Godfrey
somewhat colored
My negs are processed for scanning ... I haven't wet printed anything since 1988. Negs exposed and processed for scanning should be thinner than negs processed for wet printing on normal grade paper (because scanners have more limited ability to punch through a dense negative causing contrast gain), and less contrasty (because contrast is the easiest thing to ADD to a scanned image in rendering, and impossible to really remove).
So my negatives are perfect for scanning....
x-ray
Veteran
My negs are processed for scanning ... I haven't wet printed anything since 1988. Negs exposed and processed for scanning should be thinner than negs processed for wet printing on normal grade paper (because scanners have more limited ability to punch through a dense negative causing contrast gain), and less contrasty (because contrast is the easiest thing to ADD to a scanned image in rendering, and impossible to really remove).
So my negatives are perfect for scanning....
I scan onmy Imacon 848 and previously on a Fuji Lanovia Quattro. Thinner and flatter negs are not what you want with high end scanners. I also have an Epson v750 and find I get better scans with negs that are ideal for wet printing.
Dmax on low cost scanners like Epson and specifications in general are seriously exaggerated. Ive read some tests conducted by a scanner tech comparing a number of consumer scanners and pro prepress and without any question the specs of the consumer level are highly exaggerated and the high end prepress scanners are pretty accurate.
If you're having to make thin flat negs it's probably because your scanners Can't handle the Dmax.
The Lanovia Quattro I had has a true 5000dpi optical resolution for the entire 14x18" bed (one pass scanning) with a true Dmax of 3.9. If you looked at the v750 Epson it's claimed to do 6400 dpi with a Dmax of 4. Why would anyone pay $50,00ore for the Fuji? Because the Fuji blows the Epson away in every way. When you scan the same film with both you immediately see that Epson seriously exaggerated specs. I'm just guessing here but I'd say the true Dmax of the Epson is 2.6 or so. On the Epson images look like they were scanned through a diffusion material compared to the Fuji.
The Imacon 848 is extremely close in performance with the Fuji. Imacon claims 8000dpi optical and Dmax of 4.8. I think that's a little exaggerated although I've not compared the two.
In both machines though the best scans came from properly exposed and processed negs and transparencies. Film profiles were created from film exposed and processed for wet prints.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The D96 rolls are in the dryer, and looking vastly better than the Ilfosol3 film.
I shot at 80, since Ferrania is adamant that this is an 80 speed film. They also state that D96 is the best developer for P30, but recommend shooting it at 50 for this developer. Ah well. I bracketed assuming it wasn’t going to work well at 80. 11 minutes at 70F, with 15 seconds of initial agitation and then 1 inversion per minute seemed to work best by looking at the films. I use metal reels and tanks, these were each run in a single reel, 300mL tank.
I will get to print tomorrow, so will give some impressions of the negatives in the darkroom then. I’ll not likely get to scan the prints for a bit, but could shoot some phone pics of them.
I shot at 80, since Ferrania is adamant that this is an 80 speed film. They also state that D96 is the best developer for P30, but recommend shooting it at 50 for this developer. Ah well. I bracketed assuming it wasn’t going to work well at 80. 11 minutes at 70F, with 15 seconds of initial agitation and then 1 inversion per minute seemed to work best by looking at the films. I use metal reels and tanks, these were each run in a single reel, 300mL tank.
I will get to print tomorrow, so will give some impressions of the negatives in the darkroom then. I’ll not likely get to scan the prints for a bit, but could shoot some phone pics of them.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Bob,
Last week this incongruity was pointed out to Dave Bias, the Film Ferrania spokesperson. He said he had never noticed that "50" was shown in the current best practices pdf. Whoops. It's a mistake, a typo. He said the times for processing refer to 80 ASA, and should have been in that column. They do not have a recommendation for D96 at 50. He said the chart would be corrected and updated this week, or soon.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Bob,
Have you tried/what are your thoughts about continuous agitation with D96 and this film, as it is my impression that cine films in general, and this film/developer combination in particular was originally processed this way (?).
But, perhaps, times were different originally. I don't know, I can't find the original info, and don't know if the Ferrania best practices times are the original ones used for the cine film, which they know, or if they are based on WAG recent customer results someone happened to like.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I was very leery of continuous agitation since this stuff is so inherently high contrast. Not as bad as Washi S, but highlights seem to block up really easily. Looking at examples all over many to most of them have blown highlights, and from what I’ve gathered nearly nobody is wet printing this stuff.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I'd tend to agree, but was just mostly wondering about whether the methods used in past history to process this film would still apply today, and if not, why not. If that makes any sense.
If you look at the movies shot with P30, the look Fellini, Pasolini, de Sica all seemed to be intentionally going for didn't have a lot of shadow detail. Zone system seemed not to be the order of the day. Justifiable and laudable artistic preference or just "doing it wrong" might depend on what one wants out of the film. Getting it to look like well metered and developed Plus-X might be difficult, or perhaps even beside the point. I don't know, just thinking out loud. For me, the film seems to have a character all its own, which I might just accept on its own terms. Not sure yet, but should know by the time I've run through the ten rolls sitting here.
La Dolce Vita Fountain scene Anita Ekberg and Marcello Mastroianni, Fellini:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=The8Xi6fKOE
I'm stuck with scanning simply because I'm too old to develop the competency I would be happy with for wet printing. Just never had the opportunity earlier, and now it's too late to get good at it so I've had to let it pass, sadly. Hats off to those who wet print, because you are on a higher plane, seriously.
So, I'd probably take the ideal wet printing developing suggestions and reduce development by 15% or so for starters and go from there till I get something I like.
Thanks everyone for all the information.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
For that Plus-X look we have ORWO UN-54. Really a very close feel/look to what I used to get with Plus-X in Microdol-X. I shoot that at 100 and run it in Perceptol 1:1. That, HP5 and XX are my most used films these days. I agree, taking this for what it is might be the order of the day, and I suspect that I will be able to get decent prints out of some of this, and just eyeballing the film on the light table when sleeving it up I’d say the frames shot at 50 are closest to what I will want. The last frame of these two rolls looks a lot like UN54, a snow covered roof, a yellow sided house and a bit of brick chimney. Shot that as the sun ducked behind some heavy clouds, not quite cloudy bright. I should be able to shoot some UN54 and P30 side by side next time I get out, I’ve got two rolls of UN54 waiting for the two loaded ones to get finished up...
jawarden
Well-known
I tried P30 today and had a good time. Mostly my negatives were too contrasty, and in even illumination (like the dreary light factory entrance below) they were thin. But with some dialing in this could be a good, slow, fine grained film choice.
I closely followed Ferrania's suggestions for exposure at iso80 and developing with Ilfosol 3. My next roll will be bracketed around iso50 and I'll shorten development time. Should be interesting.
I closely followed Ferrania's suggestions for exposure at iso80 and developing with Ilfosol 3. My next roll will be bracketed around iso50 and I'll shorten development time. Should be interesting.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Prints are in the wash. Not terribly encouraged by what I got. Shadows are still hard to print, and highlights are still blocked up. And I still needed to print at grade 1 and 0 to get decent image tone. I may just pack in P30, and stick with what I like.
Grain did look lovely under the magnifier for the D96 negs. Tight, crisp pinpoints. I think I will give my UN54 and XX a try in the rest of the D96 I mixed up.
Grain did look lovely under the magnifier for the D96 negs. Tight, crisp pinpoints. I think I will give my UN54 and XX a try in the rest of the D96 I mixed up.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
doing a video on shooting the P30. Planning to wet print all samples shot in the video since I'm not scanning film anymore.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Also noted that the edge-printing was barely visible, very PanF+ like. I wonder about latent image keeping properties?
I packed it in and sold the film I had left. Sticking with UN-54 for 100-ish speed 35mm. I have it down and really like what I get with it. Decided to dial in on PanF+ at 25 instead of sorting out P30, so I can use PanF as a replacement for the Efke 25 I’m almost out of.
I packed it in and sold the film I had left. Sticking with UN-54 for 100-ish speed 35mm. I have it down and really like what I get with it. Decided to dial in on PanF+ at 25 instead of sorting out P30, so I can use PanF as a replacement for the Efke 25 I’m almost out of.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Not to de-rail this thread, but how are you processing the UN 54? I think I might remember your mentioning Perceptol somewhere but not sure. Am hoping that I eventually need to know, as the bulk roll I ordered from ORWNA the first of October still hasn't shown up, though I keep getting assurances. I liked the bit I had earlier gotten out of Japan on ebay, but didn't have enough of it to feel I had it "dialed in".
sepiareverb
genius and moron
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Ferrania P30 SLVR video is cutting now. I've only scanned the film quickly on a V700 and haven't printed yet but I'm looking forward to taking the negatives into the darkroom and seeing what they come up with. Stay tuned
Leica M5, Voightlander Nokton 50mm F1.5, Ferrania P30
Leica M5, Voightlander Nokton 50mm F1.5, Ferrania P30
BLKRCAT
75% Film
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
^^^^Thanks for taking the time to make the video. Appreciated.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I haven’t shot much P30 since last fall, but with winter finally on the wane, I pulled out a roll out of the freezer and stuck it on my old F-1. Taken on a brilliantly sunny day, incident light metering, E.I. of 40. Even though Xtol is supposed to be the worst developer in the world for P30, that’s all I had so that is what I used. I kind of like the results though I need to experiment more with this developer. FD 15mm fisheye.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Been experimenting with P30 again. Taken with a Canon 7s and 50/1.2 lens at F2.0. I rated P30 at an E.I. of 40, straight D-76, continuous agitation for 8 minutes, 68F.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
That works.