Here is my latest roll, captured in a Nikon F6 with a Zeiss 35mm distagon f/1.4 lens. Shot at 80 ASA and incident metered. Developed in Kodak TMAX Developer 1:6 24C for 7 minutes with an initial 4 minute 24C soaking. Pakon F135 scans and inverted using Imagemagick and Negfix8.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekurgan/albums/72157716869618168View attachment 259353 View attachment 259354 View attachment 259355 View attachment 259356View attachment 259357
Very nice results and at EI 80! I'm starting to feel that Pyrocat-HD is not well suited to this film. I've decided at EI 32 and still not satisfied. Time for a different developer...
I've been really happy with TMAX Dev as well as the FF No. 1 Monobath, Paranol S and Adox's Silvermax Dev. using their ISO 100 recipe.
Why 1:6 and not 1+4?Here is my latest roll, captured in a Nikon F6 with a Zeiss 35mm distagon f/1.4 lens. Shot at 80 ASA and incident metered. Developed in Kodak TMAX Developer 1:6 24C for 7 minutes with an initial 4 minute 24C soaking. Pakon F135 scans and inverted using Imagemagick and Negfix8.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekurgan/albums/72157716869618168View attachment 259353 View attachment 259354 View attachment 259355 View attachment 259356View attachment 259357
Thanks Scott. I'm going to give it a go in Ilfosol-3, as I've got some on hand...and it's also one of the developers Ferrania has tested. Cheers!
Why 1:6 and not 1+4?
Shot off a roll while strolling through a local park on the weekend with the intention of trying a different developer other than pyrocat-hd. I was not happy with the results I was getting, even shooting at EI 32.. Back in the darkroom I mixed up some D-23... I was initially going to give Ilfosol-3 a shot, but changed my mind. D-23 was diluted 1+1. The film got 13 minutes, with agitation 5s every minute. I'm quite happy with the results. Cleary... at least for me... P30 and Pyrocat-HD are not suited for one another. Here are a few examples from that roll. Camera was on a tripod for all shots. EI 32:View attachment 259650 View attachment 259651 View attachment 259652 View attachment 259654
These are fantastic! I love the range and midtones.
Thanks Scott. I was quite pleased with them, too. This film is back on my "want to shoot" list, when it comes out in 120. I pretty much gave up on P30 after its under performance in Pyrocat-HD. I'll explore more with D-23 1+1, and also divided D-23 for extreme SBR's... out of the film, so that will have to wait.
The D23 gave the film a very FP4 look, bringing out an incredible amount of shadow detail.
The film got 13 minutes, with agitation 5s every minute. I'm quite happy with the results. (... snip ...) EI 32
Andrew, I find it curious that the film needed 13 minutes in D-23 after being 1-1/3 stops overexposed* — although I must admit I am not used to D-23 and its times. Your agitation regime must require some more time, though. The images are beautiful, the shadows look very detailed. In a way, looks like the contrast was "tamed".
Last week, I was looking at some P30 strips from my archive and noticed it looks so much more contrasty than Double-X (5222), which I have used a lot in the last couple of years. Yes, I know Double-X is a cine-film and these are inherently low-contrast, but I had developed my P30 Alpha rolls with D-96, which should have given low-contrast negatives. Go figure...
Cheers,
Flavio
(*) Relative to box speed.
That is my video, and the camera had no effect on film speed because the film speed was determined with a sensitometer and densitometer. The results were backed up by which bracketed (1/3 stops) negative produced the shadow value identical to the Tri-X negative. The lighting was a 5500K Profoto strobe with a soft box.
It's not the film, it's not even the developerGreg, that you have got this huge loss in shadow detail has nothing to do with the sensitisation of P30.
This film simply has not a real speed of ISO 80, not at all. The real speed is several stops slower.
Here just my sensitometric test results with P30 in Tetenal Ultrafin Plus. I am using an enlarger with a double condensor and a mix box, so i need about 0.68-0.72 logD for Zone V and development time is determined by Zone VIII and logD about 1.22 - 1.27.
Exposure was with EI 32/16°:
Zone I: 0.00 logD
Zone II: 0.02
Zone III: 0.08
Zone IV: 0.22
Zone V: 0.51
Zone VI: 0.63
Zone VII: 0.93
Zone VIII: 1.26
Zone IX: 1.55
Zone X: 1.77
Tetenal Ultrafin Plus is a high-speed developer with quite good shadow detail, similar to Kodak T-Max developer and Ilford DD-X.
As clearly shown, even at Zone III the density is only 0.08. Exposed was with EI 32/16°. So real speed is two stops slower, ISO 8. Zone IV to VIII also have too low density values. Zone VIII has the right value, so development time is correct. Zone IX and X have too high values.
I have also tested some other developers, but the problems remain:
- always huge lack of shadow detail
- the real speed is several stops below the claimed ISO 80
- huge contrast
- it is impossible to make a satisfying print with an enlarger, as you have either blocked shadows with no detail, or too much dense highlights.
I have never had a film with such bad tonality and problematic characteristic curve. And I am doing film processing and darkroom prints for several decades now.
i have had high hopes for Film Ferrania's first film, but I am very dissappointed. Such a problematic film for such a high price.
And selling this film as ISO 80 is very dishonest. Film sensitivity is not a topic of opinions or marketing, it is about physics, the ISO norm and real measurements. And the measurements are clear: This film is not an ISO 80 film. That is not only my result. I have talked to several other very experienced photographers who have tested this film as well, used a densitometer and evaluated the characteristic curve. All had the same results and problems.
I really hope Film Ferrania will do better in the future. Generally I really appreciate their efforts. But in the end all the work must lead to a good and competetive product. But that is not the case with P30, as Ilford PanF+, Delta 100, T-Max 100. Acros II, HR-50 all offer much better results, and are much much easier to handle.
It's not the film, it's not even the developer
it's the user...
Do you have a correctly calibrated sensitometer?No, it is of course not.
No user is able to change the light sensitivty of a film. The sensitivity is determined by the film emulsion. Period. That is simply the physical fact.
And that light sensitivity is measured with a densitometer. That is what the manufacturers are doing, and that is what experienced photographers are doing. For many decades now. It is the standard procedure, and it is by far the best procedure, because it is the most precise.
Do you have a correctly calibrated sensitometer?
Did you religiously follow the latest ISO paper for determining the film speed?
Leave the proper ISO calculation to the manufacturer.
Yes, I have. A Heiland TRD 2. The best you can buy.
I know the ISO norms, yes.
No, as here in this case the difference is so huge. It is really completely out of any tolerance and goodwill (which I generally have).
And I am not the only one with these test results:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...5-at-24c-and-1-inversion-every-2-minutes.445/
How can I listen to someone who doesn't even know the difference between sensitometer and densitometer...Yes, I have. A Heiland TRD 2. The best you can buy.
I know the ISO norms, yes.
No, as here in this case the difference is so huge. It is really completely out of any tolerance and goodwill (which I generally have).
And I am not the only one with these test results:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resou...5-at-24c-and-1-inversion-every-2-minutes.445/
That's a densitometre (measures the optical density of film), not a sensitometre (measures a film's sensitivity to light). I have the same densitometre as you. It's a great little device!
How can I listen to someone who doesn't even know the difference between sensitometer and densitometer...
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?