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.
Yep... and like it also...as we are experimenting also, in our preproduction development..isn't this a preproduction test-film?
Uniformity within one sample was not my point, as should have been clear; rather the choice of a peculiar black surface. What if "Super Black" had been readily available and you had used that? Matte black poster paper has probably a reflection density not far from 1.8. Quoting from Wikipedia, Super Black "absorbs 99.9% of light."; that is a reflection density of 3.0. That is a 4 zone difference; not conducive to reasonably accurate speed point measurement. Leaving aside Super Black, which is not readily available, there are all the other possible "blacks" in-between.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.
Not to say that your method does not work; possibly you made a lucky choice.
Only on a forum could there be a disagreement on what particular kind of black card is acceptable for someone else to use for their personal film testing. Well I guess it only came up because someone mentioned their method for doing something, which is not done the way some other person knows it must be done.
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.
View attachment 195212
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)
It shouldn't be this difficult. Film Ferrania says this is an ISO 80 film. The ISO criteria are clear and if Ferrania has tested the film and found it to be ISO 80, that is the real speed of the film. It would be fairly easy to validate this. For those doing their own Zone System-style tests, an ISO 80 film should basically have a "personal EI" speed of 50.
Dunan:
WOw! Have fun! Figuring on pent-up demand and not having made it into to kickstarter, I ordered only 5 rolls now in 35mm as I'm really looking forward to the 120... in April or thereabouts.
Given all the troubles of shooting and losing the latent images in Pan-F, I think it's a good bet this film offers a good option in lieu of Pan F. I look forward to shooting it, and seeing whether it might even step into the shoes of FP4. Can't wait to see how it soups in XTOL-R.
Great news I'd share more broadly is that the folks at Ferrania have been very careful with the shipping. They reached out to re-confirm my address which had somehow become garbled. Got it fixed, and its good to know these folks are careful as well as all the rest.
Again and again, my hats off to Ferrania for getting not just into production, but into general distribution. Thanks!
As I said in another thread, our co-founder Marco Pagni takes ISO very very seriously. We have chosen the "80 ASA" designation instead because it was historically accurate and because Marco says we can't call it 80 ISO until he says so.
Several people have attempted to confirm the "actual" speed of the film through various methods.
I understand that some feel compelled to do this, but to be perfectly frank, 99% of our customers just shoot the film at 80 ISO and they seem to be loving the results.
The folks in the factory are certainly very concerned to dial-in our films to meet ISO standards - but we simply do not have the staff necessary to do this quite yet.
Considering that we quickly and easily sell every single roll we make, I am FAR more concerned that we make MORE of what we have been making - and that our customers love it.
Funny side note:
A friend of mine in Germany dropped her P30 at dm - a chain of drugstores that is the US equivalent of RiteAid or Walgreens.
The prints they gave her were terrible, but the negatives themselves were amazing.
And I can hardly think that they took the time to analyze the film or consult our Best Practices PDF. They just processed it like they process any 80 ISO B&W film.
I was truly stunned at the results, and quite excited that our German customers will have the option of dropping P30 at their corner drugstore!
Well - what we could learn from your friend ? If your intention is to get the cheapest prints from a bw film you soon should find your way to such kind of drugstore.As I said in another thread, our co-founder Marco Pagni takes ISO very very seriously. We have chosen the "80 ASA" designation instead because it was historically accurate and because Marco says we can't call it 80 ISO until he says so.
Several people have attempted to confirm the "actual" speed of the film through various methods.
I understand that some feel compelled to do this, but to be perfectly frank, 99% of our customers just shoot the film at 80 ISO and they seem to be loving the results.
The folks in the factory are certainly very concerned to dial-in our films to meet ISO standards - but we simply do not have the staff necessary to do this quite yet.
Considering that we quickly and easily sell every single roll we make, I am FAR more concerned that we make MORE of what we have been making - and that our customers love it.
Funny side note:
A friend of mine in Germany dropped her P30 at dm - a chain of drugstores that is the US equivalent of RiteAid or Walgreens.
The prints they gave her were terrible, but the negatives themselves were amazing.
And I can hardly think that they took the time to analyze the film or consult our Best Practices PDF. They just processed it like they process any 80 ISO B&W film.
I was truly stunned at the results, and quite excited that our German customers will have the option of dropping P30 at their corner drugstore!
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.
I guess there is something wrong with your Ilforsol developer. Is it still a liquid concentrate? I did not use it since 1980.
But that has nothing to say - it is a standard developer type not soo bad.
Perhaps wrong delution ?
with regards
There was nothing wrong with my developer or the way it was prepared, I just needed to adjust the time in the developer to suit the film. I now see Ferrania has changed the best practices document for Ilfosol 3 and it matches my findings, down from 7 minutes to 6.
I've now caught up on this thread and I must say two things.
1. Thank you Scott Micciche for your diligent work in helping me to redefine our Best Practices document. Version 2.0 was posted yesterday for anyone who is interested. And thank you for "holding down the fort" in this thread.
2. The VAST majority of our customers just take the film out and shoot it. Most love it and want to buy more than we can physically produce. That is literally the only thing we care about at this point in time. We don't have the luxury to care about anything else.
Six minutes seemed not only reliable, but pleasing once processed. It reminded me of Rollei Retro 80s with respect to the grays.
As I said in another thread, our co-founder Marco Pagni takes ISO very very seriously. We have chosen the "80 ASA" designation instead because it was historically accurate and because Marco says we can't call it 80 ISO until he says so.
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?