Ferrania P33 experiences?

[runswithsizzers]

I developed my first roll of Ferrania P33 today, but my negatives came out very thin. I believe the problem is underdevelopment.

As mentioned above in post #9, I came up with a time of 7:00 at 20*C for LegacyPro Eco-Pro diluted 1+1. Right now, I still don't know if my problem is:
a. my processing time was too short, or,
b. my Eco-Pro chemistry has somehow lost activity?

The Eco-Pro chemistry should be OK. It was made using distilled water less than 4 months ago, and kept in a full HDPE black bottle in a cool dark basement. Legacy Pro says the stock solution should have a 6-month shelf life, and my previous experience agrees.

The P33 is on the left; the roll of Ilford Delta 100 on the right is more like what my negatives usually look like when I photograph them on my light box. (Actually, this roll of Delta 100 may be a little more dense and contrasty than my average results, but not by a lot.)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Whenever I'm using a developer that is approaching the end of it's shelf life expectancy, I do a clip test. Was the roll of Delta 100 also processed in the same developer?

 

[runswithsizzers]

Whenever I'm using a developer that is approaching the end of it's shelf life expectancy, I do a clip test. Was the roll of Delta 100 also processed in the same developer?

No, the Delta 100 was processed in Ilford Microphen. The only reason I showed the Delta 100 negatives was as a sort of reference to show what my "normal"negatives look like on my lightbox.

To be clear, my Eco-Pro developer was not "approaching the end of it's shelf life expectancy." Based on my previous experience with Eco-Pro, I would not be expecting any trouble at 4-months, because it usually works fine at the full 6-months as predicted by the manufacturer.

Normally, I do a quick test for activity before using any of the ascorbic acid type developers, but this time, I forgot. However, I don't think my normal activity test would have helped, because I just do a qualitative check to see if there is "some" activity. A weak or underperforming developer would still pass my test. When you do your clip test, do you somehow quantitatively prove the developer has full activity?

Obviously, I will want to test the remainder of this batch of Eco-Pro before processing anything I care about. To do that, I will process a test film for which I have a known, reliable time -- as opposed to the (wild-guess) time I used for this roll of P33.

Unless/until some more data becomes available about P33 in XTOL/EcoPro/Adox XT-3, I will probably just hang on to my second roll of Ferrania P33. Either that, or order some Bellini ECOfilm developer.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

.. or order some Bellini ECOfilm developer.

Please do not.
You're based in the USA, get the real Xtol from Kodak instead...
That's my 2cents...

 

[runswithsizzers]

Please do not.
You're based in the USA, get the real Xtol from Kodak instead...
That's my 2cents...

I agree with the sentiment. In fact, Xtol was my first choice until QC issues and availabilty problems convinced me to try Legacy Pro Eco-Pro. Now that it sounds like Kodak Xtol is going to become more available and reliable (we hope!), I will probably switch back to the Kodak product. It might even be faster and easier for me to figure out what the processing time should be used for P33 in Xtol/EcoPro than it would be to order the Bellini Ecofilm developer.

 

[albireo]

My order is here

Excellent service from Ferrania. Zero issues with their online shopping platform. Well done lads.

I'm really excited to try this. I will share some subjective impressions and negative scans if of interest. I should have a Spyder Checkr 24 colour grid kicking around, I might be able to do a side by side response test against Foma 200 and Kentmere 100 if time allows over the next few days.

Also - I have both D76 and Rodinal ready to go, and there are recommendations for getting started with both developers in the Ferrania pdf.

 

[chromemax]

I have published a test on the Ferrania P33 on a forum in Italy, you can easily translate this with a online translator, and you can download the pdf with the characteristic curves and the development/gradient curve for the ID-11 1 + 1 developer, I hope this is useful.
By the way, I found the P33 to be a very good film, in my opinion it surpasses the FP-4+.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm still drooling, waiting for P33 in 120.

 

[DeletedAcct1]

I wonder if Ferrania P33 (and P30 for example) can be succesfully reversed or not...

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I wonder if Ferrania P33 (and P30 for example) can be succesfully reversed or not...

They surely can (P30) be reversed as any other film out there. I haven't stumbled upon "irreversible" films.

 

[albireo]

I have published a test on the Ferrania P33 on a forum in Italy, you can easily translate this with a online translator, and you can download the pdf with the characteristic curves and the development/gradient curve for the ID-11 1 + 1 developer, I hope this is useful.
By the way, I found the P33 to be a very good film, in my opinion it surpasses the FP-4+.

Excellent, thanks! I've found a target gamma ~= .57 is a great starting point for getting negatives I like for my scanning and therefore I'll stick to your test and do a few 125EI strips in D76 1:1 @20°C for 10 minutes to start with.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was quite happy with P33 developed in D76. I'm sure it'll respond well in pretty much anything.

 

[Disconnekt]

BlueMoonCamera has some in stock still on their site (here: https://bluemooncamera.com/shop/product/0731034994217/ferrania-p33-film--36-exposures)

 

[qqphot]

I was pretty happy with P33 at box speed: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBgTcH

I tried it in D76 and Rodinal 1+25, and even in TMax since I always have it around. It didn't seem to respond in any unexpected ways to different developers and imo held shadow detail respectably at 160.

I'm developing almost exclusively for digitizing, and they required negligible curve fiddling in that context, but I probably would find the negatives a bit thin if I were darkroom printing them.

 

[albireo]

I was pretty happy with P33 at box speed: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBgTcH

I tried it in D76 and Rodinal 1+25, and even in TMax since I always have it around. It didn't seem to respond in any unexpected ways to different developers and imo held shadow detail respectably at 160.

I'm developing almost exclusively for digitizing, and they required negligible curve fiddling in that context, but I probably would find the negatives a bit thin if I were darkroom printing them.

Eric, thanks for sharing - those are some really solid results. I had stumbled on your samples while searching Flickr and your image of the abandoned sneaker had stopped me in my tracks. That's exactly the right mix of sharpness, well defined but visible small grain and tone I look for when doing 35mm. Any strong preference between Rodinal and D76 in your tests (sounds like not)?

 

[qqphot]

Eric, thanks for sharing - those are some really solid results. I had stumbled on your samples while searching Flickr and your image of the abandoned sneaker had stopped me in my tracks. That's exactly the right mix of sharpness, well defined but visible small grain and tone I look for when doing 35mm. What did you prefer between your Rodinal and D76 tests?

Thank you so much! Now your question has me referring to the negatives - I found Ferrania's recommended development (5 min @ 20C 1+25) far too low, but given it had good detail in the shadows even underdeveloped I'm happy with its rated box speed. I wouldn't try to print these in the darkroom but digitally they were fine. I tried it again with 30% more development and it was more reasonable but I can't find those negs right now.

Conversely I found Ferrania's recommended D76 development (10 minutes at 20C) to be too much for my purposes (though I was shooting in contrasty sunlit conditions) and produced chalky highlights with loss of highlight contrast. Still pretty usable, though.

I would have experimented further except I then tried P33 in TMax developer because I use it daily (1+4, 6min, 20C, though probably not super relevant to other people's conditions) and was very pleased with the results and have been using it with that ever since (the sneaker picture is with TMax dev.)

Apologies for the makeshift light table photos but I figured you'd like to see the actual film. Also, while I'm no eminent master darkroom scientist I think i have decent control over process so I don't think there are significant errors in processing or major exposure variations here.

 

[albireo]

Thank you so much! Now your question has me referring to the negatives - I found Ferrania's recommended development (5 min @ 20C 1+25) far too low, but given it had good detail in the shadows even underdeveloped I'm happy with its rated box speed. I wouldn't try to print these in the darkroom but digitally they were fine. I tried it again with 30% more development and it was more reasonable but I can't find those negs right now.

Conversely I found Ferrania's recommended D76 development (10 minutes at 20C) to be too much for my purposes (though I was shooting in contrasty sunlit conditions) and produced chalky highlights with loss of highlight contrast. Still pretty usable, though.

That's so interesting thanks. So you did D76 stock, correct? That's a little too much contrast for my liking as well in that light setting. The Rodinal ones are really off, which Rodinal were you using if I may ask? I found the Adox one to last for ages, similarly to the old Agfa ones, but for example the Foma R09 clone starts going bad, open & ungassed, after little more than a year. Could it be a factor? Else Ferrania needs to tweak their chart.

I managed to go out for a walk too, this afternoon. I started a roll. The light was not what I was looking for: mildly overcast with occasional blades of sunshine hitting here and there. I will need to adjust my development time accordingly.

Something curious to note: I'm using a manual advance camera and advancing to the next frame takes more work than with other film. I wonder why. Is the film thicker? Is it more tightly spooled than other brands? Not sure.

 

[qqphot]

That's so interesting thanks. So you did D76 stock, correct? That's a little too much contrast for my liking as well in that light setting. The Rodinal ones are really off, which Rodinal were you using if I may ask? I found the Adox one to last for ages, similarly to the old Agfa ones, but for example the Foma R09 clone starts going bad, open & ungassed, after little more than a year. Could it be a factor? Else Ferrania needs to tweak their chart.

I managed to go out for a walk too, this afternoon. I started a roll. The light was not what I was looking for: mildly overcast with occasional blades of sunshine hitting here and there. I will need to adjust my development time accordingly.

Something curious to note: I'm using a manual advance camera and advancing to the next frame takes more work than with other film. I wonder why. Is the film thicker? Is it more tightly spooled than other brands? Not sure.

it was D76 stock, yes. I had assumed the rodinal was bad, too, but I did another roll of HP5 after that with the same Rodinal and it was fine. So I'm not sure what the story is there. I expected it to be underdeveloped at 5 minutes anyway but figured I'd stay with their recommendation. And it did end up looking fine with longer development, I'll post a snapshot of the negatives if I can find them.

my rolls were among the first to come out of the factory and I don't know if they were all in the same batch, so i suppose there could have been some variation there, who knows. I didn't notice any actual defects in the film, which is nice.
I haven't noticed a difference in the mechanical characteristics of the film but now I'll be watching for it - that's interesting.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Something curious to note: I'm using a manual advance camera and advancing to the next frame takes more work than with other film.

In my Pentax MX, I noticed the film advance lever was giving me some resistance around frame #34. My first thought was, the roll was short, 34 was the last frame, and I should rewind it. I was done for the day, but I wrote in my notes, "advance lever stiff." A few days later, I went ahead and advanced to #35 and 36, so false alarm.

 

[qqphot]

In my Pentax MX, I noticed the film advance lever was giving me some resistance around frame #34. My first thought was, the roll was short, 34 was the last frame, and I should rewind it. I was done for the day, but I wrote in my notes, "advance lever stiff." A few days later, I went ahead and advanced to #35 and 36, so false alarm.

you know, now that I think about it I vaguely recall one of my p33 canisters being quite tight as well.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Has anybody tried developing Ferrania P33 in XTOL, Eco-Pro, or similar ascorbic acid developers? If so, I would be very interested to know what time and temperature you used, and if you were satisfied with the density of the negatives.

The Massive Devolpment Chart still has no data for P33.

Thank you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Has anybody tried developing Ferrania P33 in XTOL, Eco-Pro, or similar ascorbic acid developers? If so, I would be very interested to know what time and temperature you used, and if you were satisfied with the density of the negatives.

The Massive Devolpment Chart still has no data for P33.

Thank you.

I did.
XTol stock. 20C. 10:00. Constant agitation first 30 sec, followed by 5 sec every minute. I have a video that I'll hopefully remember to upload later today...

 

[pentaxuser]

It's not often you use 35mm film, Andrew, so I look forward to seeing the video

pentaxuser

 

[runswithsizzers]

Thanks

I did.
XTol stock. 20C. 10:00. Constant agitation first 30 sec, followed by 5 sec every minute. I have a video that I'll hopefully remember to upload later today...

View attachment 373075

Thanks! That will be helpful when I get ready to develop my next roll.

If 10:00 is a good time for a stock solution, then my time of 7:00 for a 1+1 dilution must have been way too short, thus explaning my thin negatives.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks

Thanks! That will be helpful when I get ready to develop my next roll.

If 10:00 is a good time for a stock solution, then my time of 7:00 for a 1+1 dilution must have been way too short, thus explaning my thin negatives.

Can I ask where you obtained your time from or on what basis you decided that Legacy Eco Pro at 1+1 at 7 mins was the right time?

Thanks

pentaxuser