Film Ferrania p30

Scott Micciche · Feb 6, 2018

sepiareverb said:
Well, not very happy with the results on paper. Wet printed from the D96 negs, stuff shot at ISO 80 and 50, run with reduced agitation in an attempt to minimize highlights blocking up and hold shadow detail. Still needed to print on grade 1 or 0, and not terribly good tonality. I suppose this is just not a film I'm going to bother with.

Well, to be honest, D-96 was designed for constant agitation, so reducing agitation means it wasn't developed according to instructions.

sepiareverb · Feb 6, 2018

Well, to be honest everything I've seen with this film has been way too contrasty, and unless it is designed to respond to development unlike other movie negative or regular films I have no reason to suspect that more agitation would mitigate that.

Having gotten nowhere with this stuff has taken the fun out of it. I'd rather work with films I know will print well. I'm not going to scan film.

My remaining twelve rolls for sale in the classifieds.

Scott Micciche · Feb 6, 2018

Most of the over-contrast images I've encountered have been due to software, auto-levels, and over-use of lightroom and it's horrible (laplacian) shadow and highlights sliders, 'clarity' (lol) and anti-haze filters.

peter k. · Feb 6, 2018

My goodness, use to shooting sheet film, but happily dug out the old 35, last week and shot some B&W, and developed it to be sure all was well with the camera.
So loaded it up yesterday with p30. Sure not use to shooting so many shots in a day. My of my, .ah ha... 18 yesterday and 18 shots today. Phew... Lot of,work.

Now for the question:
We usually do a quick inversion for B&W with some agitation for 5sec, so want to verify the agitation process for this film.
We have two developers available. D-76 and Hc-110. Do not have any D-96, but on Film Ferrania, (Dead Link Removed) there is a note, (formula to make your own D-96 here) But, alas that's a "Page Not Found"
So tomorrow going to try the first development in HC-110, and it states:
"Small tank, continuous inversions first minute, 10 second inversion each minute - or - Jobo, rotation"
Reading we have found that most feel that agitation with P30 should be gentle, believe we read somewhere here, if we remember correctly, that one person suggested that they would slowly and gently, with one hand do an inversion, set down the tank, and then with the other hand, gently do another inversion.
So for a ten second inversion each minute, how does this sound? Or perhaps some other suggestions?

Excited to see how it looks in our bright southwest, and most likely the adjustments will have to make in shooting and developing.
Thanks fer yer help...

Scott Micciche · Feb 6, 2018

peter k. said:
My goodness, use to shooting sheet film, but happily dug out the old 35, last week and shot some B&W, and developed it to be sure all was well with the camera.
So loaded it up yesterday with p30. Sure not use to shooting so many shots in a day. My of my, .ah ha... 18 yesterday and 18 shots today. Phew... Lot of,work.

Now for the question:
We usually do a quick inversion for B&W with some agitation for 5sec, so want to verify the agitation process for this film.
We have two developers available. D-76 and Hc-110. Do not have any D-96, but on Film Ferrania, (Dead Link Removed) there is a note, (formula to make your own D-96 here) But, alas that's a "Page Not Found"
So tomorrow going to try the first development in HC-110, and it states:
"Small tank, continuous inversions first minute, 10 second inversion each minute - or - Jobo, rotation"
Reading we have found that most feel that agitation with P30 should be gentle, believe we read somewhere here, if we remember correctly, that one person suggested that they would slowly and gently, with one hand do an inversion, set down the tank, and then with the other hand, gently do another inversion.
So for a ten second inversion each minute, how does this sound? Or perhaps some other suggestions?

Excited to see how it looks in our bright southwest, and most likely the adjustments will have to make in shooting and developing.
Thanks fer yer help...

I had good results with HC-110, solution B, 30s initial, 1 inversion each minute for a total of 5 minutes. My inversion = "upside down & right side up".

I did see better results with D-76 1:1. HC-110 seems to block shadows similar to Ilfosol 3. In all honesty, TMAX developer gave extraordinary results!

Alan9940 · Feb 9, 2018

For those that might be interested... I have just completed sensitometric testing of this film and found the following:

The actual film speed--at least, with my camera and external meter--is EI40 (this speed obtained developing for 8 mins in D-96 @ 68F with continuous agitation.) However, this level of development produced unbelievably contrasty negs; Zone VIII density in the range of 2.12 - 2.34. For my darkroom printing and scanning, I try to hit in the range of 1.25 - 1.35 for Zone VIII. To obtain this density, I had to develop for 6 mins in D-96 1:1 @ 68F with continuous agitation! And, when I say "continuous agitation" I mean slowly...I did 12 inversions left/right per min. Due to this rather drastic difference in development regimen, I'm suspecting the film speed to be closer to EI32, though I have not tested for that. It will be the speed I use when shooting this film.

Therefore, IMO those that have commented about thin shadows and/or lacking shadow detail and have mentioned how much contrast they are getting, are 1) under exposing the film, and 2) developing for much too long. No different from any other film, eh? The film looks plenty sharp!

Hope this helps.

fdonadio · Feb 9, 2018

Don’t mean to disregard your tests, but I exposed one roll as EI 50 and developed for the recommended time in D-96 stock/tank with continuous agitation — slow inversions, maybe a little faster than yours — and got blocked highlights. I still didn’t try to print or scan these negatives, so I still can’t say anything about the shadows and midtones.

frobozz · Feb 9, 2018

For my first test roll I did the chart choice of D76 (well ID-11 in my case) stock solution with 10 sec agitation per minute for 7 minutes... and I also got negatives that definitely looked a bit underexposed. I'm going to meter at 50 for the next roll and see how it goes. This is the opposite of 5222, where every developing combo I tried while metering at the "can speed" of 250 got me really dense negatives, so I've been metering at 400 ever since and incredibly happy with the results.

How has everyone been finding the edge numbers exposure? They seem pretty thin to me. On a film like HP-5 or Tri-X I'd take that as an indication that I didn't develop the film enough, but I'm not just going to assume that with some new-to-me film.

Duncan

Alan9940 · Feb 9, 2018

fdonadio said:
Don’t mean to disregard your tests, but I exposed one roll as EI 50 and developed for the recommended time in D-96 stock/tank with continuous agitation — slow inversions, maybe a little faster than yours — and got blocked highlights. I still didn’t try to print or scan these negatives, so I still can’t say anything about the shadows and midtones.

You did notice that I used the D-96 at 1:1 dilution? And, developed for only 6 mins, not the recommended 8 mins?

Alan9940 · Feb 9, 2018

frobozz said:
How has everyone been finding the edge numbers exposure?

No edge markings of any kind on my P30 .

fdonadio · Feb 10, 2018

Alan9940 said:
You did notice that I used the D-96 at 1:1 dilution? And, developed for only 6 mins, not the recommended 8 mins?

I thought you meant you followed the “best practices” document to determine the ISO as 40, when you wrote:

Alan9940 said:
The actual film speed--at least, with my camera and external meter--is EI40 (this speed obtained developing for 8 mins in D-96 @ 68F with continuous agitation.)

Also, I think I should be clear about what I meant with “blocked highlights”: negatives look overexposed.

fdonadio · Feb 10, 2018

frobozz said:
How has everyone been finding the edge numbers exposure? They seem pretty thin to me.

My edge markings look thin, too. Strange thing is I got my highlights too light, so maybe it’s a problem with finishing.

Alan9940 · Feb 10, 2018

@fdonadio, I determined film speed through my normal testing procedure of exposing a black card, in open shade, to various EI settings, and then measuring with a densitometer to find .10 above fb+f. Following the Best Practices document produced way over-developed negs for me. YMMV, of course.

warden · Feb 10, 2018

I thought there were no edge markings at first because they're almost invisible.

Scott Micciche · Feb 10, 2018

Alan9940 said:
@fdonadio, I determined film speed through my normal testing procedure of exposing a black card, in open shade, to various EI settings, and then measuring with a densitometer to find .10 above fb+f. Following the Best Practices document produced way over-developed negs for me. YMMV, of course.

I find this true, especially with older cameras. Shutter speeds drift, meters become inaccurate both in-camera and handheld units. Lighting conditions are never the same at any given day or time. I've had zero issues shooting at 80ASA using the Nikon F6 and it's spot meter. 8 min @ 20C had nice looking negatives, print nicely and scan nicely as well. I try to capture subjects in bright, open light, or nice, overcast days.

My Macbeth is awaiting a bulb, and I'll try conducting some similar tests with this latest roll.

sepiareverb · Feb 10, 2018

I think the problem is one of what we each consider a “nice print” to be. I like to see detail in highlights as well as shadows, and prefer to have a rather straight curve on my films, which allows me to have a wider range of options when wet printing. P30 really didn’t seem capable of this in my testing and in my darkroom. I don’t want to say that others will not get images they like, just that this film is too contrasty or too finicky for what I need in a film.

fdonadio · Feb 10, 2018

Alan9940 said:
@fdonadio, I determined film speed through my normal testing procedure of exposing a black card, in open shade, to various EI settings, and then measuring with a densitometer to find .10 above fb+f. Following the Best Practices document produced way over-developed negs for me. YMMV, of course.

Since my negs are way too contrasted, it might be overdevelopment.

I’m trying a roll shot at box speed and the recommended development regime with D-96 to see what I get.

warden · Feb 10, 2018

Another data point, and YMMV, and etc etc...

My first roll was unsuccessful at iso80 while using Ferrania's best practices with Ilfosol3. Too contrasty, with no shadows and blown highlights in normal light. I guessed it was under exposed and over developed.

This roll I bracketed at iso50 and iso25, and developed 6 minutes in Ilfosol3, (1 minute less than directed). All of the negatives were usable this time and looked good to me. I think I could wet print at either speed, and will try that next. But for me this will be an iso 32 film. And I like it.

AgX · Feb 11, 2018

-) This film has got the ISO 80 designation on its box. This means that its speed must have been established along the International Standard.
No room for guessimating.

-) It is obviously intended as general purpose film and thus must not have stronger deviation in speed by use of generic developers than other films in its class.

Europan · Feb 11, 2018

Hard to understand the lack of a reciprocity curve. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-ferrania-part-2.128272/page-130#post-2010178
P. 30 as a ciné film is expected to have ISO 80 at exposure times between 1/30 to 1/80 second corresponding to the usual rotary shutter opening angles and frame rates.

bernard_L · Feb 11, 2018

Alan9940 said:
@fdonadio, I determined film speed through my normal testing procedure of exposing a black card, in open shade, to various EI settings, and then measuring with a densitometer to find .10 above fb+f. Following the Best Practices document produced way over-developed negs for me. YMMV, of course.

A black card has no definite brightness level. I bet it can range over 5+ stops, depending on the nature of the "black", e.g. lustre with some specular reflection thrown in or a high-perf engineered black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_black), or even better a physicist's "blackbody": a small hole into a black felt-lined box.

Zone 0 is a properly metered gray, under-exposed by 5 stops.

twelvetone12 · Feb 11, 2018

AgX said:
-) This film has got the ISO 80 designation on its box.

It actually says ASA 80, and somewhere Dave Bias stated that they did not repeat (yet?) speed testing but accepted the legacy value. Curves and some more science would be appreciated, but again Dave stated it is not a priority so it will not be done (a shame, imho).

Continuing the anecdotal evidence, I works very well @ei 25 in rodinal, nice in d76 @80, and transparent frames when I used a red filter.

AgX · Feb 11, 2018

ISO or ASA, it does not matter. ISO took over the ASA standard, and it is a standard anyway.

And what matters is what is stated on the box, not what Dave Bias says.

Alan9940 · Feb 11, 2018

bernard_L said:
A black card has no definite brightness level. I bet it can range over 5+ stops, depending on the nature of the "black", e.g. lustre with some specular reflection thrown in or a high-perf engineered black (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_black), or even better a physicist's "blackbody": a small hole into a black felt-lined box.

Zone 0 is a properly metered gray, under-exposed by 5 stops.

Not true. I use a matte surface black poster paper, about 20x24" in size, attached to a firm piece of cardboard to maintain flatness of the surface. When I'm doing my film speed testing, I place this setup in open shade--think side of a building, not under a tree--at around noon hour with clear blue sky. Using a spot meter, I measure the center of the target and the 4 corners to ensure the light level is dead even. I can assure you that I have gotten exact brightnss levels for each of the 5 measuring points. I have worked this way for nearly 40 years and, as they say, it's close enough. I can always adjust my EI setting later, if I feel my shadows are not supported enough.

warden · Feb 11, 2018

twelvetone12 said:
It actually says ASA 80, and somewhere Dave Bias stated that they did not repeat (yet?) speed testing but accepted the legacy value. Curves and some more science would be appreciated, but again Dave stated it is not a priority so it will not be done (a shame, imho).

I'm assuming technical data (ISO, reciprocity, etc) will come when the product is something other than alpha, but for now it's pretty cool to see a new film produced on a shoestring budget that actually works, even if it does take some effort to dial it in to our individual workflow and chemistry. I'll look forward to more film when it's beta, and also the final product. I'm impressed with what they've accomplished so far and hope they can keep their company afloat and hire the personnel necessary to grow.

Film Ferrania p30

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency