Film Ferrania p30

[Don Harpold]

Thanks
Looks interesting

But..
I think I have found the magic bullet for Film Ferrania, Paranol S
I just processed and scanned a roll from my Leica IIIg with the Elmar 5cm 2.8 and I am very happy with the results
I did half the roll at 40iso and half at 80 and they both came out great.
Thanks to Scott for mentioning this, I know he got from another user but I cannot remember the name.

I processed using a 3 min prewash and 14 mins developing with 30 second agitation to start and then 4 inversions over 10 seconds each min and then water stop for a min and fix with TF4 for 7 mins and 10 min rinse and final photoflo, everything but the 10 min wash was with distilled water.
Here is a link to the Flickr album
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45govt/albums/72157691016142270

Note it was a contrasty couple of days when I took these

Here is a teaser

 

[Scott Micciche]

Thanks
Looks interesting

But..
I think I have found the magic bullet for Film Ferrania, Paranol S
I just processed and scanned a roll from my Leica IIIg with the Elmar 5cm 2.8 and I am very happy with the results
I did half the roll at 40iso and half at 80 and they both came out great.
Thanks to Scott for mentioning this, I know he got from another user but I cannot remember the name.

I processed using a 3 min prewash and 14 mins developing with 30 second agitation to start and then 4 inversions over 10 seconds each min and then water stop for a min and fix with TF4 for 7 mins and 10 min rinse and final photoflo, everything but the 10 min wash was with distilled water.
Here is a link to the Flickr album
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45govt/albums/72157691016142270

Note it was a contrasty couple of days when I took these

Here is a teaser
View attachment 200556

Extraordinary! This recipe I validated was from Tom Sebastiano's fine work . I will agree as for others that Paranol S is a benchmark developer . I need to research its shelf life.

 

[peter k.]

As per Freestyle:
"Unopened, the concentrate will last at least two years. Once opened, it should last six months. Paranol S is a much darker developer than most of its contemporaries and is only truly exhausted when the color changes to deep brown"

 

[Scott Micciche]

Thanks, Peter, I need to check my color and perhaps order some more.

 

[peter k.]

I processed using a 3 min prewash and 14 mins developing

Curious what was your mix? Dilution 1:25 or 1:50?

 

[Don Harpold]

Sorry forgot that
It is 1:50

 

[peter k.]

That makes sense at 14min... we checked back to the original post on this #623 and was not stated there also..
thanks..

 

[Scott Micciche]

That makes sense at 14min... we checked back to the original post on this #623 and was not stated there also..
thanks..

Post #623, first line:

This next roll recipe comes from Tom Sebastiano and his use of Tetenal's Paranol S. 1:50 14 minutes @ 20C, 30s initial agitation, 10s/minute thereafter.

 

[peter k.]

Post #623, first line:

Ah yes, .. oh my... da.. certainly is... Thanks for the rest of the story...

 

[DaveTheWalker]

I just had an email from Maco Direct letting me know that they have P30 back in stock for European customers:

https://www.macodirect.de/en/shopware.php?sViewport=detail&sArticle=6054

Still limited to 5 rolls per order, but I'd get in quick if you want some!

 

[Trask]

When I bought my enlarger in 2015 it came with a lot of ancient goodies like old Agfa paper. There are also a few proper glas ampules of Tetenal Neofin Blue and Red. One day I will have to try them out.

The packages must be from the 60s. The documentation lists times for various films: Adox, Ilfords Pan F, FP3, HP3 and HPS. There is Perutz, which I never heard about.

Anyway the documentation lists developing times for Neofin Blue and Red. The listed Ferrania Films are P24, 27, 30, 33 and 36. In case anyone has tried/would like to try Neofin Blue with P30 I'm going to give you guys the data. I don't know if the developer changed over the years.

Some remarks from the docs: Neofin Blue is low contrast, and should be perfect for P30. Most samples I've seen are quite contrasty. Another note is that Neofin requires rather short exposures, they recommend reducing exposure by 0.5 to 1.5 stops, compared to the usual exposure (but weren't DIN/ASA half the value of today, back then?). Anyway, they say the exposure should be 'just enough' for best results. So maybe ISO80 will be slow enough with Neofin?

The time for P30 at 20°C (1 ampule diluted to 500mL) is 15 Minutes (Blue) and 9 minutes (Red). If you want to develop two films in the tank simultaneous the times change to 18 and 12 minutes, respectively. Times should be extended by 25% for 120 film, btw. Was that a common practice with rollfilms in the 60s?

Thanks for posting this information Iantau. I’ve used Neofin Blue on and off for years, and I too have some at hand. Thanks for the time for P30. How about scanning the entire list of films/times/temps and posting it here?

Got to admit that IIRC I’ve always used screw-top bottled Neofin; the glass ampoule is earlier packaging, and very cool too!

 

[jonasfj]

A couple weeks ago I shot a roll at ISO 50. Developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 10 mins (4 mins off the recommended developing time), agitating 10 seconds per minute.

Negs were much better than when I did 14 mins. Still extremely contrasty. I scanned it with a Pakon and moved the contrast slider to 0 before export to be able to have anything resembling normal contrast. Adjusted thereafter in Photoshop. I'm ok with the most of results. Some scenes couldn't be helped. Grain was barely there- even with Rodinal.

Hi, Punker!

It appears to me that your subjects have a pretty high contrast. Ideally, shadows to highlights that contain structure should fit in zones II to VIII. The way to shoot and develop a high contrast subject is, as you did, to shoot at higher ISO and reduce development time. You reduced ISO by about 2/3 of a stop and the development time by 30%. This should allow you to fit about one more stop on your negative, which is not a whole lot. Remember that meters of old cameras often are off by a lot and that other factors like agitation and temperature also affect the contrast. If you are unlucky, those factors might work in the opposite direction. Just keep trying. The ISO and development times are just guidelines and quite individual.

 

[jonasfj]

Most of the over-contrast images I've encountered have been due to software, auto-levels, and over-use of lightroom and it's horrible (laplacian) shadow and highlights sliders, 'clarity' (lol) and anti-haze filters.

I do not understand why you say that the shadow, highlight and clarity sliders in Lightroom are horrible? There are many ways to adjust the curve of a negative both digitally and while printing on paper. Those sliders, combined with the black and white points are one way. You can also adjust the contrast by manipulating the curve itself. I use all of those to achieve my vision, both in Lightroom and in the darkroom.

 

[jonasfj]

Don’t mean to disregard your tests, but I exposed one roll as EI 50 and developed for the recommended time in D-96 stock/tank with continuous agitation — slow inversions, maybe a little faster than yours — and got blocked highlights. I still didn’t try to print or scan these negatives, so I still can’t say anything about the shadows and midtones.

It is more or less a waste of time comparing which ISO you expose at and development times etc., since it is very individual and depends from technical aspects as how you meter, your subject contrast, developing conditions etc., but also on how you eventually want your images to look.

In my opinion, exposure and development should be done to capture as much information as possible on the negative (i.e. detail in shadow and highlights).

The artistic choices should be made while printing or in digital post-processing.

The only way to achieve this in a reproducible manner is to test your system and the best method I have come across is:

http://www.halfhill.com/speed1.html

It does not require any advanced sensiometric equipment and is quicker and easier than more careful methods. The 80/20 rule!

 

[Scott Micciche]

I do not understand why you say that the shadow, highlight and clarity sliders in Lightroom are horrible? There are many ways to adjust the curve of a negative both digitally and while printing on paper. Those sliders, combined with the black and white points are one way. You can also adjust the contrast by manipulating the curve itself. I use all of those to achieve my vision, both in Lightroom and in the darkroom.

Because those sliders add data were there previous was none (laplacian). In other words: "they make shit up". The only items worth touching are the white and black points. If adding a contrast curve to emulate a paper output or wet prints is desirable, do that.

 

[jonasfj]

Because those sliders add data were there previous was none (laplacian). In other words: "they make shit up". The only items worth touching are the white and black points. If adding a contrast curve to emulate a paper output or wet prints is desirable, do that.

Changing the Laplacian means that you change the flux density of the gradient of a function. In this case it means that you either add or subtract luminosity, i.e. you change the shape of the curve. It is no different from changing the hardness of a paper. By the way, the white and black points also change the shape of the curve or as you prefer to call it the Laplacian.

 

[Scott Micciche]

Changing the Laplacian means that you change the flux density of the gradient of a function. In this case it means that you either add or subtract luminosity, i.e. you change the shape of the curve. It is no different from changing the hardness of a paper. By the way, the white and black points also change the shape of the curve or as you prefer to call it the Laplacian.

Just do as you like. I'm not here to argue the finer points of Adobe products. If you like your look, fine. Me, personally, I shoot film so I spend less time in front of the computer dicking around with Adobe products. I scan, invert in colorperfect, adjust white/black and I'm done.

 

[Punker]

The way to shoot and develop a high contrast subject is, as you did, to shoot at higher ISO and reduce development time. You reduced ISO by about 2/3 of a stop and the development time by 30%. This should allow you to fit about one more stop on your negative, which is not a whole lot. Remember that meters of old cameras often are off by a lot and that other factors like agitation and temperature also affect the contrast. If you are unlucky, those factors might work in the opposite direction. Just keep trying. The ISO and development times are just guidelines and quite individual.

Thanks for the tips! If I can get my hands on more I'll give it another go.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I've been asked repeatedly for trials with Kodak XTOL. This is the most recent roll in XTOL 1:2 (150ml + 300ml water) 10 minutes @ 22C. I used Kodak's recommended agitation: 5-7 initial then you can use 2-5 inversions every 30s to control contrast. I chose 2 as the P30 has shown a contrasty film. These are all scanned on the Pakon F135 to raw, then inverted in colorperfect. All of these have a "Medium" contrast curve in Lightroom or they were just too flat for my taste. The gamma is off on these; I think it might have something to do with phenidone-based developers and the P30. I have had similar results from Ilfosol 3 and have seen some poor results from DD-X. I'll let you guys be the judge. My XTOL was fresh and is stored in a replenishing tank with floating lid. Camera is the Nikon F2, various lenses including some from the Voigtlander 40mm. 80ASA

I chose 1:2 as we have some results for 1:1 and 1:3 already on the best practices, although I may not have seen samples from those dilutions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekurgan/albums/72157697577480165

 

[bernard_L]

The way to shoot and develop a high contrast subject is, as you did, to shoot at higher ISO and reduce development time.

??

 

[jonasfj]

??

Typo... Lower ISO... Thanks for pointing that out! I will go back and edit my post.

 

[m00dawg]

I'm a bit eager to try it out again. I have 1 more roll left I believe (!) so hopefully it becomes available again for the US soon. In the meantime, I was thinking about spending time figuring out the red-sensitivity question since I feel like I've had different results there. I was thinking I'd
grab a color calibration chart (probably just a cheap one for these purposes) and snap a few frames at the start or end of a roll using different filters and indoor/outdoor lighting. That way I can see how red might react in different developers (I suspect that might be part of the story). I've dev'd P30 in ID-11 and XTOL and I feel like the latter had brighter reds (though also kinda glowy results and flat tone separation between colors).

Has anyone done something like that with any results to share? I tried hunting around Google Image search (and this post) to see if it's already been done but didn't come up with anything.

 

[Scott Micciche]

I shot a macbeth chart and developed in D-96. ASA50

https://www.flickr.com/photos/thekurgan/35855660470/in/album-72157683560148332/

 

[m00dawg]

Oh awesome thanks for sharing! That's very interesting. The red hues show up much much lighter than I expected, although I shot my ID-11 developed roll at 80 ISO (but I believe my XTOL developed roll was at 50). The ID-11 roll I recall rendered reds quite dark.

 

[Ces1um]

Hmmm. Everybody seems to be of the mind that P30 needs to be shot at an iso slower than box speed it seems. Just developed a roll I shot at iso 64- was not impressed. A lot of overexposed shots! For my development process I definitely need to shoot at box speed. That being said though, my xray processor is breaking down and I won't spend the money to repair it once it's gone. I'll have to experiment all over again....