer has to work on improving their product, correcting the deficiencies, and reducing the limitations.
Between the specifications and measurements, deficiencies and workarounds, is the realm of art and mastery. Perfection is not only impossible, it is undefined.

Nothing has changed.

G

"No matter where you go, there you are."
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #219
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
So just like with all photographic materials from the beginning, the current P30 has its limitations. Photographers have to come to grips with those, exploit the advantages, and work around the deficiencies. The manufacturer has to work on improving their product, correcting the deficiencies, and reducing the limitations.
Between the specifications and measurements, deficiencies and workarounds, is the realm of art and mastery. Perfection is not only impossible, it is undefined.

Nothing has changed.

G

"No matter where you go, there you are."

Indeed....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #220
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,607
This is a remarkable film that does have a learning curve. I shoot it at E.I. of 50 and develop in D-76 with agitation, time and temps and recommended in their “best practices” PDF. Like many B&W films, it is contrasty in direct sunlight, less so in shade. For my portrait work, I always place the subject in the shade, or shoot on a cloudy day. Using vintage glass, known for being low in contrast, helps too. And this may be a film that is best scanned, not printed in a darkroom. I find that I can tease a lot of detail out off the shadows in PS.

I don’t particularly like the attached pic, but it does show that the film can deliver flat images too, under the right conditions. I’m looking forward to Ferrania resuming production (and hopefully, in 120).



Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-10-2018   #221
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 433


I agree with those suggesting P30 might be best for lower contrast situations, although I've only shot four rolls with the first three as experiments trying to dial it in. The above pic was taken during light rain and I like the results when wet printed. The images I made in direct sun were more challenging, rather like using slide film.

Personally I'll be delighted if P30 stays as it is. There is a learning curve and it's not an all-around black and white film. If it was a do everything film I'm sure it would fail in the marketplace as there are plenty of other cheaper options on the market for that. I see P30 as a slow, fine grain, high contrast choice, that rewards the same kind of care in exposure as a slide film requires.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #222
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
If you have performed densitometer tests with a step tablet, and created graphs of the resulting curves for a variety of developers, it would be of interest to see those, as long as each graph was annotated with the information as to the developer used, developing time, developer temperature, and exact agitation method used which resulted in that particular curve.
.......
Thanks in advance.
No problem, here we go:
I started the tests with Kodak T-Max developer. A developer with a very good capability of reaching high speed / high film sensivity. It also gives a more ideal, linear characteristic curve with most films.
For those who are not familiar with sensitometry:
The ISO norm defines film speed at Zone I with a logD = 0.1.
I make my prints with an enlarger with a combination of a double condensor with a mix-box. So my target density values for Zone V are 0.65-0.7 logD and for Zone VIII 1.2-1.25 logD.

To make things short I will not post all results and curves but only the resulting ("best") curves:
Developer: T-Max, dilution 1+4, Kodak agitation rhythm, 20°c developer temperature, 5:15 min. developing time.

First term will be the Zone, second term the density at that zone.
Results for ISO 32/16° (all higher speeds completely failed in the tests).
Zone I: 0.00 logD
II : 0.03
III: 0.09
IV: 0.23
V: 0.4
VI: 0.62
VII: 0.92
VIII: 1.23
IX: 1.53
X: 1.75

You see immediately the severe problems with this film:
- the speed is much too low
- even at ISO 32/16° the shadows are completely empty with no detail, the real speed is much lower
- density in the middle zones is also too low
- density in Zones IX and X is a bit too high.
To get sufficient shadow detail you would have to lower the sensivity / speed to ISO 12/12° or 16/13°. But then you would get very short developing times (danger of inconsistence) and the density in the highlights would further increase, which is bad.

Next developer: FX-39, dilution 1+19, 11:30 min. ; Agitation: 1x per minute; 20°c.
ISO 16/13°:
Zone I: 0.02 logD
II : 0.07
III: 0.18
IV: 0.36
V: 0.56
VI: 0.79
VII: 1.01
VIII: 1.21
IX: 1.38
X: 1.50
FX-39 is a compensating developer. That works in this case quite well in the highlights. The middle tones have too low density. The shadows are empty.
And all that at ISO 16/13°.
FF claims this film to be a ASA 80 speed film! Honestly, ridiculous.

If you want higher speed you have to increase developing time.
Here an example with DD-X developer, 1+4, Ilford agitation rhythm, 20°c, 6 min.:
ISO 40/17°:

Zone I: 0.03 logD
II : 0.11
III: 0.24
IV: 0.47
V: 0.72
VI: 1.07
VII: 1,42
VIII: 1.77
IX: 2.11
X: 2.4
Here now you have the perfect density for Zone V. But shadow detail is still a bit too low, but, much more important, the highlight are completely burned!
The density is already much too high at Zone VI, and extremely high from Zone VII onwards. That is not usable anymore.

I've been a BW photographer with my own lab for decades. I've used dozens of different films and developers during that time.
I've never had such a problematic film like this P30.
- the ASA 80 FF claims are totally wrong
- it is impossible to get both sufficient shadow and highlight detail at the same time with this film
- you either have to sacrifice shadow and middle tone detail, or you have to sacrifice highlight detail
- concerning sharpness and fineness of grain P30 is not better than PanF+, Delta 100, TMX, HR-50 or Acros
- in comparison to other films P30 has no advantage, only disadvantages
- I really hope FF can resolve all these problems and significantly improve this film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #223
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
I don’t particularly like the attached pic, but it does show that the film can deliver flat images too, under the right conditions. I’m looking forward to Ferrania resuming production (and hopefully, in 120).



Jim B.
Your picture demonstrates one of the main problems of this film quite well:
Even in this flat low contrast light the highlights are loosing detail: Her white shirt has no detail on the left side (from the viewers point; her right boob).
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #224
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
Personally I'll be delighted if P30 stays as it is. There is a learning curve and it's not an all-around black and white film. If it was a do everything film I'm sure it would fail in the marketplace as there are plenty of other cheaper options on the market for that. I see P30 as a slow, fine grain, high contrast choice, that rewards the same kind of care in exposure as a slide film requires.
I have to respectfully disagree.
P30 behaves not at all like modern reversal film. With reversal films I can get 6-10 stops of dynamic range (dependant of the film).
That is impossible with P30.
And:
Where are the real advantages of P30 in comparison to other BW films?
Sharpness, grain? No. P30 is not better in this respect compared to PanF+, Adox HR-50, TMX, Delta 100, Acros, Retro 80S. The others are even often better.
And the others all have significantly real higher speed. And the better tonality, better characteristic curves.
With the films of the competitors it is possible without any problems to get both shadow and highlight detail at the same time.
And they are cheaper, too.
And if I want a more contrastier look with these films, I can get that as well. Push 1 stop, done.

Well, I hope FF can stay in the market. But not with such a product. It needs to be improved to be competitive.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #225
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,035
The results look quiet interesting it seems that film is not fully panchromatic, a bit contrasty but still more than 6 Stops dynamic range. I believe the product is still in the development phase so a lot can change I've never used the original Ferrania so I can't compare it to the original product, but I will try the film as soon as they sell it again.



css9450 images show both shadow and highlight detail and the contrast seems to be okay. So maybe the film works in real life and not so good in the lab (with step wedges etc...)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #226
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
I've been a BW photographer with my own lab for decades. I've used dozens of different films and developers during that time.
I've never had such a problematic film like this P30.
- the ASA 80 FF claims are totally wrong
- it is impossible to get both sufficient shadow and highlight detail at the same time with this film
- you either have to sacrifice shadow and middle tone detail, or you have to sacrifice highlight detail
- concerning sharpness and fineness of grain P30 is not better than PanF+, Delta 100, TMX, HR-50 or Acros
- in comparison to other films P30 has no advantage, only disadvantages
I've been watching this thread having given up on P30 after coming to these very same conclusions. I too have spent many decades shooting many films (and testing via densitometer), I found P30 to be too contrasty, and nearly impossible to process for darkroom printing. My best attempts required grade 1/2 to 0 and still had marginal tonality. I didn't go for a water bath development, which was going to be my next step to try and tame the contrast in this stuff. I'm glad to see some folks getting fair or better results with this, but it seems nearly every shot contains blown highlights and empty shadows. I would love to see FF succeed, but this is absolutely not a film I have any interest in continuing to battle.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #227
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
I have to respectfully disagree.
P30 behaves not at all like modern reversal film. With reversal films I can get 6-10 stops of dynamic range (dependant of the film).
That is impossible with P30.
And:
Where are the real advantages of P30 in comparison to other BW films?
Sharpness, grain? No. P30 is not better in this respect compared to PanF+, Adox HR-50, TMX, Delta 100, Acros, Retro 80S. The others are even often better.
And the others all have significantly real higher speed. And the better tonality, better characteristic curves.
With the films of the competitors it is possible without any problems to get both shadow and highlight detail at the same time.
And they are cheaper, too.
And if I want a more contrastier look with these films, I can get that as well. Push 1 stop, done.

Well, I hope FF can stay in the market. But not with such a product. It needs to be improved to be competitive.
You're respectfully disagreeing? Hold up - that's not how the internet works, man. We're good here, and I appreciate you sharing your numbers and work.

Like I said, I've only tried a few rolls and my mind can change, but I like this film as-is. I can appreciate that you're digging deeper for an objective measure of the difference in performance between this film and others, which is something I'd never do.

But people like what they like, objective testing be damned. You can line up a thousand scientists to tell me how marvelous and capable PanF is for instance, and I still won't shoot that stuff because I just don't like it. And I do like the P30 and a few others from your list and yet I don't know the dynamic range of a single one of them.

I like shooting different films for different occasions. If I want to use a slow film your list suggests there are plenty to choose from that all behave differently. I just want to add a P30 to that list. If Ferrania sees the need to change the product before relaunch I'm cool with that, and if they release it as-is, I'm a buyer.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #228
colker
-
 
colker is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: rio de janeiro
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post


Ferrania P30 at 80 ASA in D-76 1+1 13 minutes at 20 deg C.

great shot.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #229
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by colker View Post
great shot.
Thank you. For me, this shot would not have “worked” if there had been more shadow and highlight detail. That’s all I am saying. Is P30 imperfect or is it different? That’s a judgment call based on presupposed criteria, criteria which are not binding on our esthetic choices. I like P30 for what it is. I’m not good enough to wet print, so I scan everything. That might enter into why I find it useful and others don’t, but in my workflow it succeeds for me, though I am still trying to get the best out of it, for my specific purposes. It is not a film I use all the time for everything, I don’t have one of those, thankfully. Can I reliably get the results I enjoy this film for by using a “better” film, no I can’t. Close, yes, but not the same.
I am also ambivalent about the desirability of perfect lenses to the exclusion of imperfect lenses, except for studio product photography, so my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. If every emulsion was perfect, by the theoretical standards we can put numbers on, then every emulsion would yield results looking the same. Numbingly. It’s just not a goal I have as it strikes me as sterile. That’s a personal opinion, not a judgment on others. It’s always possible I don’t know what I am doing.

Last edited by Larry Cloetta : 12-11-2018 at 06:31. Reason: For content
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #230
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
No problem, here we go:
I started the tests with Kodak T-Max developer. A developer with a very good capability of reaching high speed / high film sensivity. It also gives a more ideal, linear characteristic curve with most films.
For those who are not familiar with sensitometry:
The ISO norm defines film speed at Zone I with a logD = 0.1.
I make my prints with an enlarger with a combination of a double condensor with a mix-box. So my target density values for Zone V are 0.65-0.7 logD and for Zone VIII 1.2-1.25 logD.

To make things short I will not post all results and curves but only the resulting ("best") curves:
Developer: T-Max, dilution 1+4, Kodak agitation rhythm, 20°c developer temperature, 5:15 min. developing time.

First term will be the Zone, second term the density at that zone.
Results for ISO 32/16° (all higher speeds completely failed in the tests).
Zone I: 0.00 logD
II : 0.03
III: 0.09
IV: 0.23
V: 0.4
VI: 0.62
VII: 0.92
VIII: 1.23
IX: 1.53
X: 1.75

You see immediately the severe problems with this film:
- the speed is much too low
- even at ISO 32/16° the shadows are completely empty with no detail, the real speed is much lower
- density in the middle zones is also too low
- density in Zones IX and X is a bit too high.
To get sufficient shadow detail you would have to lower the sensivity / speed to ISO 12/12° or 16/13°. But then you would get very short developing times (danger of inconsistence) and the density in the highlights would further increase, which is bad.

Next developer: FX-39, dilution 1+19, 11:30 min. ; Agitation: 1x per minute; 20°c.
ISO 16/13°:
Zone I: 0.02 logD
II : 0.07
III: 0.18
IV: 0.36
V: 0.56
VI: 0.79
VII: 1.01
VIII: 1.21
IX: 1.38
X: 1.50
FX-39 is a compensating developer. That works in this case quite well in the highlights. The middle tones have too low density. The shadows are empty.
And all that at ISO 16/13°.
FF claims this film to be a ASA 80 speed film! Honestly, ridiculous.

If you want higher speed you have to increase developing time.
Here an example with DD-X developer, 1+4, Ilford agitation rhythm, 20°c, 6 min.:
ISO 40/17°:

Zone I: 0.03 logD
II : 0.11
III: 0.24
IV: 0.47
V: 0.72
VI: 1.07
VII: 1,42
VIII: 1.77
IX: 2.11
X: 2.4
Here now you have the perfect density for Zone V. But shadow detail is still a bit too low, but, much more important, the highlight are completely burned!
The density is already much too high at Zone VI, and extremely high from Zone VII onwards. That is not usable anymore.

I've been a BW photographer with my own lab for decades. I've used dozens of different films and developers during that time.
I've never had such a problematic film like this P30.
- the ASA 80 FF claims are totally wrong
- it is impossible to get both sufficient shadow and highlight detail at the same time with this film
- you either have to sacrifice shadow and middle tone detail, or you have to sacrifice highlight detail
- concerning sharpness and fineness of grain P30 is not better than PanF+, Delta 100, TMX, HR-50 or Acros
- in comparison to other films P30 has no advantage, only disadvantages
- I really hope FF can resolve all these problems and significantly improve this film.
Thanks for doing this. Will see if I can plot this out and correlate it to my experience with some different developer regimens.
Seriously, thanks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #231
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
Your picture demonstrates one of the main problems of this film quite well: Even in this flat low contrast light the highlights are loosing detail: Her white shirt has no detail on the left side (from the viewers point; her right boob).
Of course it doesn't have detail, that part of her top is pure white. What were you expecting to see? Threads?

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #232
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Thank you. For me, this shot would not have “worked” if there had been more shadow and highlight detail. That’s all I am saying. I like P30 for what it is. I’m not good enough to wet print, so I scan everything. That might enter into it, but in my workflow it succeeds for me, though I am still trying to get the best out of it, for my specific purposes. It is not a film I use all the time for everything, I don’t have one of those, thankfully. Can I reliably get the results I enjoy this film for by using a “better” film, no I can’t. Close, yes, but not the same.
I am ambivalent as well about the desirability of perfect lenses to the exclusion of imperfect lenses, except for studio product photography, so my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. If every emulsion was perfect, by the theoretical standards we can put numbers on, then every emulsion would yield results looking the same. Numbingly. It’s just not a goal I share as it strikes me as sterile. That’s a personal opinion, not a judgment on others. It’s always possible I don’t know what I am doing.
I too use objectively inferior lenses from time to time that I happen to love, despite weird MTF charts. I've seen some people pairing P30 with vintage cameras or lower contrast lenses, and I think they might be on to something there, allowing the film to add snap to their older glass. Matching lens to film to developer to paper is a good idea.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #233
Godfrey
somewhat colored
 
Godfrey's Avatar
 
Godfrey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Silly Valley, California, USA
Posts: 9,193
What I love about shooting film is its imperfections and lack of consistency: its defects, as it were.. It requires that you be creative and work for what you can get with it, regardless of its deficiencies.

For that reason, whatever craziness is in P30 is just fine by me. After all, I also shoot Washi-120 and instant film which have FAR more limitations as a recording medium, and I love the results.


Bicycle #2 - Santa Clara 2017
Washi-120 with Hasselblad 500CM+Makro-Planar 120mm



FCC at 2000 Miles - Cupertino 2018
Polaroid Originals SX-70 B&W with MiNT SLR670m

If I'm looking for "perfection" and consistency, I pull out my Leica M-D or CL.

I'm looking forward to shooting some of my precious five rolls of P30 soon!

G
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #234
michaelphoto
Registered User
 
michaelphoto's Avatar
 
michaelphoto is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Denmark
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by jawarden View Post
I too use objectively inferior lenses from time to time that I happen to love, despite weird MTF charts. I've seen some people pairing P30 with vintage cameras or lower contrast lenses, and I think they might be on to something there, allowing the film to add snap to their older glass. Matching lens to film to developer to paper is a good idea.
I think you have a strong point here. Though i wouldnt call my 1939 uncoated Elmar inferior, i had this result with P30 EI 50 in 1+1 diluted Xtol in slow continuos processing by hand in Agfa Rondinax tank.

3.die test af P30. Xtol 1+1 E.I. 50 by Michael G, on Flickr

Michael.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-11-2018   #235
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
Of course it doesn't have detail, that part of her top is pure white. What were you expecting to see? Threads?

Jim B.
An example of what he is talking about is the collar ribbing on the shirt. you can see it on our right but it disappears on our left. At least in the pic u posted (perhaps u see it on the original)
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #236
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
Thanks for doing this. Will see if I can plot this out and correlate it to my experience with some different developer regimens.
Seriously, thanks.
No problem at all.
I am glad if my detailed tests are helpful for you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #237
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
Of course it doesn't have detail, that part of her top is pure white. What were you expecting to see? Threads?

Jim B.
Normally white on shirts is not a so brillant white that there is no detail at all anymore. You normally still do see some detail like fibre structure.
White of clothes normally are on Zone VIII or IX on a proper exposed and developed BW negative. So with still a little bit detail.
But here with P30 this white of the shirt is in Zone X or even higher, without any detail.
And that is the problem I have described above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #238
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
An example of what he is talking about is the collar ribbing on the shirt. you can see it on our right but it disappears on our left. At least in the pic u posted (perhaps u see it on the original)

Exactly. That is another example.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #239
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
What I love about shooting film is its imperfections and lack of consistency: its defects, as it were
Each to his own. If you like that, do that.
I am not in that low-fi thing. And I don't think that film is generally more imperfect than digital. They are just different mediums, with own characteristics.
Perfect pictures can be easily made with film, too. Photographers have done that for more than 100 years.
And 25 years ago no one in the photography world would have described film as 'imperfect'. This 'imperfect' mantra was created by the lomography, Impossible Project and low-fi marketing people to sell their often crappy products.

Back to Film Ferrania P30 alpha:
As said above, I wish Film Ferrania success with their renovated little factory. I've been one of their first Kickstarter backers.
But for a sustainable long-term success they must significantly improve the quality. They should consider P30 alpha as a "learning process" for further significant quality improvement.

For me, personally, the current situation looks like this:
I need an excellent slower film for high quality work and bigger enlargements.
P30 alpha failed because of the reasons explained above. And it is not available anymore. And we currently don't know when it will come back.
But I need a film right now.
At Photokina Adox has introduced its new Adox HR-50 film. During the last two months I did lots of tests with it. And compared it to FF P30. Adox HR-50 is the better film in all parameters.
HR-50
- has a much better characteristic curve
- has better shadow detail than P30
- has much better highlight detail than P30; it is almost impossible to get burned highlights with HR-50
- has much finer grain
- has better sharpness
- has significantly higher resolution
- is much cheaper
- and it is easily available.
I am quite satisfied so far with HR-50. A really nice film with excellent price-performance ratio.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #240
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
Each to his own. If you like that, do that.
I am not in that low-fi thing. And I don't think that film is generally more imperfect than digital. They are just different mediums, with own characteristics.
Perfect pictures can be easily made with film, too. Photographers have done that for more than 100 years.
And 25 years ago no one in the photography world would have described film as 'imperfect'. This 'imperfect' mantra was created by the lomography, Impossible Project and low-fi marketing people to sell their often crappy products.

Back to Film Ferrania P30 alpha:
As said above, I wish Film Ferrania success with their renovated little factory. I've been one of their first Kickstarter backers.
But for a sustainable long-term success they must significantly improve the quality. They should consider P30 alpha as a "learning process" for further significant quality improvement.

For me, personally, the current situation looks like this:
I need an excellent slower film for high quality work and bigger enlargements.
P30 alpha failed because of the reasons explained above. And it is not available anymore. And we currently don't know when it will come back.
But I need a film right now.
At Photokina Adox has introduced its new Adox HR-50 film. During the last two months I did lots of tests with it. And compared it to FF P30. Adox HR-50 is the better film in all parameters.
HR-50
- has a much better characteristic curve
- has better shadow detail than P30
- has much better highlight detail than P30; it is almost impossible to get burned highlights with HR-50
- has much finer grain
- has better sharpness
- has significantly higher resolution
- is much cheaper
- and it is easily available.
I am quite satisfied so far with HR-50. A really nice film with excellent price-performance ratio.
"Each to his own. If you like that, do that." Words to live by!

I haven't seen that Adox film available here yet but I'll be happy to try it out. I recall they had a slow film available but it needed its own developer iirc so I passed due to expense and hassle. But the more choice the better.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:54.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.