Film Ferrania p30

[wyofilm]

I predict that when P30 becomes generally available all of this hand-wringing about what will do and won't do will quickly dissipate. Which I'm sure will be a relief to the folks at Ferrania. I wish them all success in 2018.

 

[pbromaghin]

We are also working on a 320 ASA film (P36 was the historical name) that we hope to be more of a "general purpose" film that works well in a wider variety of photographic and lab situations.

An emulsion I've been very curious about, especially in 120. There really aren't any examples of the original film that I can find on the internet.

 

[mudfly9]

I highly doubt the current P30 is exactly like the old P30 (which existed in three versions). The fact is that the wrong choice of the three has been done: the cinema version. A more general pourpose film should have been the Leica version. I still don't understand why only the cinema version has been revived.

My guess is this:

Delta 100
FP4+
TMX
Kentmere 100
Fomapan 100 Classic
Acros 100

Find me a classic b&w look that can't be achieved with those fantastic medium speed films. What Ferrania have done is bring out something that's unique in terms of its look and special in terms of its history; I think they made exactly the right decision with P30.

 

[faberryman]

What Ferrania have done is bring out something that's unique in terms of its look and special in terms of its history; I think they made exactly the right decision with P30.

I get the special in terms of history part; I'm not so sure of the unique in terms of look part. What I have seen posted on the web is kind of all over the board depending on ISO, developer, and regime.

 

[jimjm]

I get the special in terms of history part; I'm not so sure of the unique in terms of look part. What I have seen posted on the web is kind of all over the board depending on ISO, developer, and regime.

I agree it can be difficult to determine the true characteristics of a film when looking at examples from different users, under different processing conditions. Especially when many of these are scanned from film, and those variables can be all over the place. I can say I immediately noticed a difference in the "look" of the first roll I developed, from the look of many other films I use, like Tri-X, TMax, HP5, Delta100, Acros 100, etc. I shot at ISO 80 and developed in D76 full-strength, per Ferrania's recommended times. To me, the negatives seemed to be overdeveloped at first and a bit contrasty, but not at all underexposed at ISO 80, as some have suggested. Prints at grade 2 ended up looking very nice to me, no blown highlights that I couldn't burn-in and nice dense shadows where needed. Other rolls shot at ISO 50 and developed in HC110 have looked fairly similar, and many of the samples shown here on PHOTRIO have shown similar characteristics.

 

[mudfly9]

I think I'd find it difficult to find multiple examples of anything on the web that weren't all over the place!

I'll admit that whether or not a film has a look is largely subjective but a simple search for 'Ferrania P30' on flickr gives a certain something about it that the same search for other films doesn't give me. If you can't see it that's cool, I'm surprised though as I had you down as such a huge fan of Ferrania...

 

[jonasfj]

We do not expect that P30 will ever be ideal for ALL developers, and we do not agree that success is determined by the number of developers you can use to process the film.

Why would it not work with all common developers? They all work the same way. It's just that they use slightly different substances to reduce the silver halide. There is a lot of mythology and romantisism about film and developers that are not really substantial.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Why would it not work with all common developers? They all work the same way. It's just that they use slightly different substances to reduce the silver halide. There is a lot of mythology and romantisism about film and developers that are not really substantial.

I didn't say that P30 wouldn't work with all common developers. I said, specifically, "we do not expect that P30 will ever be ideal for ALL developers"

I understand that most developers fall into a small number of types based on their core chemistry - but at the same time, some are designed to enhance contrast, some are designed for lab environments where speed is important. Some are designed for higher temperatures than others (TMAX comes to mind).

These differences matter with P30 film, as does the pH of the developer (and even the water you use), as does the temperature, as does the speed and style of agitation, etc.

Our next Best Practices document, which is nearly ready to post, will focus on a few recommended developers - D-76 and D-96, of course, plus HC-110, Ilfosol 3 and TMAX, plus one particular Rodinal semi-stand technique. Scott Micciche has worked directly with me to test and verify the techniques and each yields an image close to what we consider to be "ideal".

We will also include, in a second list, other community-submitted developers/techniques that yield a good result, even if it's not what we would think of as ideal.

This document will continue to change as we learn more. But before the next wave of film hits our shop, we felt it was important to nail down a few specific developers that are easy to work with and give the best-possible results.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I highly doubt the current P30 is exactly like the old P30 (which existed in three versions). The fact is that the wrong choice of the three has been done: the cinema version. A more general pourpose film should have been the Leica version. I still don't understand why only the cinema version has been revived.

There is really no significant difference between a still film and a cine one. Yes there is usually a more robust stock and an antifriction coating etc. But these things do no effect the film's use in a ordinary camera.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

So if there is no significant difference, why Ferrania formulated three versions of the P30?

You would have to ask Ferrania that question.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In order to fulfilled the ISO requirements Ferrania must select a developer to use to determine a box speed. However there is no reason that a user cannot use any developer they wish.

 

[faberryman]

In order to fulfilled the ISO requirements Ferrania must select a developer to use to determine a box speed. However there is no reason that a user cannot use any developer they wish.

I asked them in a prior post but received no answer. Best I can tell. the "ISO 80" is not really an ISO rating, but a estimated film speed. They would need to follow the ISO protocol for an ISO rating.

 

[fdonadio]

Best I can tell. the "ISO 80" is not really an ISO rating, but a estimated film speed. They would need to follow the ISO protocol for an ISO rating.

Maybe that’s why they use the term “80 ASA” on the box. If they didn’t follow the ISO protocol, they couldn’t say their film is ISO-this or ISO-that, right?

 

[faberryman]

Maybe that’s why they use the term “80 ASA” on the box. If they didn’t follow the ISO protocol, they couldn’t say their film is ISO-this or ISO-that, right?

Do you think they followed the protocol of the American Standard Association which was abandoned 30 years ago by film manufacturers to determine film speed? My guess is they were just using retro style packaging. They say this on their website:

"FERRANIA P30® ALPHA is an 80 ISO panchromatic black & white motion picture film for still photography, and reintroduces the legendary P30 film produced by Ferrania during the 1960s.".

 

[fdonadio]

Do you think they followed the protocol of the American Standard Association which was abandoned 30 years ago by film manufacturers to determine film speed?

I am not sure. That’s why I said “maybe”. They never said anything definitive, so we can only conjecture — and that’s what we all keep doing, right? But I’ve heard that you need to follow ISO procedures (and, for some of their standards, you need a certification) to say you’re ISO-compliant or ISO itself will sue you. I am not sure about this and too lazy to lookup on Google.

In fact, I couldn’t care less what they say on the box, if they follow ISO, DIN or ABNT procedures. For me it’s just a big “whatever”, if you know what I mean.

For example, I shoot Double-X at EI 200 (instead of the rated 250) and most of my shots with Provia look better to my eye when overexposed by one full stop. I got so used to it, that I always overexpose every film I use by one stop.

But I can understand and respect your need to know every little details about the products you buy. There’s no problem with that whatsoever.

 

[jonasfj]

There is really no significant difference between a still film and a cine one. Yes there is usually a more robust stock and an antifriction coating etc. But these things do no effect the film's use in a ordinary camera.

I do not know a lot about this, so see this as reasoning from a few things that I think I know.

A still film negative is supposed to print on a photographic paper (or to be scanned). A photographic paper is sensitive to about 10 stops of light intensity, thus the difference between the densest and the least dense part of the negative has to be less than 10 stops to carry any useful information (detail) in the shadows and highlights. The same hold for scanning, where most scanners resolve max 6-8 stops (can be improved by multiple scanning), while the absolute most expensive screens can show 10 stops under ideal conditions.

A old style cinema film is copied to a positive film. The positive film can contain more than 10 stops of dynamic range. Thus, in theory, I suppose, you could design a film that is optimized for a greater range, for example by using a denser emulsion (more silver).

Obviously, nowadays even though many movies are still made on film (e.g. Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino movies as well as the latest Bond dramas), they are almost exclusively scanned and shown at digital movie theaters, which brings it back to max 10 stops of range.

Just a thought!

Best regards,

Jonas

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A still film can be developed to any contrast. Therefore it is easy to match the film's gamma to that of the paper. However cine negative films are developed by machine for a particular positive stock. The film is developed to a lower gamma, IIRC 0.55 whereas still films are usually developed to a 0.68 value. In this respect the gamma and density are determined by the machine. Unlike papers which can be developed to various grades 0 to 5 positive stock comes in only one grade. There is much less flexibility.

 

[jonasfj]

I do not know a lot about this, so see this as reasoning from a few things that I think I know.

A still film negative is supposed to print on a photographic paper (or to be scanned). A photographic paper is sensitive to about 10 stops of light intensity, thus the difference between the densest and the least dense part of the negative has to be less than 10 stops to carry any useful information (detail) in the shadows and highlights. The same hold for scanning, where most scanners resolve max 6-8 stops (can be improved by multiple scanning), while the absolute most expensive screens can show 10 stops under ideal conditions.

A old style cinema film is copied to a positive film. The positive film can contain more than 10 stops of dynamic range. Thus, in theory, I suppose, you could design a film that is optimized for a greater range, for example by using a denser emulsion (more silver).

Obviously, nowadays even though many movies are still made on film (e.g. Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino movies as well as the latest Bond dramas), they are almost exclusively scanned and shown at digital movie theaters, which brings it back to max 10 stops of range.

Just a thought!

Best regards,

Jonas

PS... See Gerald C. Kock's, I was obviously completely wrong about the copy to film part...

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Will X-tol be left out of the list?

Until we can find a viable, repeatable and, in our minds, acceptable result with XTOL - it will be on the "B" list. (This will make more sense when you see the new Best Practices document)

We have spoken with Richard Film Lab in LA and Blue Moon in Portland - each of whom have proven willing to work with us to do further testing in XTOL.

We assume it's just a matter of time to find the right combination of factors...

 

[twelvetone12]

Is is worth to mix d96 to develop this film? I tried one roll in d76 (at box speed) and results were *much* better than Rodinal at same speed, also the red response is... better! (I'm still curious why on this)

 

[Scott Micciche]

Is is worth to mix d96 to develop this film? I tried one roll in d76 (at box speed) and results were *much* better than Rodinal at same speed, also the red response is... better! (I'm still curious why on this)

I preferred the TMAX recipe over D-96 because of availability and less solvent action (none if I remember, in TMAX Dev). Rodinal was also very good stand, inversions at 15, 30 and 45m. I think to see the difference and to know how the film is being developed at Film Ferrania, D-96 would be worth a try. The separate chemistry isn't very expensive if it can be shipped to you.

 

[twelvetone12]

Thanks Scott! I already have all the components, will beat up my laziness and mix it

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Just a quick note - our US/CAN shop is now open with a limited amount of P30 in stock and ready to ship.

Dead Link Removed

 

[frobozz]

I was order #11. I guess I typed slower than 10 other people ;-)

Duncan

 

[RattyMouse]

Anyone use HC-110 to develop their P30 yet? Good results?