• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film Ferrania p30

Latest Gallery

Americana - Midget Wrestling

A
Americana - Midget Wrestling

  • 3
  • 2
  • 37
Mackenzies Pocket

A
Mackenzies Pocket

  • 6
  • 2
  • 62

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,917
Messages
2,847,529
Members
101,533
Latest member
jasonfrags81
Recent bookmarks
0
twelvetone12 said:
What is the point, then, saying it is 80 iso?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the exhaustive testing that the "testanistas" like to do rather than actually take pictures.
 
Gerald C Koch said:
I was referring to the exhaustive testing that the "testanistas" like to do rather than actually take pictures.
Click to expand...
Well, I take a lot of pictures... And I like them to look good!

The procedure I shared is very straight forward and sets you up close to the optimal exposure in one morning. Then you will get great highlights, shadows and as good tone separation as it gets in the midtones...

Another benefit of doing this is that most b/w films will look the same so you do not have to test a lot of different film. You can just settle on a few films with different ISO.
 
Scott Micciche said:
What is a 'testanista'?
Click to expand...

The term was defined by someone else on APUG. It is used to describe someone who compulsively tests things like film. The fact that the average person on Phottrio has neither the training not equipment to perform these tests does not dissuade them. So they will endlessly check the film box speed, spectral sensitivity, etc.
 
Gerald C Koch said:
The term was defined by someone else on APUG. It is used to describe someone who compulsively tests things like film. The fact that the average person on Phottrio has neither the training not equipment to perform these tests does not dissuade them. So they will endlessly check the film box speed, spectral sensitivity, etc.
Click to expand...

Ah, I get it now! Thanks for the explanation.
 
Gerald C Koch said:
The term was defined by someone else on APUG. It is used to describe someone who compulsively tests things like film. The fact that the average person on Phottrio has neither the training not equipment to perform these tests does not dissuade them. So they will endlessly check the film box speed, spectral sensitivity, etc.
Click to expand...
Not everyone on PhoPug is a hack, and some of us find these tests useful.
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
So what if someone likes to test film? I don't understand why it bothers some people here...:wondering:
Click to expand...
Because unless the test is conducted with proper equipment, primarily a densitometer but also pure water, accurate thermometry, etc. it doesn't mean much.
My film "testing" is to find a developer/exposure combination that gives me negatives that print well. Pretty meaningless to anyone else, except that many agree that 2/3 box speed is about right for most all films.
 
Yes, I get all that but... these people who are referred to as "testanistas" are doing what they feel comfortable, and it's not our place to criticise them. It comes across as snobbery. :smile:
 
I understand why people want to test film but I find it dull. I prefer just to shoot a roll, bracketing as I go, then develop it. The first roll will give you the film speed and if you are lucky, the development. The second roll should be nearly perfect speed and development wise. Testing makes more sense for the zonies, but I find that dull too. For large format I prefer to just shoot it making sure I get enough shadow exposure, then let a stainiing/tanning developer take care of the highlights. Works really well without all the fuss. Again though, I understand why people test.
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
So what if someone likes to test film? I don't understand why it bothers some people here...:wondering:
Click to expand...

First let me say that I was talking about obsessive testing in my post. I made that point clear. That is testing to the actual detriment of taking photographs.

Most APUGers are not able to do the necessary testing correctly. For testing film speed you need the necessary equipment; step wedge, densitometer, ... Other tests may need different equipment. Also needed is a knowledge of statistics in order to understand the data. A single datum is really meaningless you need at least three in order to have any confidence in your results. A single datum can be far off but you would never know. Manufacturers like Kodak and Ilford spend considerable time and money testing their products. They can do a far better job than anyone on APUG. It takes a bit of hubris to believe that you can do better.

I would say that most people here are interested in images, ie the actual taking of photographs. We find it a bit strange that one's goal is something else. It is certainly improper tor give the impression especially to newbies that everyone must make these tests. Nothing could be further from the truth and it turns some people off to photography. If you read the book by Richard J Henry "Controls In Black-And-White photography" you would realize just how much latitude there is in photography. I highly recommend this book.
 
If you want to know the mindset Andrew is coming from, I would suggest that you watch his Carbon Transfer youtube video linked in his signature.
IMHO, there are all sorts of tests. If your tests are such that they provide you with the real world feedback that helps you get predictable and satisfactory results (such as reasonably easy negatives to print) then a moderate amount of time spent doing tests is time well spent.
 
I think we all do a bit of testing for our own purposes. When I sometimes try a new film I will shoot a roll at box speed and then look at the negatives to see if they are the proper density. I will also make a few prints to check the contrast. Then I will adjust my exposure or development accordingly. As an example of obsessive testing there was a website where the author stated that you must shoot 19 rolls to properly test a film characteristics.
 
Gerald C Koch said:
First let me say that I was talking about obsessive testing in my post. I made that point clear. That is testing to the actual detriment of taking photographs.

Most APUGers are not able to do the necessary testing correctly. For testing film speed you need the necessary equipment; step wedge, densitometer, ... Other tests may need different equipment. Also needed is a knowledge of statistics in order to understand the data. A single datum is really meaningless you need at least three in order to have any confidence in your results. A single datum can be far off but you would never know. Manufacturers like Kodak and Ilford spend considerable time and money testing their products. They can do a far better job than anyone on APUG. It takes a bit of hubris to believe that you can do better.

I would say that most people here are interested in images, ie the actual taking of photographs. We find it a bit strange that one's goal is something else. It is certainly improper tor give the impression especially to newbies that everyone must make these tests. Nothing could be further from the truth and it turns some people off to photography. If you read the book by Richard J Henry "Controls In Black-And-White photography" you would realize just how much latitude there is in photography. I highly recommend this book.
Click to expand...

I can tell from your post that you did not bother to read the links I suggested. This very simple method to make a personal calibration of film speed and development time, you do not need any special equipment other than just the normal darkroom stuff that I assume that everybody already has. Obviously I also assume that most people are controlling the parameters such as time and temperature rather accurately and use the same water over and over again. Once you expose and develop in such a way that you end up close to the optimal position on the characteristic curve, everything else will be much easier. Photography is both art AND craft!
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
Yes, I get all that but... these people who are referred to as "testanistas" are doing what they feel comfortable, and it's not our place to criticise them. It comes across as snobbery. :smile:
Click to expand...
Andy,
I totally agree with you on testing. I enjoy doing it myself and it's usually to find a solution to a problem, change a rendition of an image, shorten or try to improve part of my process, but sometimes to try something in a way no one else has tried. Oh, I also had fun in chemistry class also! I didn't learn much or at least retained what I learned there, but I had fun.
 
With the exception of mathematics itself all the other sciences depend on statistics to prove the validity of data. You cannot have any confidence in a single datum. All the film manufacturers constantly test each new batch of film. What do they use ... statistics. If that is snobbery so be it. I will refrain from further comment and allow those who do not see the point to remain in blissful ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
 
Last edited:
Hello
Here is a link to an album of Film Ferrania P80 that I shot at 40iso and developed in PyrocatHD
I have put this link on the other thread as well
I like most of the images, some are still dark but the majority came out good, for me!
Comments suggestions and criticisms are welcome, note I have only been using this Pyrocat for a short time so I am still learning it.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45govt/albums/72157689242294536
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom