Ferrania P30: curve shape and (un)coated lenses

[Film-Niko]

{Moderator note:
This thread was split off from the overall Ferrania thread, with the first post of this thread being a reply to this particular post in the 'mother' thread.}

Well, they did get their confection machine going so they no longer have to outsource that part of the process. I think they said they had manufactured 4000 rolls start to finish in house. They appear to be taking the slow and steady wins the race approach. That and as I understand it there are only a few guys doing the work. They are still at it after all these years so that shows some dedication. Saying they were going to make 120 probably wasn't the best move since it gives people something to grouse about as it didn't happen yesterday and who knows if and when it will happen. I might even buy some of their film once a steady stream of it is available. At least they are not rebranding film and lying about it.

+1.
At least they try and work very hard, and do all that in their factory. No rebranding and lying about it as so many others in the market, as you correctly say.

And I say that as someone who has tested their P30 film really intensively and is not satiesfied at all with it:
- the data about the real speed - light sensitivity is completely off and much too high in ISO norm terms
- the HD curve of that film is extremely problematic as you either get details in the shadows, but then blown-out highlights, or details in the highlights, but then blocked, detail-less shadows; you have to decide whether you want to have detail in shadows or highlights, both at the same time is impossible
- the price is too high compared to the competition
- if I want that high-contrast look I can achieve that as well with many other films using underexposure and push-processing, and at much lower costs.

But despite my critic because of my test results I appreciate generally their efforts to establish a real film production from emulsion making to coating to converting to the final end product, all by themselves in-house.
It is extremely difficult and takes time.
I hope that they are successful in the mid- and long run, introducing more and better film types later. Hopefully even color in the long run.
And I also hope that ADOX, and also FilmoTec/Inoviscoat (under their new roof using the ORWO brand name) will be successful with their efforts.
The film market is meanwhile big enough again to comfortably sustain many real film manufacturers.

 

[faberryman]

The original box said the film speed was ASA 80. I believe they used that because they were using the old emulsion formula and back in the day when it was tested it was ASA 80 so they assumed it would still be ASA 80. I think I remember them saying they didn't have the time and expertise to retest it according to ISO standards. I don't know what the new boxes say.

 

[Film-Niko]

The original box said the film speed was ASA 80. I believe they used that because they were using the old emulsion formula and back in the day when it was tested it was ASA 80 so they assumed it would still be ASA 80. I think I remember them saying they didn't have the time and expertise to retest it according to ISO standards. I don't know what the new boxes say.

No matter whether you are referring to current ISO norm, or older norms like the (older) ASA of some decades ago, film speed rating is referring to and based on shadow detail.
Period.
And no matter what developer you are using (I've used several "speed increasing" type developers with it), it is impossible to get sufficient shadow detail at an EI of 80.
I had to go down to EI 20-32 to get details in the shadow zones (using the zone system).

 

[faberryman]

No matter whether you are referring to current ISO norm, or older norms like the (older) ASA of some decades ago, film speed rating is referring to and based on shadow detail.
Period.
And no matter what developer you are using (I've used several "speed increasing" type developers with it), it is impossible to get sufficient shadow detail at an EI of 80.
I had to go down to EI 20-32 to get details in the shadow zones (using the zone system).

Many people have tested the film with a variety of developers and arrived at EI ranging from 12-80. Most of those were visual tests. I remember at least one person testing using the Zone System standard and a densitometer, but I have forgotten what EI he arrived at.

 

[Film-Niko]

Many people have tested the film and arrived at EI ranging from 12-80. Most of those were visual tests. I remember at least one person testing using the Zone System standard and a densitometer, but I have forgotten what EI he arrived at.

I have used a calibrated densitometer. And evaluated the HD curves = characteristic curves.

 

[Mackinaw]

I had to go down to EI 20-32 to get details in the shadow zones (using the zone system).

I don't use the zone system, but I shoot P30 at an EI 25. That seems to tame the film's inherent high contrast. I process in either Xtol or Rodinal.

Jim B.

 

[Harry Callahan]

+1.
At least they try and work very hard, and do all that in their factory. No rebranding and lying about it as so many others in the market, as you correctly say.

And I say that as someone who has tested their P30 film really intensively and is not satiesfied at all with it:
- the data about the real speed - light sensitivity is completely off and much too high in ISO norm terms
- the HD curve of that film is extremely problematic as you either get details in the shadows, but then blown-out highlights, or details in the highlights, but then blocked, detail-less shadows; you have to decide whether you want to have detail in shadows or highlights, both at the same time is impossible
- the price is too high compared to the competition
- if I want that high-contrast look I can achieve that as well with many other films using underexposure and push-processing, and at much lower costs.

But despite my critic because of my test results I appreciate generally their efforts to establish a real film production from emulsion making to coating to converting to the final end product, all by themselves in-house.
It is extremely difficult and takes time.
I hope that they are successful in the mid- and long run, introducing more and better film types later. Hopefully even color in the long run.
And I also hope that ADOX, and also FilmoTec/Inoviscoat (under their new roof using the ORWO brand name) will be successful with their efforts.
The film market is meanwhile big enough again to comfortably sustain many real film manufacturers.

I am not an expert on this, this is just a theory of mine, but what lenses did you use for test shots?
Were they uncoated, single-coated or multi-coated lenses?
Because P30 was formulated in the early 60s iirc, back then there were no multi-coated lenses and single coated lenses were around for like 15 years.
As single-coated lenses produce more flare than multi-coated lenses, flare which does brighten up dark areas on the print, could it be possible that film manufacturers did compensate for the lenses of their time by formulating film which has weak(er) response in the shadows?
Also as the lens needs a source to produce flare from, by reflecting light between the single lens elements, it will reflect most where is most light -> bright areas of the subject. This means a single coated lens is "stealing" light from the brightest areas, to spread it on the entire film, but usually you only notice this brightening in the dark areas of a print.
So by stealing light from the bright areas and spreading it on the dark areas, a single coated lens will basically decrease contrast. To compensate for this you`d need a film being too weak on shadows and too strong on highlights -> a high(er) contrast film. Which P30 is.
Fomapan R, being formulated in the 50s me think, also has this behavior, though it does not seem to be as intense as with P30.

And as in the early 60s single-coated lenses were around for only like 15 years, camera equipment was much more of a luxury as it is today, it is likely that quite some still were using uncoated lenses, which do reduce contrast even more than a single coated lens.
What if the formulation of P30 (but also Fomapan R) was intentionally to compensate for this?
Of course you cannot produce true detail in dark areas by just spreading flare across the entire neg, but a higher contrast film should counteract the flaws of a single- or even uncoated lens to make the picture look "more correct".

Therefore i wonder what visual effect a single-coated or even uncoated lens would have on P30.

 

[Cholentpot]

I am not an expert on this, this is just a theory of mine, but what lenses did you use for test shots?
Were they uncoated, single-coated or multi-coated lenses?
Because P30 was formulated in the early 60s iirc, back then there were no multi-coated lenses and single coated lenses were around for like 15 years.
As single-coated lenses produce more flare than multi-coated lenses, flare which does brighten up dark areas on the print, could it be possible that film manufacturers did compensate for the lenses of their time by formulating film which has weak(er) response in the shadows?
Also as the lens needs a source to produce flare from, by reflecting light between the single lens elements, it will reflect most where is most light -> bright areas of the subject. This means a single coated lens is "stealing" light from the brightest areas, to spread it on the entire film, but usually you only notice this brightening in the dark areas of a print.
So by stealing light from the bright areas and spreading it on the dark areas, a single coated lens will basically decrease contrast. To compensate for this you`d need a film being too weak on shadows and too strong on highlights -> a high(er) contrast film. Which P30 is.
Fomapan R, being formulated in the 50s me think, also has this behavior, though it does not seem to be as intense as with P30.

And as in the early 60s single-coated lenses were around for only like 15 years, camera equipment was much more of a luxury as it is today, it is likely that quite some still were using uncoated lenses, which do reduce contrast even more than a single coated lens.
What if the formulation of P30 (but also Fomapan R) was intentionally to compensate for this?
Of course you cannot produce true detail in dark areas by just spreading flare across the entire neg, but a higher contrast film should counteract the flaws of a single- or even uncoated lens to make the picture look "more correct".

Therefore i wonder what visual effect a single-coated or even uncoated lens would have on P30.

Does single coated lens affect any other film like this? I use all sorts of lenses from all sorts of eras and have not noticed a significant speed gain or loss due to lens coatings using all sorts of film.

 

[Agulliver]

In my experience, single coated and uncoated vintage lenses certainly affect the rendition of colour films. But I haven't noticed much difference with any B&W films.

Ferrania P30 is just a contrasty film and also designed for developers other than Rondinal. Ideally D96 which isn't readily available but D76/ID-11 work well. It is still inherently a high contrast film though. That's it's aesthetic.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Does single coated lens affect any other film like this? I use all sorts of lenses from all sorts of eras and have not noticed a significant speed gain or loss due to lens coatings using all sorts of film.

I`m not saying that it will solve all problems with P30, but i have found single-coated lenses to produce less contrasty pictures/negs. If contrast of a film is too high, you can overexpose and underdevelop. By that you reduce contrast of the neg, but of course loose speed. If a lens now would completely compensate for a too high contrast film, you no longer had to pull it and by that could keep actual speed.
And as a single- or uncoated enlarging lens again would reduce contrast of the neg, it should again help to tame a high contrast film without loosing speed.

 

[pbromaghin]

In my experience, single coated and uncoated vintage lenses certainly affect the rendition of colour films. But I haven't noticed much difference with any B&W films.

Ferrania P30 is just a contrasty film and also designed for developers other than Rondinal. Ideally D96 which isn't readily available but D76/ID-11 work well. It is still inherently a high contrast film though. That's it's aesthetic.

After experimenting with Pan-f processed in D23, I wonder if P30 is a good candidate for the same - Shoot at half the speed to get more bottom end and let the developer tame the highlights? I may have to try this

 

[Scott Micciche]

After experimenting with Pan-f processed in D23, I wonder if P30 is a good candidate for the same - Shoot at half the speed to get more bottom end and let the developer tame the highlights? I may have to try this

I've been developing in Barry Thornton's Two-bath and find it very good for the P30 at lower EI. 4 minutes each bath.

 

[gone]

As single-coated lenses produce more flare than multi-coated lenses, flare which does brighten up dark areas on the print

Funny, the best shots I have are from uncoated lenses. A Summar that I had was full of haze. Had it cleaned, and afterwards it was amazingly sharp w/ classic Leica IQ. Easilly as good as a Summicron, but had more character.

These stories about Summars being bad lenses for "dreamy" pics back in the day were because of this issue. Many people use uncoated lenses because to them they're the best lenses for B&W film photography. Modern lenses are too sharp, too contrasty, and don't have very good IQ. Photos from them look unrealistic and unnatural. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

Flare doesn't brighten up a print, it causes loss of resolution and decreases the IQ you get from that lens. Put a hood on it, a Y. fltr for more contrast, and keep the sun out of the frame.

 

[cullah]

Funny, the best shots I have are from uncoated lenses. A Summar that I had was full of haze. Had it cleaned, and afterwards it was amazingly sharp w/ classic Leica IQ. Easilly as good as a Summicron, but had more character.

These stories about Summars being bad lenses for "dreamy" pics back in the day were because of this issue. Many people use uncoated lenses because to them they're the best lenses for B&W film photography. Modern lenses are too sharp, too contrasty, and don't have very good IQ. Photos from them look unrealistic and unnatural. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

Flare doesn't brighten up a print, it causes loss of resolution and decreases the IQ you get from that lens. Put a hood on it, a Y. fltr for more contrast, and keep the sun out of the frame.

 

[cullah]

i have been using a 50mm coated sumar and find it sharp as a tack with beautiful bokeh. of all my lenses it has the most leica glow. it is a truly outstanding lens. another winner, in my opinion, is the 135 tele-elmar.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Funny, the best shots I have are from uncoated lenses. A Summar that I had was full of haze. Had it cleaned, and afterwards it was amazingly sharp w/ classic Leica IQ. Easilly as good as a Summicron, but had more character.

These stories about Summars being bad lenses for "dreamy" pics back in the day were because of this issue. Many people use uncoated lenses because to them they're the best lenses for B&W film photography. Modern lenses are too sharp, too contrasty, and don't have very good IQ. Photos from them look unrealistic and unnatural. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

Flare doesn't brighten up a print, it causes loss of resolution and decreases the IQ you get from that lens. Put a hood on it, a Y. fltr for more contrast, and keep the sun out of the frame.

The question is what you consider "better shots". Technically flare is a problem which does reduce image quality, basically because something will be exposed onto the neg which has nothing to do with the subject you shoot. As you say, modern lenses can be too contrasty for B&W, reducing contrast by a single-coated lens for example can help - but this doesn`t mean that the picture is technically correct.
And as i said before, flare of the taking lens can brighten up shadows which then will be a little brighter on the print. This then can be perceived as a "better shot", because there is more detail visible in the shadows.

Also, i'm afraid, you`re contradicting a little. You say that you get best shots from uncoated lenses, while saying that flare does decrease resolution and IQ - and its them uncoated lenses which produce most flare.
...

Anyway i`m not in for a fight here, i`m just wondering whether single- or uncoated lenses could help on P30.

 

[Cubao]

I don't use the zone system, but I shoot P30 at an EI 25. That seems to tame the film's inherent high contrast. I process in either Xtol or Rodinal.

May I ask how do you process it? Times and agitation. Thank you

 

[faberryman]

Anyway i`m not in for a fight here, i`m just wondering whether single- or uncoated lenses could help on P30.

It seems to me using problematic lenses to improve problematic film is a problematic approach. Why not just use a film without excessive contrast and virtually any lens manufactured in the last fifty years?

 

[Mackinaw]

May I ask how do you process it? Times and agitation. Thank you

For P30 shot at EI 25 this past summer, I used Xtol 1+1, 12 minutes at 68 F. Agitation for the first 15 seconds, then five seconds of agitation every 30 minutes. I scan, not wet darkroom. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting.

Jim B.

 

[Cubao]

For P30 shot at EI 25 this past summer, I used Xtol 1+1, 12 minutes at 68 F. Agitation for the first 15 seconds, then five seconds of agitation every 30 minutes. I scan, not wet darkroom. I'm very happy with the results I'm getting.

Thank you Jim. I am assume every 30 seconds, not minutes, right?

 

[Mackinaw]

Thank you Jim. I am assume every 30 seconds, not minutes, right?

Yep, five seconds of agitation every 30 seconds.

Jim B.

 

[flavio81]

As single-coated lenses produce more flare than multi-coated lenses, f

It is not as simple as that.

 

[Film-Niko]

I am not an expert on this, this is just a theory of mine, but what lenses did you use for test shots?
Were they uncoated, single-coated or multi-coated lenses?

You are indeed no expert on this, otherwise you would not ask me this question .
It really does not matter at all which lens I have used for this test, because a different lens would not have changed the results at all.
When I am doing the evaluation of the characteristic curve I photograph the 18% grey card with even, diffuse light from behind.
And then the results are the same no matter whether you are using an uncoated, single-coated or multi-coated lens.
The characteristic curve is a film-typical characteristic.
And you cannot solve the problematic characteristics of this film by using other lenses.

 

[Film-Niko]

It seems to me using problematic lenses to improve problematic film is a problematic approach. Why not just use a film without excessive contrast and virtually any lens manufactured in the last fifty years?

+1.
I totally agree.

 

[pbromaghin]

I've been developing in Barry Thornton's Two-bath and find it very good for the P30 at lower EI. 4 minutes each bath.

I thought I understood this, but after further consideration, it is more than a bit confusing to me. If I use D-23 in a non-replenishment mode, it is essentially the first bath in Thornton's 2-bath. AIUI, Sodium metaborate in the replenisher is used to buffer the leftovers of earlier processing. What does it do all by itself in the 2nd bath after the 1st bath is gone?