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.
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.
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.
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.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 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.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.
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.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.
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.
So if there is no significant difference, why Ferrania formulated three versions of the P30?
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.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.
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.
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: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?
I do not know a lot about this, so see this as reasoning from a few things that I think I know.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
Will X-tol be left out of the list?
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)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?