Film Ferrania p30

[twelvetone12]

Has anyone had good results in Rodinal 1+50? I was looking around and it seems the suggested time of 14 minutes quite overdevelops the film, and I don't have any other developer in reach right now. Thanks!

 

[studiocarter]

I normally start with RO9 One Shot 1:50 ten minuets at 68 degrees F or 20 degrees C. However, in a small Jobo tank, 300 ml was not enough. 35mm P30 Film was underdeveloped. The developer is new and has since worked as expected, using 16mm on one 110 reel in 300ml.

 

[Chris Livsey]

P30 in Beutler seems a nice combination, 1:1:8 7mins

[/url]

 

[Gerald C Koch]

P30 in Beutler seems a nice combination, 1:1:8 7mins

[/url]

Looks nice, what EI do you use?

 

[Chris Livsey]

Looks nice, what EI do you use?

50. I was shooting sunny sixteen and 80 is beyond my maths and I don't like messing with 1/3rd stops although the ZM Sonnar has them, just erred on the generous side, it's not going to be my winter staple film though

 

[twelvetone12]

Very nice! Did you mix the Beutler yourself?

 

[chassis]

P30 in Beutler seems a nice combination, 1:1:8 7mins

[/url]

Well done, again, Chris!

 

[Chris Livsey]

Very nice! Did you mix the Beutler yourself?

Yes, it's dead simple to make, three ingredients. Works well on the slower speed films but surprisingly well on the T grain types as well.

Well done, again, Chris!

Appreciated, only one roll left here now I may take to Scotland next week and cross fingers for some light.

 

[BAC1967]

I shot the eclipse with a Chinon SLR using a 500mm mirror lens, a 2X Multiplier and a solar filter. I developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes at 20C. This is a GIF of seven images that are cropped to help get them centered. We only got to 93% totality where I was.

via Imgflip GIF Maker

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The Beutler formula is about as cheap as one can get. Some years ago I calculated the cost per roll. I don't remember the exact figure but it was a couple of pennies a roll.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Has anyone had good results in Rodinal 1+50? I was looking around and it seems the suggested time of 14 minutes quite overdevelops the film, and I don't have any other developer in reach right now. Thanks!

I am going to try this recipe with rodinal on a roll:

http://filmdev.org/recipe/show/7758

 

[insolublepancake]

Has anyone had good results in Rodinal 1+50? I was looking around and it seems the suggested time of 14 minutes quite overdevelops the film, and I don't have any other developer in reach right now. Thanks!

Hi ! Yes, I have developed three rolls of P30 using Rodinal. It's worth noting that originally the P30 "best practices" initially suggested 8mins @20C for 1+50 Rodinal but that was since changed to 14mins at the same time and dilution. I developed my first roll using the 8mins recipe and wrote up the results here:

http://blog.insolublepancake.org/2017/06/ferraniap30.html

A lot of the 'high contrast' stuff you see on the internet is partly because people are scanning the negatives, if you print on grade 2 paper it looks wonderful (my post shows the scans from the prints). The attached image was from the first roll developed at 8mins. You can see the equivalent scan in the blog post.

My second two rolls, developed using the 14mins time, do seem to be overdeveloped, the highlights are blocked, and if I were to develop another roll I would probably cut back to around 10mins I think ! I would like to make some contact prints to be sure ...But in general I am very happy with the film.

 

[aparat]

Hi ! Yes, I have developed three rolls of P30 using Rodinal. It's worth noting that originally the P30 "best practices" initially suggested 8mins @20C for 1+50 Rodinal but that was since changed to 14mins at the same time and dilution. I developed my first roll using the 8mins recipe and wrote up the results here:

http://blog.insolublepancake.org/2017/06/ferraniap30.html

A lot of the 'high contrast' stuff you see on the internet is partly because people are scanning the negatives, if you print on grade 2 paper it looks wonderful (my post shows the scans from the prints). The attached image was from the first roll developed at 8mins. You can see the equivalent scan in the blog post.

My second two rolls, developed using the 14mins time, do seem to be overdeveloped, the highlights are blocked, and if I were to develop another roll I would probably cut back to around 10mins I think ! I would like to make some contact prints to be sure ...But in general I am very happy with the film.

I enjoyed reading your post and seeing the photos! The contact sheet was the most interesting, and so rarely seen in film reviews. I agree that scanning doesn't do the film (any BW film) justice. Scanning can increase contrast, graininess, shadow detail, and overall amount of detail and perceived sharpness. Most importantly, scanning reduces the film's characters, its unique tonality, by applying its own curve to the linear scan. Also, viewing scans as pixels on the screen is not particularly useful to those of us who print in the darkroom.

You did a fantastic job!

 

[Scott Micciche]

I do think a lot of the high contrast images we see on the net are poor scanning techniques or the software is manipulating the output image.

I generally scan to raw and only use colorperfect's inversion. I have very flat images this way, and they present nicely.

That being said, the agitation is more likely causing the over development with certain developers.

These photos were processed in a rondinax 35u, using the default jerk motion on the rotary knob every 2 seconds. The developer is kodak D-96.

With all these different developers, I would have rather had the P30alpha sent in rolls of 10 as opposed to 36 for easier testing.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with scanning negatives is not only from the software but also from the digital sensor. These sensors are subject to a host of aberrations unknown to analog photography such as the venetian blind effect.

 

[insolublepancake]

I enjoyed reading your post and seeing the photos! The contact sheet was the most interesting, and so rarely seen in film reviews. I agree that scanning doesn't do the film (any BW film) justice. Scanning can increase contrast, graininess, shadow detail, and overall amount of detail and perceived sharpness. Most importantly, scanning reduces the film's characters, its unique tonality, by applying its own curve to the linear scan. Also, viewing scans as pixels on the screen is not particularly useful to those of us who print in the darkroom.
You did a fantastic job!

Thanks for the kind words ! I don't have a fantastic scanner, but limitations of scanning were obvious to me since, starting film photography about two years ago, I made this simple experiment. I scanned some negatives, and sent them to PICTO Paris' printing service where the scanned image is exposed on photographic paper using a monochrome-optimised Durst Lambda printer. This paper is then developed. I compared that with an optical-only enlargement. Geeky, I know, but it showed clearly what the limitations of scanning were, in terms of resolution and shadow detail. I honestly think now that 100 bucks of enlarger is better than thousands of euros of computers, if you are starting from a negative. But here at APUG I know I don't have to tell anyone that .

cheers
h.

 

[JWMster]

Chris - NAILED it! Very nice shots and tone. Inspiring me to try both the P30 and Beutler whenever the first comes available and I take the Beutler plunge. Very much love the 1st shot down the alley! Thanks for posting.

 

[BAC1967]

These were developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 8 minutes. I didn't realize they changed the recommended development time to 14 minutes, I'll try that on the next roll.

Manette Radio by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Hazy Day by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[pentaxuser]

These were developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 8 minutes. I didn't realize they changed the recommended development time to 14 minutes, I'll try that on the next roll.

Manette Radio by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Hazy Day by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

None of my business really but if this is what you get on 8 mins and this especially applies to the TV picture which is really good, I'd be sceptical if another 6 mins which is 75% more development time can improve on this.

pentaxuser

 

[jimjm]

None of my business really but if this is what you get on 8 mins and this especially applies to the TV picture which is really good, I'd be sceptical if another 6 mins which is 75% more development time can improve on this.

pentaxuser

I'd agree with PE here - your first shot doesn't show any signs of being underdeveloped. Good dense highlights and you can see plenty of detail in the letters. Very typical of what I've seen with P30 so far. Second example is tougher to determine as most of the highlight is blank sky area. Most other 100 speed films I develop in Rodinal 1:50 are usually between 11 and 15 mins (Acros 100, TMax100), so 14 mins SHOULD seem reasonable for P30 at ISO 80. You sure you only developed for 8 mins? Was your developer temp around 20C?

 

[BAC1967]

None of my business really but if this is what you get on 8 mins and this especially applies to the TV picture which is really good, I'd be sceptical if another 6 mins which is 75% more development time can improve on this.

pentaxuser

Thanks for the comments. I would only do it to see if it comes out much different, not that I'm unhappy with these results. At this point I'm just experimenting with this film. I would like to see some good results in caffenol, that didn't work out very well for me.

 

[twelvetone12]

That's exactly why I was not convinced of the 14minutes - many of the images developed for 14 minutes you can see in the Ferrania gallery do seem overexposed (and not overscanned...). The roll I did at 80 iso came out massively underexposed, at least a couple stops (!), it almost seems that the 14 minutes in Rodinal is a push to compensate that.
@BAC1967 what iso did you shoot your film?

EDIT: a phrase did not make sennse

 

[BAC1967]

That's exactly why I was not convinced of the 14minutes - many of the images developed for 14 minutes you can see in the Ferrania gallery do seem overexposed (and not overscanned...). The roll I did at 80 iso came out massively underexposed, at least a couple stops (!), it almost seems that the 14 minutes in Rodinal is a push to compensate that.
@BAC1967 what iso did you shoot your film?

EDIT: a phrase did not make sennse

I should have mentioned that I shot it at ISO 50 based on suggestions I read here. I was also using a yellow filter so I compensated one stop for that as well.

 

[twelvetone12]

Thanks! I'm going to do the next roll at 40/50 too.

 

[pentaxuser]

I should have mentioned that I shot it at ISO 50 based on suggestions I read here. I was also using a yellow filter so I compensated one stop for that as well.

In other comparison pictures shot at various EIs from 20 upwards it looked to me that 40-50 was about right. If this is the true speed then it is a pity that Ferrania claims 80 and it is even more of a pity if it has tried to compensate by suggesting a much longer development time. However to be fair there seems to be other shots which look OK at 80. Then there was the controversy about whether P30 lacks red sensitivity which raged for awhile.

I suspect the truth is that this film hasn't had the kind of research devoted to it pre-launch that bigger, better resourced companies like Ilford can afford so we are building up a body of knowledge by "the cut-and-try" of users to a greater extent than may be true of other films

pentaxuser