Film Ferrania p30

[John Wiegerink]

OMG, 4X5 quality from medium format then! I can sell my 4X5 and go light. If I ever see it in 120 size. Still, I would be very happy sticking it in my Contax G1. Oh, I use Pyrocat-HDC and it looks to be a match.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ferrania P30 Alpha test by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Ferrania P30 Alpha test by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Ferrania P30 Alpha test by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Yashica Lynx 14e
Ferrania P30 Alpha (P30.17.002)
R09 One Shot (Rodinal) 1+50 @14min.

Do I like it?
Yeah, I like it a lot.

 

[Don Harpold]

Very nice Ricardo
What was your agitation, same as what is on the Massive develop sheet.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ferrania P30 Alpha test by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Ferrania P30 Alpha test by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Ferrania P30 Alpha test by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

Yashica Lynx 14e
Ferrania P30 Alpha (P30.17.002)
R09 One Shot (Rodinal) 1+50 @14min.

Do I like it?
Yeah, I like it a lot.

Underexposed, especially the last one.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Underexposed, especially the last one.

I wasn't going to say anything but, yeah... a little bit underexposed and slightly overdeveloped.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Underexposed, especially the last one.

I have to agree with Petraio on this one. Pretty much everything I have seen shot with this film looks underexposed to me. Perhaps an ISO of 80 is a little optimistic. Still can't wait to get my hands on some. Beautiful film.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I have to agree with Petraio on this one. Pretty much everything I have seen shot with this film looks underexposed to me. Perhaps an ISO of 80 is a little optimistic. Still can't wait to get my hands on some. Beautiful film.

I'd try EI 50 or so.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I was thinking the same thing. Probably needs more exposure...like EI 40.

 

[tim_walls]

I have to agree with Petraio on this one. Pretty much everything I have seen shot with this film looks underexposed to me. Perhaps an ISO of 80 is a little optimistic. Still can't wait to get my hands on some. Beautiful film.

I have to say, it fits my personal aesthetic perfectly, dark and moody and contrasty works for me . I'd had no great interest or awareness of this film (other than the ongoing bunfight in that Hello from... thread) until I saw these photos. Now I'm thinking I really want to get my hands on some...

 

[Chris Livsey]

I was thinking the same thing. Probably needs more exposure...like EI 40.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This was a series of brackets I posted earlier, I would tend to go for 50 EI as a starting point. However my point is that the look of the film is clear, not finely nuanced mid-grey gradations although the shot below does show it is capable of that in the net curtains, it doesn't have that characteristic muddy shadows look of underexposure in those frames Ricardo posted.
What we need now is one of the densitometer owning, curve drawing, technical testers to show us what the curve is like which would inform the discussion. I'm empirical these days but technical has its place and we need someone to step up to the mark.

Ricardo's shots are lovely, for me. I would have said P30 if asked and they drop into the gallery on the Ferrania page perfectly, that gallery has been updated BTW far more to look at than posted here.
Dead Link Removed

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Very nice Ricardo
What was your agitation, same as what is on the Massive develop sheet.

Thanks!
I'm sure that Ferrania P30 isn't there, is it?


In any case, as a friend of mine points out, I followed the recipe on the Film Ferrania site.
This was according with the v1.3 and it is inversions for 10sec every minute for around 14min.
I might have gone a bit over there.
This is just the second roll.

I've shot 4 rolls and given one to a mate.
I need to develop the remaining rolls.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Underexposed, especially the last one.

I wasn't going to say anything but, yeah... a little bit underexposed and slightly overdeveloped.

I have to agree with Petraio on this one. Pretty much everything I have seen shot with this film looks underexposed to me. Perhaps an ISO of 80 is a little optimistic. Still can't wait to get my hands on some. Beautiful film.

I would say the same.
Mind that I shot using a Lynx 14e with its non-TTL meter and using 2x PC640 alkaline.
I'm pretty sure the underexposed part comes from using higher voltage batteries.

Initially I used the v1.2 PDF and the times there were a lot shorter, creating underdeveloped pictures.
See bellow:

This was my first roll developed in Rodinal 1+50 one inversion every minute for 6-7minutes.
That was too short.

 

[Chris Livsey]

This was my first roll developed in Rodinal 1+50 one inversion every minute for 6-7minutes.
That was too short.

A good example of what I meant when I said muddy shadows, not seen in the other shots.
Personally I think the exposure comments are confusing the look of the film with an apparent desire for all B/W films to produce the same homogenous white to black tonal gradations, plenty of films do that already we don't need another. Just my opinion and I imply no criticism of the look you want to see but that as I say is already available. The closest film I see is the Silvermax from Adox which does tend to attract similar comments.

Delta100

P30

Silvermax

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Ricardo's shots are lovely, for me.

Thank you!
Yours are gorgeous!

 

[Chris Livsey]

Thank you!
Yours are gorgeous!

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

A good example of what I meant when I said muddy shadows, not seen in the other shots.
Personally I think the exposure comments are confusing the look of the film with an apparent desire for all B/W films to produce the same homogenous white to black tonal gradations, plenty of films do that already we don't need another. Just my opinion and I imply no criticism of the look you want to see but that as I say is already available. The closest film I see is the Silvermax from Adox which does tend to attract similar comments.

Films will always be slightly different (better at rendering shadows, mids or highlights, other spectral responses than others and so forth) but I think the term of "film look" is so watered out that it carries no meaning. One film can be made to behave in a lot of different ways just by using one developer, different development times and exposure indexes. Changing these will probably result in more of a difference in most cases than changing film.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I think foma100 has lots more going for it as far as tonality goes...
Not being a hater...akwats happy to see more analog products produced

 

[Chris Livsey]

Films will always be slightly different (better at rendering shadows, mids or highlights, other spectral responses than others and so forth) but I think the term of "film look" is so watered out that it carries no meaning. One film can be made to behave in a lot of different ways just by using one developer, different development times and exposure indexes. Changing these will probably result in more of a difference in most cases than changing film.

Whilst I agree of course the film can be manipulated and the Ferrania Gallery I linked to is selective in what is posted that does have a wide range of developers on this film with varying times and some IE variance the consistency of the film is remarkable given those variables.
So whilst I agree with your point, which is well made, that is from a more theoretical stand point which I would argue is only partly true if you look at the actual results posted from a a very wide number of photographers. I don't think you would argue against colour films having an individual "look" but of course the colour balance is a big factor there, even though C41 is standardised removing one variable, as is the spectral sensitivity in B/W which, filters excepted, is baked into the film and I think plays a large part in the P30 "look".
You can also look at a collection of shots here:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3270489@N22/pool/ for P30
compared to Delta 100 here:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/303253@N25/pool/
Now arguably the differences in the Delta 100 "looks" are due to longer term familiarity by shooters with what they can do with the film which will come to P30 with time.

So finally is this Delta 100 or P30 ?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have to say, it fits my personal aesthetic perfectly, dark and moody and contrasty works for me . I'd had no great interest or awareness of this film (other than the ongoing bunfight in that Hello from... thread) until I saw these photos. Now I'm thinking I really want to get my hands on some...

I've never heard of a bunfight. Is that a baking competition? Or maybe it's a type of orgy?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I would say the same.
Mind that I shot using a Lynx 14e with its non-TTL meter and using 2x PC640 alkaline.
I'm pretty sure the underexposed part comes from using higher voltage batteries.

Initially I used the v1.2 PDF and the times there were a lot shorter, creating underdeveloped pictures.
See bellow:
This was my first roll developed in Rodinal 1+50 one inversion every minute for 6-7minutes.
That was too short.

Hi Ricardo, I like your photos.

I don't think this image is underdeveloped. It definitely looks underexposed to me. My guess is there was no exposure compensation for the shadowy foreground against the very bright sky. I would have added 2 stops minimum and maybe a bit more.

Regarding agitation: I suggest that (often, not always) less is better. When I developed roll film, my procedure was; Invert (gently) every minute, turn the tank 180 degrees (without agitation), invert gently, tap the bottom of the tank, wait 2 seconds, tap again (without agitation).

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

A good example of what I meant when I said muddy shadows, not seen in the other shots.
Personally I think the exposure comments are confusing the look of the film with an apparent desire for all B/W films to produce the same homogenous white to black tonal gradations, plenty of films do that already we don't need another. Just my opinion and I imply no criticism of the look you want to see but that as I say is already available. The closest film I see is the Silvermax from Adox which does tend to attract similar comments.<snip>

Folks should shoot and process for the look they want. However, I disagree that decreased shadow detail and excessive contrast are appropriate for the film all the time... unless that's the look one wants.

Judging by the images in this thread, I would probably initially test at EI 20 and develop for approximately 15-20 percent less time than the others.

 

[trendland]

Whilst I agree of course the film can be manipulated and the Ferrania Gallery I linked to is selective in what is posted that does have a wide range of developers on this film with varying times and some IE variance the consistency of the film is remarkable given those variables.
So whilst I agree with your point, which is well made, that is from a more theoretical stand point which I would argue is only partly true if you look at the actual results posted from a a very wide number of photographers. I don't think you would argue against colour films having an individual "look" but of course the colour balance is a big factor there, even though C41 is standardised removing one variable, as is the spectral sensitivity in B/W which, filters excepted, is baked into the film and I think plays a large part in the P30 "look".
You can also look at a collection of shots here:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/3270489@N22/pool/ for P30
compared to Delta 100 here:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/303253@N25/pool/
Now arguably the differences in the Delta 100 "looks" are due to longer term familiarity by shooters with what they can do with the film which will come to P30 with time.

So finally is this Delta 100 or P30 ?

Hey Chris you got each of us with this
$ 1000,- question of the week.
Nobody can say for sure and you don't have to say what it is real !
It could be everything!
But if you will spent $ 1000,- this week to this unanswered question you should give 1 .) Information of your develpement....2.) Information to your E.I. and.... third.) a definied picture detail
(For example x 140 )....but don't do this with a scan !!!

AND when we can see the brain structure I can say to you for $ 1000,- sure if it is possiple no Delta 100.
What kind of emulsion this could be shall be the question to $ 10.000,- to the next week. ( question of the month )
So let me ask : Are we just in business
Chris or are we in business
to : $ 1000, - AT THE FIRST ?????

with regards

 

[Chris Livsey]

I've never heard of a bunfight. Is that a baking competition? Or maybe it's a type of orgy?

"Bun-fight" was originally an English reference, mid 19th century but poorly documented maybe of local origin that spread by word of mouth rather than in print so more related to slang than a literary origin, to church-related children's activities marked by more-or-less literal 'bun fights' resembling contemporary schoolchildren's lunchroom 'food fights', that is the original bun fights from which the term is derived involved the throwing of food, specifically hot cross buns at Easter feasts. The modern usage reflects its original reference to children's, or merely childish, behaviour. So:
The Urban Dictionary defines a bun-fight as: A sustained, overblown argument about a petty matter, usually personal in nature to the participants but not to everyone else.

For completeness there is a school of thought which more "serious" dictionaries espouse that it means literally a tea-party which of course has no foundation in current colloquial usage unless you expand that to include inconsequential arguments conducted with a veneer of politeness over tea.

 

[trendland]

Ohhh. ...sorry Chris typing error.

GRAIN structure - not "brain" structure.
At first $ 1 to you Chris......I'll getting
$999,- back.. ...

with regards

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

So finally is this Delta 100 or P30 ?

My guess: It's either Delta 100 at EI 200 or it's P30 at EI 40.