jawarden
Well-known
I agree with those suggesting P30 might be best for lower contrast situations, although I've only shot four rolls with the first three as experiments trying to dial it in. The above pic was taken during light rain and I like the results when wet printed. The images I made in direct sun were more challenging, rather like using slide film.
Personally I'll be delighted if P30 stays as it is. There is a learning curve and it's not an all-around black and white film. If it was a do everything film I'm sure it would fail in the marketplace as there are plenty of other cheaper options on the market for that. I see P30 as a slow, fine grain, high contrast choice, that rewards the same kind of care in exposure as a slide film requires.
Argentia1
Established
No problem, here we go:
I started the tests with Kodak T-Max developer. A developer with a very good capability of reaching high speed / high film sensivity. It also gives a more ideal, linear characteristic curve with most films.
For those who are not familiar with sensitometry:
The ISO norm defines film speed at Zone I with a logD = 0.1.
I make my prints with an enlarger with a combination of a double condensor with a mix-box. So my target density values for Zone V are 0.65-0.7 logD and for Zone VIII 1.2-1.25 logD.
To make things short I will not post all results and curves but only the resulting ("best") curves:
Developer: T-Max, dilution 1+4, Kodak agitation rhythm, 20°c developer temperature, 5:15 min. developing time.
First term will be the Zone, second term the density at that zone.
Results for ISO 32/16° (all higher speeds completely failed in the tests).
Zone I: 0.00 logD
II : 0.03
III: 0.09
IV: 0.23
V: 0.4
VI: 0.62
VII: 0.92
VIII: 1.23
IX: 1.53
X: 1.75
You see immediately the severe problems with this film:
- the speed is much too low
- even at ISO 32/16° the shadows are completely empty with no detail, the real speed is much lower
- density in the middle zones is also too low
- density in Zones IX and X is a bit too high.
To get sufficient shadow detail you would have to lower the sensivity / speed to ISO 12/12° or 16/13°. But then you would get very short developing times (danger of inconsistence) and the density in the highlights would further increase, which is bad.
Next developer: FX-39, dilution 1+19, 11:30 min. ; Agitation: 1x per minute; 20°c.
ISO 16/13°:
Zone I: 0.02 logD
II : 0.07
III: 0.18
IV: 0.36
V: 0.56
VI: 0.79
VII: 1.01
VIII: 1.21
IX: 1.38
X: 1.50
FX-39 is a compensating developer. That works in this case quite well in the highlights. The middle tones have too low density. The shadows are empty.
And all that at ISO 16/13°.
FF claims this film to be a ASA 80 speed film! Honestly, ridiculous.
If you want higher speed you have to increase developing time.
Here an example with DD-X developer, 1+4, Ilford agitation rhythm, 20°c, 6 min.:
ISO 40/17°:
Zone I: 0.03 logD
II : 0.11
III: 0.24
IV: 0.47
V: 0.72
VI: 1.07
VII: 1,42
VIII: 1.77
IX: 2.11
X: 2.4
Here now you have the perfect density for Zone V. But shadow detail is still a bit too low, but, much more important, the highlight are completely burned!
The density is already much too high at Zone VI, and extremely high from Zone VII onwards. That is not usable anymore.
I've been a BW photographer with my own lab for decades. I've used dozens of different films and developers during that time.
I've never had such a problematic film like this P30.
- the ASA 80 FF claims are totally wrong
- it is impossible to get both sufficient shadow and highlight detail at the same time with this film
- you either have to sacrifice shadow and middle tone detail, or you have to sacrifice highlight detail
- concerning sharpness and fineness of grain P30 is not better than PanF+, Delta 100, TMX, HR-50 or Acros
- in comparison to other films P30 has no advantage, only disadvantages
- I really hope FF can resolve all these problems and significantly improve this film.
Argentia1
Established
I don’t particularly like the attached pic, but it does show that the film can deliver flat images too, under the right conditions. I’m looking forward to Ferrania resuming production (and hopefully, in 120).
Jim B.
Your picture demonstrates one of the main problems of this film quite well:
Even in this flat low contrast light the highlights are loosing detail: Her white shirt has no detail on the left side (from the viewers point; her right boob).
Argentia1
Established
I have to respectfully disagree.
P30 behaves not at all like modern reversal film. With reversal films I can get 6-10 stops of dynamic range (dependant of the film).
That is impossible with P30.
And:
Where are the real advantages of P30 in comparison to other BW films?
Sharpness, grain? No. P30 is not better in this respect compared to PanF+, Adox HR-50, TMX, Delta 100, Acros, Retro 80S. The others are even often better.
And the others all have significantly real higher speed. And the better tonality, better characteristic curves.
With the films of the competitors it is possible without any problems to get both shadow and highlight detail at the same time.
And they are cheaper, too.
And if I want a more contrastier look with these films, I can get that as well. Push 1 stop, done.
Well, I hope FF can stay in the market. But not with such a product. It needs to be improved to be competitive.
DominikDUK
Well-known
The results look quiet interesting it seems that film is not fully panchromatic, a bit contrasty but still more than 6 Stops dynamic range. I believe the product is still in the development phase so a lot can change I've never used the original Ferrania so I can't compare it to the original product, but I will try the film as soon as they sell it again.
css9450 images show both shadow and highlight detail and the contrast seems to be okay. So maybe the film works in real life and not so good in the lab (with step wedges etc...)
css9450 images show both shadow and highlight detail and the contrast seems to be okay. So maybe the film works in real life and not so good in the lab (with step wedges etc...)
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I've been watching this thread having given up on P30 after coming to these very same conclusions. I too have spent many decades shooting many films (and testing via densitometer), I found P30 to be too contrasty, and nearly impossible to process for darkroom printing. My best attempts required grade 1/2 to 0 and still had marginal tonality. I didn't go for a water bath development, which was going to be my next step to try and tame the contrast in this stuff. I'm glad to see some folks getting fair or better results with this, but it seems nearly every shot contains blown highlights and empty shadows. I would love to see FF succeed, but this is absolutely not a film I have any interest in continuing to battle.
jawarden
Well-known
You're respectfully disagreeing? Hold up - that's not how the internet works, man.
We're good here, and I appreciate you sharing your numbers and work.Like I said, I've only tried a few rolls and my mind can change, but I like this film as-is. I can appreciate that you're digging deeper for an objective measure of the difference in performance between this film and others, which is something I'd never do.
But people like what they like, objective testing be damned. You can line up a thousand scientists to tell me how marvelous and capable PanF is for instance, and I still won't shoot that stuff because I just don't like it. And I do like the P30 and a few others from your list and yet I don't know the dynamic range of a single one of them.
I like shooting different films for different occasions. If I want to use a slow film your list suggests there are plenty to choose from that all behave differently. I just want to add a P30 to that list. If Ferrania sees the need to change the product before relaunch I'm cool with that, and if they release it as-is, I'm a buyer.
colker
Well-known
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thank you. For me, this shot would not have “worked” if there had been more shadow and highlight detail. That’s all I am saying. Is P30 imperfect or is it different? That’s a judgment call based on presupposed criteria, criteria which are not binding on our esthetic choices. I like P30 for what it is. I’m not good enough to wet print, so I scan everything. That might enter into why I find it useful and others don’t, but in my workflow it succeeds for me, though I am still trying to get the best out of it, for my specific purposes. It is not a film I use all the time for everything, I don’t have one of those, thankfully. Can I reliably get the results I enjoy this film for by using a “better” film, no I can’t. Close, yes, but not the same.
I am also ambivalent about the desirability of perfect lenses to the exclusion of imperfect lenses, except for studio product photography, so my opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. If every emulsion was perfect, by the theoretical standards we can put numbers on, then every emulsion would yield results looking the same. Numbingly. It’s just not a goal I have as it strikes me as sterile. That’s a personal opinion, not a judgment on others. It’s always possible I don’t know what I am doing.
Last edited:
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Thanks for doing this. Will see if I can plot this out and correlate it to my experience with some different developer regimens.
Seriously, thanks.
Mackinaw
Think Different
Of course it doesn't have detail, that part of her top is pure white. What were you expecting to see? Threads?
Jim B.
jawarden
Well-known
I too use objectively inferior lenses from time to time that I happen to love, despite weird MTF charts. I've seen some people pairing P30 with vintage cameras or lower contrast lenses, and I think they might be on to something there, allowing the film to add snap to their older glass. Matching lens to film to developer to paper is a good idea.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
What I love about shooting film is its imperfections and lack of consistency: its defects, as it were.. It requires that you be creative and work for what you can get with it, regardless of its deficiencies.
For that reason, whatever craziness is in P30 is just fine by me. After all, I also shoot Washi-120 and instant film which have FAR more limitations as a recording medium, and I love the results.
Bicycle #2 - Santa Clara 2017
Washi-120 with Hasselblad 500CM+Makro-Planar 120mm
FCC at 2000 Miles - Cupertino 2018
Polaroid Originals SX-70 B&W with MiNT SLR670m
If I'm looking for "perfection" and consistency, I pull out my Leica M-D or CL.
I'm looking forward to shooting some of my precious five rolls of P30 soon!
G
For that reason, whatever craziness is in P30 is just fine by me. After all, I also shoot Washi-120 and instant film which have FAR more limitations as a recording medium, and I love the results.
Bicycle #2 - Santa Clara 2017
Washi-120 with Hasselblad 500CM+Makro-Planar 120mm
FCC at 2000 Miles - Cupertino 2018
Polaroid Originals SX-70 B&W with MiNT SLR670m
If I'm looking for "perfection" and consistency, I pull out my Leica M-D or CL.
I'm looking forward to shooting some of my precious five rolls of P30 soon!
G
michaelphoto
Established
I think you have a strong point here. Though i wouldnt call my 1939 uncoated Elmar inferior, i had this result with P30 EI 50 in 1+1 diluted Xtol in slow continuos processing by hand in Agfa Rondinax tank.
3.die test af P30. Xtol 1+1 E.I. 50 by Michael G, on FlickrMichael.
Huss
Veteran
An example of what he is talking about is the collar ribbing on the shirt. you can see it on our right but it disappears on our left. At least in the pic u posted (perhaps u see it on the original)
Argentia1
Established
Argentia1
Established
Normally white on shirts is not a so brillant white that there is no detail at all anymore. You normally still do see some detail like fibre structure.
White of clothes normally are on Zone VIII or IX on a proper exposed and developed BW negative. So with still a little bit detail.
But here with P30 this white of the shirt is in Zone X or even higher, without any detail.
And that is the problem I have described above.
Argentia1
Established
Argentia1
Established
Each to his own. If you like that, do that.
I am not in that low-fi thing. And I don't think that film is generally more imperfect than digital. They are just different mediums, with own characteristics.
Perfect pictures can be easily made with film, too. Photographers have done that for more than 100 years.
And 25 years ago no one in the photography world would have described film as 'imperfect'. This 'imperfect' mantra was created by the lomography, Impossible Project and low-fi marketing people to sell their often crappy products.
Back to Film Ferrania P30 alpha:
As said above, I wish Film Ferrania success with their renovated little factory. I've been one of their first Kickstarter backers.
But for a sustainable long-term success they must significantly improve the quality. They should consider P30 alpha as a "learning process" for further significant quality improvement.
For me, personally, the current situation looks like this:
I need an excellent slower film for high quality work and bigger enlargements.
P30 alpha failed because of the reasons explained above. And it is not available anymore. And we currently don't know when it will come back.
But I need a film right now.
At Photokina Adox has introduced its new Adox HR-50 film. During the last two months I did lots of tests with it. And compared it to FF P30. Adox HR-50 is the better film in all parameters.
HR-50
- has a much better characteristic curve
- has better shadow detail than P30
- has much better highlight detail than P30; it is almost impossible to get burned highlights with HR-50
- has much finer grain
- has better sharpness
- has significantly higher resolution
- is much cheaper
- and it is easily available.
I am quite satisfied so far with HR-50. A really nice film with excellent price-performance ratio.
jawarden
Well-known
"Each to his own. If you like that, do that." Words to live by!
I haven't seen that Adox film available here yet but I'll be happy to try it out. I recall they had a slow film available but it needed its own developer iirc so I passed due to expense and hassle. But the more choice the better.