Film Ferrania p30

[faberryman]

Fair enough Michael. I do not pretend to be a scientist. Those folks are employed in the factory.

I was restating anecdotal information I've read many times from many different sources, which I should know by now is silly to do in this forum.

This entire debate of the "actual" ISO of P30 film, is, however, quite ridiculous in light of the many thousands of photos we have seen shot at 80.

The fact that many photos were exposed as 80 does not mean that P30 has an ISO of 80. You might want to read the actual ISO film speed requirements. Your film doesn't have an ISO; you haven't done the necessary testing to qualify for an official rating.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

The fact that many photos were exposed as 80 does not mean that P30 has an ISO of 80.

Hey - you guys are free to argue the point as much as you like.

Every roll of film sells out as soon as we put it on sale and there is no argument about this ISO thing except here on APUG.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Most of the photos I've seen, though very nice, seem a bit underexposed to me. I haven't used it myself because I don't shoot 135 format (nor anything else at the moment) but my guess is, a speed of 32 or 50 ISO is closer to correct for optimum shadow detail. One thing I do like, assuming image manipulation has been minimal, is the midtone separation.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Most of the photos I've seen, though very nice, seem a bit underexposed to me. I haven't used it myself because I don't shoot 135 format (nor anything else at the moment) but my guess is, a speed of 32 or 50 ISO is closer to correct for optimum shadow detail. One thing I do like, assuming image manipulation has been minimal, is the midtone separation.

It is unbelievable how important this text is related to scanning these negatives. If anyone would like to see some Pakon F135 default scan images (a total shame!), I would be happy to pop some up here. It is very important to scan 16-bit gray and for the flattest, least tone curve applied settings. Stay away from any of Adobe Lightroom's laplacian-activated manipulation: exposure, highlight and shadow sliders.

 

[Ces1um]

Hey - you guys are free to argue the point as much as you like.

... there is no argument about this ISO thing except here on APUG.

This is apug/photrio. Every thread here breaks down into an argument over details. The only ones that don't are the ones like, "If you could only have one (insert thing here) what would it be?" or "What was the last (insert thing here) you bought?". Everything else goes mad max here. Your company is getting off light. Imagine if you were representing Lomography! That poor company gets lambasted! I wish you the best of luck though- I really like your film a lot- I like to shoot it at 80 iso. If I really feel like rebelling, I shoot it at 100 (gasp). Keep up the good work.

 

[MattKing]

The ISO specifications were developed using many things, but maybe most important were the "best print" tests.
And all of the prints used for those tests were straight prints - no Lightroom sliders involved!
The environment that Ferrania is using for their public distribution experiments (note that I don't say tests) is really different from the environment used for ISO tests.
It may be that this environment more closely analogizes (pun intended) the environment that a majority of the public distribution P30 testers are likely to use the film in - one where the film is scanned and then displayed on the internet rather than darkroom printed and displayed on a wall.
Heck, even anally retentive, spot meter wielding Zone System aficionados don't use ISO speed numbers - they love to live in the shadows, and insist on rating films lower than box speed! (insert tongue in cheek emoticon here!).
I look at the 80 ASA on the box as meaning that Ferrania thinks you should start your experiments there.

 

[Alan9940]

This whole argument regarding ISO/ASA/etc is certainly entertaining to me. I used years of experience and sensitometric testing to arrive at an EI of 40 for my personal equipment and methods. What does that mean to anything? Absolutely nothing! If I'm happy shooting this film at EI40 and you're happy with the results you get at EI80, who cares? It doesn't matter what speed Ferrania puts on the box or thinks the actual speed is. We all arrive at what works for each of us, and then should be out taking pictures.

 

[twelvetone12]

Hey - you guys are free to argue the point as much as you like.

Every roll of film sells out as soon as we put it on sale and there is no argument about this ISO thing except here on APUG.

Yes but you should not think about this as a fight or argument. I like p30 and I will still like it if it is officially rated at iso 35 for example. The difference in having good specifications and documentation Mena's that when I use the product I can understand it better, and when I click the shutter I can visualize better the final result. I find p30 quite moody and when I develop roll I'm not always sure what to expect. This also means I cannot look for the best images that will capture well on the film.
For example last week in Japan I shoot 2 rolls at 64ei, the same day on the same camera. I developed them yesterday in d76 stock. One is very underexposed - like two stops - with no shadow detail (as in transparent film), the other look much better, is more sense and has shadow detail. I developed them in the together in the same tank. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to make a polemic. But on the other side I do not want to be tied to trial and error each roll I shot - thus the requesta for precise specifications.

 

[trendland]

There is an important difference between the ISO standard and the ASA and DIN standards. The latter two methods require that speed be determined using a spcific developer while the ISO method allows the manufacrurer to use any developer.

Thanks for this Information Gerald - I did not this....
But in normal practice I will not care about. Everything I would like to have back again is my Hp5 in 135-72 in 400 ASA ....
But P30 will spent a little consolation

with regards

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Yes but you should not think about this as a fight or argument. I like p30 and I will still like it if it is officially rated at iso 35 for example. The difference in having good specifications and documentation Mena's that when I use the product I can understand it better, and when I click the shutter I can visualize better the final result. I find p30 quite moody and when I develop roll I'm not always sure what to expect. This also means I cannot look for the best images that will capture well on the film.
For example last week in Japan I shoot 2 rolls at 64ei, the same day on the same camera. I developed them yesterday in d76 stock. One is very underexposed - like two stops - with no shadow detail (as in transparent film), the other look much better, is more sense and has shadow detail. I developed them in the together in the same tank. Please don't get me wrong - I do not want to make a polemic. But on the other side I do not want to be tied to trial and error each roll I shot - thus the requesta for precise specifications.

As I think I've pointed out before, with a factory staff of 5 (plus one co-founder), "having good specifications and documentation" about P30 is just not feasible.

Fortunately for us, our community has risen to the challenge, and with rare exceptions, without complaint.

 

[twelvetone12]

Amen. I'm going to light a candle every time I develop P30 to make sure I get printable images. Any particular brand of candles facilitates film development?

 

[twelvetone12]

Thank you. I'm really impressed with this developer. I've never used Paranol S, which has some similarity to Rodinal. I plan to use it with some Rollei Retro 80s as well.

Scott, do you have any info on what Paranol actually is? One reseller seems to hint that it is a Rodinal clone ("Tetenal Paranol S is a new developer from the German manufacturer to exactly the same recipe as Rodinal when it was being made by Agfa before they ceased trading in 2005", http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/tetenal-paranol-s-250ml-rodinal-formula-3677-p.asp), I found the same description is some Italian sites. Maco is more cautious ("Paranol S ist auf Basis von p-Aminophenol. [...] Paranol S ist ein Einmalentwickler, kompatibel mit Agfa Rodinal" - just "compatibile"). Is it worth trying or it's the same thing of other Rodinals (which I already have under the form of Adox Rodinal)?

 

[bstark]

I tried Paranol-S once; would not buy again. HP5+ developed in fresh Paranol 1+25 looks the same as developed in Rodinal (clones), but:

• My Paranol-S died in less than one year, very unusual for Rodinal
• I was getting inconsistent results with higher dilutions well before that
• Published developing times are often different from Rodinal (extremely long), esp. for 1+50

I normally wouldn't worry about the last point, Tetenal documentation has always been a bit... peculiar. But I couldn't dial in my various films befor the stuff went inactive, so I dug up an almost decade-old, opened bottle of APH09 and promptly got "normal" results again. I originally bought the Paranol-S as a backup because I was worried about the age of my APH09.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Scott, do you have any info on what Paranol actually is? One reseller seems to hint that it is a Rodinal clone ("Tetenal Paranol S is a new developer from the German manufacturer to exactly the same recipe as Rodinal when it was being made by Agfa before they ceased trading in 2005", http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/tetenal-paranol-s-250ml-rodinal-formula-3677-p.asp), I found the same description is some Italian sites. Maco is more cautious ("Paranol S ist auf Basis von p-Aminophenol. [...] Paranol S ist ein Einmalentwickler, kompatibel mit Agfa Rodinal" - just "compatibile"). Is it worth trying or it's the same thing of other Rodinals (which I already have under the form of Adox Rodinal)?

It does contain a key Rodinal ingredient, but from there, it's not much like it. The development times are sometimes close to Rodinal, yet for other films, the times are very different. Take a look at the massive dev chart and just pull down the Paranol S and search on all the films it where it has data. Crazy.

I will say that the acutance and shadow detail are stunning with the P30 shot at 80. Development is very complete with this recipe and the negatives are some of the best next to TMAX and the Rodinal semi-stand technique.

 

[subsole]

Scott, do you have any info on what Paranol actually is? One reseller seems to hint that it is a Rodinal clone ("Tetenal Paranol S is a new developer from the German manufacturer to exactly the same recipe as Rodinal when it was being made by Agfa before they ceased trading in 2005", http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/tetenal-paranol-s-250ml-rodinal-formula-3677-p.asp), I found the same description is some Italian sites. Maco is more cautious ("Paranol S ist auf Basis von p-Aminophenol. [...] Paranol S ist ein Einmalentwickler, kompatibel mit Agfa Rodinal" - just "compatibile"). Is it worth trying or it's the same thing of other Rodinals (which I already have under the form of Adox Rodinal)?

ADOX Rodinal is the only "AGFA 2005 recipe" version on the market.
ADOX APH-09 ist the Rodinal pre-war version.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Here is the msds from freestyle

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/msds/tetenal/102106.pdf

 

[twelvetone12]

Ok this makes me curious enough to try it!

 

[twelvetone12]

After two rolls of p30 that came out tragically in d76 (shoot @80iso, they came out underexposed and underdeveloped), I was hoping for the magic properties of Paranol. S. Now, I don't believe in magic, and the negative resulting was one of the worst I've ever had in the last years. I shoot @80, developed in 1+50 for 14 minutes at 20.0 degrees. The negative came out as document microfilm: there is transparent base in the shadows and DMAX in the highlights. Nothing in between. I looks like a 8iso film shoot ad 3200 and developed for two hours, massively underexposed and brutally overdeveloped. I used my Nikon F90, and I trust the meter, as the day before I did HP5 and color and the negs were all exposed correctly.
As a side note, I also developed a roll of Acros (shoot in sequence) and, while it appears exposed correctly, it seems quite underdeveloped (I did per instructions, 1+50 14 minutes at 20C). So I'm not sure how much fault is in the film and how much in the developer.
Returning to P30, I really can't understand how some people get good results at 80iso, unless they overexpose by 2 stops. The 4 rolls I shoot at this speed all had no shadow detail and a mixture of thin/blocked highlights depending on the developer I tried. I will revert back to 16iso in beutler, which gave me the best results, for the remaining films.

EDIT: I'm forgetting how to write in English...
EDIT2: it is a F90 obviously...

 

[Scott Micciche]

I've never developed Acros in Paranol S, but that recipe coincides with the massive development chart, so it must have had success for someone to donate to the chart. I used a newly re-calibrated (Sover Wong) Nikon F2 DP-12 meter for my entire roll of P30, 80 ISO and the above Paranol S recipe.

How was the film agitated? Was the temperature precise? If you are seeing nice results at 16 ISO, I suspect a metering problem. Are you seeing these results by examining the negatives, printing or scanning? If scanning looks horrible, how are the negatives scanned? What software?

 

[twelvetone12]

Hi Scott! The temp was at 20.0 measured with my digital thermometer, I agitated 30s at the beginning, then 10s each minute (I use a stopwatch).
I think the meters are not at fault, because I used P30 with different cams (F3, F4, F90) all of which I use regularly and produce excellent results with other films (and slides which I shoot often). I also develop lots of other films regularly and I never get such results (even when my thermometer was off by +3 degrees!)
Later I will be in the darkroom and make a photo of the negative on the light box. You can clearly see completely empty shadows and dark highlights.
In the meantime, for what is worth, I have two scans. The day was quite dull and slightly overcast. First image is p30 and second acros, same spot some 30 seconds apart. Same camera.
Maybe I just hit a bad batch of p30, dunno. I was able only to have good results @80 iso with one roll in d76 and could not replicate it.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Wow, yes those scans do look lifeless. I've not had results like that using even HC-110(b). What is the scanner and software combination?

 

[twelvetone12]

It is a Canon 9000 mark II + the bundled software, which is quite dreadful. But I will post a photo of the negatives, I think that is more representative.

 

[Scott Micciche]

If the software has a way to dump out a raw, linear scan, I'll see what photoshop/colorneg can do, which is all I use these days for all my inversions. I'm just not familiar with proprietary scanning software. I do know the Pakon default is also hideous with the P30 (and most true B&W films). Sample: my sister would slaughter me if I put this out in to the world, Pakon F135 @ default B&W setting.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Recently film ferrania put their p30 film up for sale on their website. It's their "alpha test" of their first batch of B&W film. I ordered some the morning of "day one" but it hasn't arrived and it's been some time. I was wondering if anyone else here ordered any p30 and if it has arrived to them yet? I've emailed film ferrania but as of yet haven't gotten a response. I know they've got to be swamped so i'm remaining patient but I'm getting concerned that their website issues that morning may have lost my order. Luckily I have a screenshot of my order# if things get sticky, but I'm hoping that I'm not going to experience that level of hassle. Anybody else purchase some?

I have 3 rolls in my freezer. I shot any yet. I’d like to do with replenished XTOL, but don’t have a dev time yet. I’d like more rolls so I can do some testing and do dev time and speed testing.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I have 3 rolls in my freezer. I shot any yet. I’d like to do with replenished XTOL, but don’t have a dev time yet. I’d like more rolls so I can do some testing and do dev time and speed testing.

Here are some recipes provided by some people. I have not seen prints, negatives or scans from the output, however.

Kodak XTOL 1+1 20ºC/68ºF - 12 Small Tank: Inversions for first minute, then 10 second agitations each minute
Kodak XTOL 1+3 20ºC/68ºF - 16 Lab Processing/Rotary Tank: Continuous rotation