Ferrania P30: curve shape and (un)coated lenses

[koraks]

Flare is reducing detail.

If you mean, in the sense that it reduces contrast, then yes, I agree, although I'd formulate it differently.

You will not see more real details in the shadows.

As I argued in my post, there's a small part in the toe of the curve, just where it takes off, where you may gain a small bit of differentiation as a result to the 'quasi-preflash' exposure that veiling glare adds.
I agree with you that it's not much, and also that the costs it comes at are probably not worth this slight benefit.

What I hoped to achieve with my post is to clear up a possible miscommunication between the two of you as you seemed to be addressing different concepts. And also to make it more plausible that it really is sensible to consider the different elements of an image-making system, in this case for example (but not limited to) optical characteristics of a lens and the H/D curve of a film, since they do in fact interact - without being directly causally related to each other, of course.

 

[Film-Niko]

If you mean, in the sense that it reduces contrast, then yes, I agree, although I'd formulate it differently.

Flare is reducing detail by covering the fine details. As I am not a native English speaker, I cannot describe it in a better way by words.
But it is very clearly visible in pictures. Just have a look at the lens tests of lenstip.com or Christopher Frost on youtube, where lens flare and ghosting is tested with every lens.
And with those lenses which suffer from flare you can easily see that real detail is lost by the flare.
Just three examples:

Mitakon Speedmaster 50 mm f/0.95 review - Ghosting and flares - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Mitakon Speedmaster 35 mm f/0.95 review - Ghosting, flares and transmission - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

Venus Optics LAOWA Argus 25 mm f/0.95 MFT review - Ghosting and flares - LensTip.com

Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.

www.lenstip.com

As I argued in my post, there's a small part in the toe of the curve, just where it takes off, where you may gain a small bit of differentiation as a result to the 'quasi-preflash' exposure that veiling glare adds.

That are two different things: Additional density is not automatically real detail.
Please look at the sample pictures above: The flares take the real detail away, in the parts with (heavy) flare you just have additional density by irradiation / blooming. And that does not help you at all, it makes things worse.

I agree with you that it's not much, and also that the costs it comes at are probably not worth this slight benefit.

You need about 2-3 stops more exposure (depending on developer) - real exposure of reflected light from the subject - from the nominal box speed to get reasonable shadow detail with P30. But with the additional exposure you also get problems with the highlights because of P30 problematic inherent HD curve.

So even if you would get a slight benefit by flares, it would not solve the problem.
But as explained in my postings above: Flares do not appear "magically only in shadows" but across the whole image (depending on light direction). And therefore flares do not change the HD curve.

 

[Harry Callahan]

O.k., the correct technical term for that is light transmission, and not flare.
That is also measured by the T-stop value (in addition to f-stop), which gives you the real "light-power" of a lens.
Uncoated or single-coated lenses have lower / worse light transmission than multi-coated lenses, and therefore also a worse T-stop.




No, there will not be any additional light!! See above, the light transmission / T-stop value of an uncoated or single coated lens is lower than of a multicoated lens.
Less light is going through the lens.



No, no, no.
That is not happening. There is no magic "stealing light from the bright areas and transferring them to shadows" made internally by an uncoated or single coated lens.
Because the worse light transmission affects the whole picture.
And because if that would really be the case, then logically two other things would happen:
1. The characteristic curve of the film would change with higher density in the shadows and lower density in the highlight zones.
2. Your film speed would be increased.

But as we all know, that two things do not happen: Neither is the curve shape changed with a worse-coated lens, nor do you get higher real speed with such a lens (just the opposite, because of the worse T-stop / worse light transmission you loose real speed).

Therefore you cannot solve the inherent problems of P30 by using worse lenses.
Of course, if you don't trust physical laws just buy several old lenses, lots of P30 and chemistry and try it.
But be assured, it will be a huge waste of time and money (and I just want to protect you from that mistake).

You started on light transmission, i was talking about flare (fog) all the time. I never claimed a single- or uncoated lens to transmit more light than a multicoated lens - and i also said so.
I am talking about the less coated lens to produce more flare which will be spread on the neg and will give additional light on the shadows. You`re mistaking this for magically increased light transmission for quite a while now, no matter what i say.
Koraks on the other hand does understand what i mean.

The fewer coated lens has to take light from somewhere to produce flare at all and it will take this light from the bright parts of the subject. Do you know how flare is produced inside a lens?
1. There will be higher densitiy in the shadows and lower densitiy in the highlights, but the curve of the film will not be changed at all. The contrast the film will see during exposure will change - and that`s what i`ve been saying several times, too. You kept insisting on the curve not to change - and i said it doesn't have to change and it won`t. Also several times.
2.No, speed will not increase as there only is light being moved from the highlights to the shadows. You`re still mistaking flare (fog) for increased light transmission.

Therefore a fewer coated lens should be able to counteract P30.

 

[Harry Callahan]

I think you may be referring to something else. AFAIK @Harry Callahan is talking about flare, in the sense of 'veiling glare', which does indeed reduce overall contrast by illuminating shadows that would otherwise remain darker. See e.g. this explanation by Imatest: https://www.imatest.com/docs/veilingglare/

What veiling glare will do is create density (on a negative image forming medium) in shadows. As such, it will also interact with the toe behavior of the medium as there's a point where this additional shadow exposure sensitizes the medium in the same way a preflash does, so it will allow the capture of some shadow detail that would not be recorded when using an optical stack with less glare. Note that this only happens in a select part of the toe region of the film.
What veiling glare will not do is create detail/contrast in those shadows, or significantly affect straight-line or shoulder behavior of the medium, since there is no significant decrease in exposure happening in those parts of the curve.

All combined, an optical system with a large amount of veiling glare will reduce overall contrast by making shadows lighter, possibly capturing marginal detail in those areas (albeit still with low contrast/poor separation). The severity of the effect changes with the amount of glare. As such, the effect is relatively easy to reconstruct by a simple A/B test with a glare-prone lens with and without hood and a light source just outside the image frame, and then comparing the captures.

Whether it is an effective strategy to use a lens that is particularly prone to glare as a means to compensate for undesired film curve behavior (or vice versa) is up to the individual photographer or cinematographer to decide. Personally, I think it's a tricky strategy since it is very prone to per-shot conditions, specific glare behavior of the lens and the specific characteristics of the film that need to be addressed. That makes it a rather difficult to predict set of interactions. I'm sure high-end cinematographers could expound lengthily on how to make thos controllable, as it's a phenomenon that can indeed be exploited deliberately for creative purposes.
For the still photographer and especially amateurs, I can imagine that it can simply be a fun and somewhat effective 'workaround' to combine a flare-prone lens with a film that has a pronounced S-curve behavior and get pleasing (albeit somewhat unpredictable) results. Personally, I'd rather choose to use a properly coated lens with decent optical characteristics and avoid the toe of the curve in those cases where it's needed by simply adding some exposure, perhaps combined with some reduced development.

That's exactly what i`m trying to say. A single- or uncoated lens will produce more flare and by that brighten up shadows. And P30 might have been designed for such lenses as there were no multicoated lenses when P30 was formulated.

Further lens flare does not contain image information in the first place, it just does brighten up shadows - but it should be able though to help on true detail in the shadows.
There is a threshold with silver grains. A minimum of light needs to hit a silver grain for it to develop at all. With P30 this threshold is higher, because of which there is fewer shadow detail. If now the shadows are hit by flare this will add up to the true detail and should lift some shadow detail above threshold - and the grain does develop at all, while it would not develop without flare.

In addition to that amount of flare produced can be controlled in theory, by the aperture. So depending on the subject it theoretically is possible to adjust flare to the needed amount - and by that get better shadow detail with a film like P30.
I am not saying that it is easy or convenient, but it should be possible. As said before, i`m just looking for a way to better get along with P30. Modern gear of course is more convenient and predictable.

 

[Harry Callahan]

You should not mix "single-coated" with "uncoated" lenses in the same basket. There are single-coated lenses that are very contrasty.

Single-coating has the same effectivity than multi-coating at a specific wavelength (i.e. green color). Some older lenses (i.e. Nikkors) had all their single-coatings optimized for maximum transmission of a specific wavelength. They are very contrasty at the expense of a suboptimal color balance. Additionally, what is often called a "single-coated" lens colloqially, might have dual-layer coatings, which are highly effective. Yet additionally, a so-called "multicoated" lens might have many single-coated surfaces.

Lenses with few group (i.e. Tessar, 6/4 gauss types) don't really need multicoating to give excellent contrast. One can compare the results, for example, of a single-coated Nikkor-H 50/2 with the multicoated Nikkor-H-C 50/2 of identical optical design. The contrast is the same, the multicoated lens has a litle bit more resistance to ghosting (which is not the same as "flare")



Sorry, this makes no sense.



Correct.



Correct



Sorry, your figures are not correct (and are far higher than actual values). First of all, there's not only one "figure" but a curve. Because transmission will change with wavelength. Second, it will depend on the refraction index of the glass and of the coating(s) themselves.

The light transmission of the complete lens system will depend on how the lens designer has designed to apply the coatings (either single- or multi-coatings): to get maximum transmission OR to get perfect color balance. Often it's a compromise, to get good (pro-quality) color reproduction and sufficiently high transmission.

Additionally, if we're speaking about old "single-coated" lenses, since the late 1950s there are different single-coating techniques, with dramatically different effectivity at light transmissions.




Correct if we consider the light transmission at all wavelengths (i.e. measuring red, green, blue).

I`m aware that lens coatings are a can of worms, but in the end a (all) multicoated lens will produce fewer flare (fog etc.) than a single- or uncoated lens. As said before i am not talking about ghost images or reflections of the aperture. I am talking about an even fog covering the entire neg.
When i say "shadows dropping with mc lenses" i mean fewer brightening of the shadows, they get darker because there is fewer flare (fog) - so they drop.
It was Film-Niko who started on light transmission, i am talking about flare (fog).

 

[Harry Callahan]

To summarize my previous post, let's see this graphic:

Light transmission of the 1960 Nikkor-S 58/1.4 (single-coated)
versus the circa-2010 Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4G (nikon modern super integrated coating)

More than 50 years of diffference... Yet the light transmission is the same at the 500nm wavelength (see my previous post), and even better in the older lens from 800nm onwards.

The modern lens seems to have been optimized for max performance at the green spectrum (again, see my previous post), and to try to supress infrared radiation.

BTW 91-93% of light transmission for a normal lens is pretty similar to what many multicoated lenses in the 1970s would achieve. See 2nd picture for an example.

View attachment 324878
Source:lenstip.com


Late 1970s test, Pop photo. See "transmittance". Multcoated lens.

View attachment 324879

Thank you for the information, but it was Film-Niko who started on light transmission.
I never talked about light transmission and i never claimed a fewer coated lens to have better light transmission than a multicoated.
Light transmission is irrelevant for my point. "Flare production" was relevant for my theory.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wasn't it Ansel Adams in one of his books who stated that an old, uncoated lens could impart flare on the negative, adding slightly more density to the shadows... opening them up, similar to pre-exposure? My old Wollensak Verito does that, same with my Reinhold Meniscus.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Wasn't it Ansel Adams in one of his books who stated that an old, uncoated lens could impart flare on the negative, adding slightly more density to the shadows... opening them up, similar to pre-exposure? My old Wollensak Verito does that, same with my Reinhold Meniscus.

Yes. It`s "The Negative", Basic Photo 2, released by Morgan&Morgan, inc. Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. . Chapter "Lens flare and image contrast" p.53 and following.

He is calling it FLARE - as some told me to use wrong terminology.

Quotation p. 55:

"1. With the coated lens, the shadows (low values) will be respresented as lower opacities, but their relative contrast will be retained.
2. With the uncoated lens, the shadows will be represented as higher opacities than in 1, but their relative contrast will be much less. Why? Flare light from the uncoated lens has scattered over the entire image and has added a small amount of opacity to all parts. But, of course, this addition of opacity is apparent only in the lower opacities; it is too small to make an apparent increase in the higher opacities."

End quote.

I am repeating this for days now, but some calling themselfes a "Good photographer" just don`t listen and talk about curves or light transmission - calling me esoteric and to neglect laws of physics.

I actually didn't wanted to draw a lower punch like this, but i think they finally got me to a lower level now.

 

[Film-Niko]

The fewer coated lens has to take light from somewhere to produce flare at all and it will take this light from the bright parts of the subject. Do you know how flare is produced inside a lens?
1. There will be higher densitiy in the shadows and lower densitiy in the highlights, but the curve of the film will not be changed at all.

This statement clearly shows that you have not understood at all the basics and what a HD curve / characteristic curve is.
And it clearly shows that you have never used a densitometer and evaluated a curve.
Because
- if you have higher density in the shadows and lower density in the highlights, the curve shape is of course changed!!
- you do not have lower density in the highlights caused by flare, flare - when it appears - is spreading over the whole frame and also adding density in the highlights: that is easily measured with the densitometer.

The contrast the film will see during exposure will change - and that`s what i`ve been saying several times, too. You kept insisting on the curve not to change - and i said it doesn't have to change and it won`t. Also several times.

And this statement again clearly shows that you have not understood at all what the HD curve is representing.
You are completely contradicting yourself!
You claim that the contrast will change, but not the curve. And that is totally impossible, because the curve represents / shows the contrast of a film-developer combination with a certain development time and agitation scheme.

2.No, speed will not increase as there only is light being moved from the highlights to the shadows. You`re still mistaking flare (fog) for increased light transmission.

And again your complete misunderstanding of physics and what a curve is: If "there only is light being moved from highlights to the shadows" as you claim, then of course you have a speed increase!
Because film speed is defined by shadow detail / shadow density!

But flare when occuring is spreading across the whole frame, and not only across shadows (just look at the more than 1,000 examples on lenstip.com and Chris Frost on yt). And you can measure it in highlights with a densitometer, too.

Your whole idea fails right in the beginning because you don't know what is really happening on the negative, because you are not evaluating your film-developer results and HD curves with a densitometer.

 

[Film-Niko]

As I argued in my post, there's a small part in the toe of the curve, just where it takes off, where you may gain a small bit of differentiation as a result to the 'quasi-preflash' exposure that veiling glare adds.
I agree with you that it's not much, and also that the costs it comes at are probably not worth this slight benefit.

I see your point, as you are referring to the (more theoretical, general possible) effect of a possible "pre-flashing".
From a physical / technical point of view pre-flashing works. But:
As someone who has experience with pre-flash techniques for almost 40 years I can say that getting decent results needs a lot of knowledge and care.
It is not easy, and it only works well and as intended when the amount of light used is extremely precise adjusted to the used materials and shooting conditions.
You have to pre-flash your film with a light intensity which must be measured very, very accurately. You have to do quite a lot of tests and have to use a densitometer. If you use not enough light, then you won't have an effect. If you use too much light, you will destroy the quality by overexposure.

And that's exactly the problem with flaring lenses: You cannot control the amount of flare (at least not as needed as for a working pre-flash set-up), and in most cases it will be too much and reducing detail rendition. For those who have no own experience with that I highly recommend looking at the sources I have given above, lenstip.com and Chris Frost's lens tests on yt. There you can see that in the regions of flare detail rendition is decreased and often totally gone and destroyed because of flare.

 

[Film-Niko]

I am talking about an even fog covering the entire neg.

And again you are contradicting yourself:
In your post above you have several times claimed that "there only is light being moved from highlights to the shadows".
And now you are saying the opposite, that "an even fog is covering the entire neg".

 

[Film-Niko]

Yes. It`s "The Negative", Basic Photo 2, released by Morgan&Morgan, inc. Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. . Chapter "Lens flare and image contrast" p.53 and following.

What Adams is describing is a more general and more theoretical aspect.
But that will not help you with P30:
- in normal, more diffuse lighting conditions the effect of additional flare or fog caused by the uncoated lens is much too low to have an effect on P30 (because P30 HD curve is too steep and shadow detail too low)
- in backligthing conditions there will be huge amounts of flare which destroy the detail rendition (see the links I've given above).

Uncoated or single coated lenses are just the wrong tool to solve P30 inherent problems. You will not gain anything.
The best method is to give that film 2-3 stops more exposure (compared to the official EI of 80) and try to find a developer, correct dilution and correct developing time which then give you a better and much less problematic HD curve.
And for that evaluations the best tool is using a very good densitometer and learn the basics of sensitometry (which is generally the best tool to get best results with BW film, no matter which film and developer you are using).

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It's always entertaining to see a poster insist they know better than Adams.

 

[Henning Serger]

It's always entertaining to see a poster insist they know better than Adams.

Well, Sal, if Adams would still live and would have tested P30, he would have been extremely disappointed and definitely would not have used it, because for his working workflow with the Zone System this film belongs to the worst films.
You simply cannot fully work in the Zone System approach with P30. The characteristic curve of that film is a real problem. And no matter what type of lens you are using.
Period.
I have tested this film very intensively with different developers and lenses.
And for all who are interested in very good or excellent tonality, and for all who are using the Zone System I highly recommend to avoid that film, because there are many much, much better film alternatives on the market for that approach at much lower costs.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It is a very tricky film. The first roll I ever shot was a bracketing roll. I have to use it at EI 20 to get a decent Zone I exposure... and that was in Xtol-R. If they ever do come out with a 120 version, I'll try it.

 

[Henning Serger]

Therefore a fewer coated lens should be able to counteract P30.

No, not really, and not in a significant or sufficient way.
It is more like adding another "big problem" to an existent "huge problem" .
Been there, done that. Reporting from very detailed tests and experience.

Hello Harry,

as someone who is running an independent photography test lab for many many years, and who has tested a countless number of different films, lenses and developers over the years - including P30 of course - I can ensure you that a fewer coated lens cannot fully solve the main problem of P30, which is its very problematic characteristic curve shape and the very limited flexibility of adjusting that curve to really satisfying levels.
In recent years no other film has shown so many difficulties in my test lab to get reasonable effective light sensitivity and usable tonality at the same time compared to other established films. All these tests did cost me lots of time, and in the end the results have always been significantly worse compared to other films (and no matter what lens being used).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It's always entertaining to see a poster insist they know better than Adams.

Well, Sal, if Adams would still live and would have tested P30, he would have been extremely disappointed and definitely would not have used it, because for his working workflow with the Zone System this film belongs to the worst films...

Henning, my comment related not to the film but rather a series of posts denying the efficacy of inefficient (or no) lens coatings as a workaround for films that need help in the shadows. As described by Adams, among others. As for P30, whether its problematic curve can be helped sufficiently by such an approach, I cannot say, since I have no interest in the film. I stick with proven products from major manufacturers.

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, my comment related not to the film but rather a series of posts denying the efficacy of inefficient (or no) lens coatings as a workaround for films that need help in the shadows. As described by Adams, among others.

Sal, Adams has described it, but not used it. Instead he has used and optimized the Zone System approach, and set standards. That says all. The Zone System technique is completely superior, because it gives you full control and can be perfectly adjusted to very different object and lighting contrasts, different films and developers.
That is the reason why it has become the state-of-the-art technique for fine art BW photography.
And none of these advantages is valid for using an uncoated lens. Therefore no experienced photographer is doing that, it is a completely inferior technique adding additional problems to your work. No matter whether you are using P30 or any other BW film. That is also the reason why in my workshops I teach the Zone System. It's by far the best method we have for perfect results. And in my opinion it does not make sense to waste time and resources for completely inferior approaches.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Harry Callahan]

This statement clearly shows that you have not understood at all the basics and what a HD curve / characteristic curve is.
And it clearly shows that you have never used a densitometer and evaluated a curve.
Because
- if you have higher density in the shadows and lower density in the highlights, the curve shape is of course changed!!
- you do not have lower density in the highlights caused by flare, flare - when it appears - is spreading over the whole frame and also adding density in the highlights: that is easily measured with the densitometer.



And this statement again clearly shows that you have not understood at all what the HD curve is representing.
You are completely contradicting yourself!
You claim that the contrast will change, but not the curve. And that is totally impossible, because the curve represents / shows the contrast of a film-developer combination with a certain development time and agitation scheme.



And again your complete misunderstanding of physics and what a curve is: If "there only is light being moved from highlights to the shadows" as you claim, then of course you have a speed increase!
Because film speed is defined by shadow detail / shadow density!

But flare when occuring is spreading across the whole frame, and not only across shadows (just look at the more than 1,000 examples on lenstip.com and Chris Frost on yt). And you can measure it in highlights with a densitometer, too.

Your whole idea fails right in the beginning because you don't know what is really happening on the negative, because you are not evaluating your film-developer results and HD curves with a densitometer.

You're still very focused on your curve.

Subject contrast differs with different subjects and light conditions. The film will see different contrasts with different subjects (and f-stops) - and the negatives will therefore have different contrast. That's why there are papers with different contrast, respectively multigrade papers. If contrast of the negative would not change through a roll of film, you could do all the prints with the same contrast paper - but if you shot different subjects under different light conditions at different f-stops, this won`t happen. Different subject contrast does create different negative contrast throughout one film being developed the same throughout.
Your solemn curve though does not change.

If light is moved from the highlights to the shadows, there is no speed increase - there is a decrease of (negative) contrast.

At least you now seem to concur that there is socalled "flare" which does spread onto the entire neg brightening up the shadows. "Additional Light" to the shadows, having nothing to do with light transmission of a lens.

 

[Harry Callahan]

And again you are contradicting yourself:
In your post above you have several times claimed that "there only is light being moved from highlights to the shadows".
And now you are saying the opposite, that "an even fog is covering the entire neg".

No. Reread what Adams said.

 

[Harry Callahan]

What Adams is describing is a more general and more theoretical aspect.
But that will not help you with P30:
- in normal, more diffuse lighting conditions the effect of additional flare or fog caused by the uncoated lens is much too low to have an effect on P30 (because P30 HD curve is too steep and shadow detail too low)
- in backligthing conditions there will be huge amounts of flare which destroy the detail rendition (see the links I've given above).

Uncoated or single coated lenses are just the wrong tool to solve P30 inherent problems. You will not gain anything.
The best method is to give that film 2-3 stops more exposure (compared to the official EI of 80) and try to find a developer, correct dilution and correct developing time which then give you a better and much less problematic HD curve.
And for that evaluations the best tool is using a very good densitometer and learn the basics of sensitometry (which is generally the best tool to get best results with BW film, no matter which film and developer you are using).

My theory is that single- or uncoated lenses *could* be a better match to P30 than multicoated (resp. high contrast) lenses, as lower contrast lenses brighten up shadows while reducing contrast in the shadows at the same time.
As P30 now is less sensitive in the shadows but rather contrasty... it *should* be a better match for single- or uncoated lenses. I never claimed this match to fully compensate for all flaws, all i was saying is that it *should* be a better match than mc lenses.

Adams wasn`t too general or theoretical about this aspect, for example he used uncoated glass in front and behind a coated taking lens, to simulate the flare-effect of an uncoated lens. He also does point out what effect flare has on his zone-system and what contrast range a coated lens has in comparison to an uncoated lens. According to Adams flare of an uncoated lens can effect zone 0 to III - about where P30 is "too weak".

Flare production of a single- or uncoated lens can be controlled.

You now seem to concur that even with diffuse light conditions a lens does produce some flare.

 

[MattKing]

Folks,
Perhaps this P30 and uncoated lens conversation could be moved to a thread of its own?

 

[Harry Callahan]

No, not really, and not in a significant or sufficient way.
It is more like adding another "big problem" to an existent "huge problem" .
Been there, done that. Reporting from very detailed tests and experience.

Hello Harry,

as someone who is running an independent photography test lab for many many years, and who has tested a countless number of different films, lenses and developers over the years - including P30 of course - I can ensure you that a fewer coated lens cannot fully solve the main problem of P30, which is its very problematic characteristic curve shape and the very limited flexibility of adjusting that curve to really satisfying levels.
In recent years no other film has shown so many difficulties in my test lab to get reasonable effective light sensitivity and usable tonality at the same time compared to other established films. All these tests did cost me lots of time, and in the end the results have always been significantly worse compared to other films (and no matter what lens being used).

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you very much for your answer.
Just to make myself clear, i don`t know whether you followed this entire conversation, i called it a theory right from the start - and also stated that i am no expert. Also i`m aware that you cannot truly remove a flaw of the film by a flaw of the lens. Even if let`s say an uncoated lens did fully compensate for the problems of P30, it would not be a proper technical solution of the problems of the film.
But what i was wondering was if P30 was formulated with lenses of its time in mind. Though there may not be a huge reduction of the problems, a multicoated lens still should make problems worse with P30 than single- or uncoated lenses.
That's all i`m trying to find out.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Folks,
Perhaps this P30 and uncoated lens conversation could be moved to a thread of its own?

I feel like we`re coming to a point soon. Also i think that a lot of users of P30 read this thread - and could benefit if we indeed shall find P30 to be a little less problematic with lower contrast lenses.
...in the end there isn`t a lot happening with Ferrania at the moment, so maybe a little theoretical discussion about their current product could help to pass time...

But if you consider this off-topic i will stop it.

 

[MattKing]

But if you consider this off-topic i will stop it.

Actually, more like something that deserves its own thread.