oldwino
Well-known
I, too, am an original Kickstarter backer. The Kickstarter was to resurrect their E6 film. A b&w film was never mentioned.
That came later, as they discovered they were in way over hoer heads with the E6 idea. In order to appease the backers, they made an test run of some b&w film, and offered them to the backers in lieu of the E6. If I remember correctly, we were told we could have “x” number of rolls of P30 instead of the promised E6 film, or we could get a few rolls of the P30 at a “special” price, and continue to wait for the E6.
And, we still wait. No communication for about a year. Oh well, I knew going in that these things rarely come to fruition, and my financial stake is ultimately small, so I’m not too perturbed.
I also thought the P30 kinds sucked.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Ferrania very much stated that they hoped that people would NOT take P30 as their reward as again they clearly stated that E6 film was their goal.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Have they officially given up on E6 film? Is that dead for sure?
Last I heard that E6 film was still their target.
They can't even make P30 so it makes sense that they would give up making E6 film. Maybe just sell T-shirts?
jawarden
Well-known
Look at the bright side: if they never make film you can publicly complain about your tiny Kickstarter investment in this company forever.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Hogarth Ferguson
Well-known
Email them dave bias, you'll get your answer.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Who knows whether they have abandoned color. They've gone silent for the past year or so. I think it is just five guys with a dream, so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Well post #80 seems to indicate that I am not with it with regards to the current situation. Now I see that it's just a bunch of hot air.
burninfilm
Well-known
I asked the Film Ferrania rep directly over at Photrio (former APUG site) about whether or not the E6 film has been cancelled. The reply was:
Of course, Film Ferrania has also said that the original "rewards" were 100% going to happen and there was basically zero risk of not receiving color slide film if they made their Kickstarter goals. Or more recently, they admitted that communication from Film Ferrania hasn't been that great and that they would now be providing AT LEAST a monthly update. It has currently been about 7 months since the last backer update (the longest gap in communication... ever). So I wouldn't rely to much on what Film Ferrania says... LOL
They claim that "silent means busy", but in the past, the reality has been "silent means we are collecting bad news to tell you".
In regards to P30, I ordered 3 rolls to try it out, thinking that since they finally got the production machinery up and going, that maybe they'd be able to keep making product. But, after seeing reviews and realizing this film was more like ISO 25, that it was likely going to end up being 2X to 3X the price of current market-leading B&W films, and seeing that it was going to be nearly impossible to get more to continue trying it out, I sold my 3 rolls on eBay for $50. On the bright side, if Ferrania actually COULD maintain regular production, they might just be able to hype the film up enough to sell for $8-$12 a roll. At the time I listed mine for sale, it was basically the only P30 available for sale online... in the entire world... crazy!
The end of this month is the 5-year anniversary of their completed Kickstarter campaign. It would be a shame if all of the Kickstarter money, other invested money, time, and effort at Ferrania ended up being for a small production run of a defective 80-speed B&W film...
I wish them success as Ferrania has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, potential doesn't work well in a film camera.
Of course, Film Ferrania has also said that the original "rewards" were 100% going to happen and there was basically zero risk of not receiving color slide film if they made their Kickstarter goals. Or more recently, they admitted that communication from Film Ferrania hasn't been that great and that they would now be providing AT LEAST a monthly update. It has currently been about 7 months since the last backer update (the longest gap in communication... ever). So I wouldn't rely to much on what Film Ferrania says... LOL
They claim that "silent means busy", but in the past, the reality has been "silent means we are collecting bad news to tell you".
In regards to P30, I ordered 3 rolls to try it out, thinking that since they finally got the production machinery up and going, that maybe they'd be able to keep making product. But, after seeing reviews and realizing this film was more like ISO 25, that it was likely going to end up being 2X to 3X the price of current market-leading B&W films, and seeing that it was going to be nearly impossible to get more to continue trying it out, I sold my 3 rolls on eBay for $50. On the bright side, if Ferrania actually COULD maintain regular production, they might just be able to hype the film up enough to sell for $8-$12 a roll. At the time I listed mine for sale, it was basically the only P30 available for sale online... in the entire world... crazy!
The end of this month is the 5-year anniversary of their completed Kickstarter campaign. It would be a shame if all of the Kickstarter money, other invested money, time, and effort at Ferrania ended up being for a small production run of a defective 80-speed B&W film...
I wish them success as Ferrania has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, potential doesn't work well in a film camera.
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
The negatives look thin when I process the film in accordance with the instructions on the Ferrania document. But the images clean up very nicely indeed.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Reduce the contrast by 90 to 95% and that's what my images looked like when processed according to instructions.
Skiff
Well-known
Officially the E6 film has not been cancelled. But de facto it is placed on hold.
Because:
Some time ago Dave Bias from Film Ferrania said in the extremely long FF thread on photrio that FF is now first focussing to 100% on the P30 BW film. Reason: It is much, much easier to make and they urgently need finally a product to earn money to survive as a company. Therefore in the next years BW film(s) are their focus and priority. And if that works and give them financial stability, they will start working on E6.
So in the best scenario we could see FF E6 film in 5-6 years.
I am convinced that we will see a re-introduced Fujichrome transparency film and / or a second Ektachrome film first. That Fuji and / or Kodak are faster with additional E6 product(s) compared to FF is much more likely.
And I hope their next P30 batch will be much improved. The films I have used and tested completely failed: An sensitivity test with a densitometer revealed about 3 stops less real sensitivity / speed than claimed. And the characteristic curve / tonality was the worst (much too steep) I have ever had with a BW film.
P30 can not compete at all with other lower speed high resolution films like ADOX HR-50 or Ilford PanF+.
Ted Striker
Well-known
DanskDynamit
Well-known
aren't you also complaining?
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
“this film is a complete failure”
“this awful film”
Maybe I should show some of the complete failures I have been able to achieve with Tri-x and post my judgments on how “awful” Tri-x is. If you are using a hybrid workflow and scanning it, P30 is a lovely film, yes, even at ASA 80.
Results demonstrating this fact are everywhere; they are in this thread, and there are tons more over at the Film Ferrania site in the best practices section.
If the film was “bad”, no technique could save images made with it. If someone can’t get nice images with this film, the problem is, as myriad images demonstrate, obviously not with the film. Endlessly repeating the canard that the film is “useless” isn’t going to convince anyone who has eyes in their head and actually uses them.
I have no doubt that some people used P30 and got poor results. At some point, it would seem, when confronted with graphic evidence that it is possible to get excellent results with P30, that people who failed in their first or second attempt could just admit to themselves that “I guess I did it wrong”, and try to improve their techniques, instead of constantly going on about how “unusable” the film is.
“this awful film”
Maybe I should show some of the complete failures I have been able to achieve with Tri-x and post my judgments on how “awful” Tri-x is. If you are using a hybrid workflow and scanning it, P30 is a lovely film, yes, even at ASA 80.
Results demonstrating this fact are everywhere; they are in this thread, and there are tons more over at the Film Ferrania site in the best practices section.
If the film was “bad”, no technique could save images made with it. If someone can’t get nice images with this film, the problem is, as myriad images demonstrate, obviously not with the film. Endlessly repeating the canard that the film is “useless” isn’t going to convince anyone who has eyes in their head and actually uses them.
I have no doubt that some people used P30 and got poor results. At some point, it would seem, when confronted with graphic evidence that it is possible to get excellent results with P30, that people who failed in their first or second attempt could just admit to themselves that “I guess I did it wrong”, and try to improve their techniques, instead of constantly going on about how “unusable” the film is.
Ted Striker
Well-known
Skiff
Well-known
Dear Larry, do you have measured the film with a densitometer?
No, you have not.
Otherwise you would not have written your last posting.....
The ISO norm is very clear: You must have 0.1 logD above base fog at the claimed speed. You must have a certain amount of shadow detail at Zones I - III.
None of that is there with P30 at the claimed official speed. You cannot fool physics.
And if you test P30 against all other films you immediately see the differences, both in sensitometry / ISO testing as in pictures.
ISO norm and shadow speed / detail are nothing we can discuss and have "opinions" about. It is simply only about physics and objective, measured data.
I have talked to several other experienced photographers who have tested the film with a densitometer, too: And all of them get the same, very dissappointing results: Much too low real speed (shadow detail), and much too steep characteristic curve (too much contrast, too dense highlights).
Most scans shown here confirm that: Either too little shadow detail, or blocked highlights.
If you only have subjects with about 3-4 stops contrast range, you will of course not have a problem. That is basic knowledge.
And yes, you can extract some detail from the shadows with scans. But if you then try to print this negative, you will have significant problems with shadow detail.
Almost all who have said they are satiesfied with P30
- have never done a test with a densitometer = measured the real speed
- are using a hybrid workflow and do PP work.
Those who do 'the real BW craftmanship' - evaluate the characterisctic curve with a densitometer and test the optimal film-developer combination - and then print optically with an enlarger on silver-halide photopaper, have been very dissappointed with this film.
No, you have not.
Otherwise you would not have written your last posting....
.The ISO norm is very clear: You must have 0.1 logD above base fog at the claimed speed. You must have a certain amount of shadow detail at Zones I - III.
None of that is there with P30 at the claimed official speed. You cannot fool physics.
And if you test P30 against all other films you immediately see the differences, both in sensitometry / ISO testing as in pictures.
ISO norm and shadow speed / detail are nothing we can discuss and have "opinions" about. It is simply only about physics and objective, measured data.
I have talked to several other experienced photographers who have tested the film with a densitometer, too: And all of them get the same, very dissappointing results: Much too low real speed (shadow detail), and much too steep characteristic curve (too much contrast, too dense highlights).
Most scans shown here confirm that: Either too little shadow detail, or blocked highlights.
If you only have subjects with about 3-4 stops contrast range, you will of course not have a problem. That is basic knowledge.
And yes, you can extract some detail from the shadows with scans. But if you then try to print this negative, you will have significant problems with shadow detail.
Almost all who have said they are satiesfied with P30
- have never done a test with a densitometer = measured the real speed
- are using a hybrid workflow and do PP work.
Those who do 'the real BW craftmanship' - evaluate the characterisctic curve with a densitometer and test the optimal film-developer combination - and then print optically with an enlarger on silver-halide photopaper, have been very dissappointed with this film.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Again, I would like to draw a distinction between what I have said, and what I have not said. I have consistently tried to make clear that I would agree with the assessment, coming from people I respect, that the “charts and graphs” pertaining to this film, are not “ideal” in the charts and graphs world.
I have also made it clear, several times, that I do not do “the real BW craftsmanship”, as you helpfully remind me. I lack the darkroom facility, the talent to wet print, and the time at this point in my life, to take it up again. So, I use a hybrid technique, which I also made clear.
Nothing you have said, as accurate as it is, in any way invalidates anything I posted above.
For wet printing, using traditional techniques, P30 would not be a good choice, the fact of which I have been fully aware for some time for exactly the reasons you bring up, reasons which other people who “do the real BW craftsmanship” have previously elucidated.
The real world situation however, is that most people using film today are using a hybrid technique, out of necessity if nothing else, they are not wet printing. It’s a different world, requiring a different skill set. (Which is “better” is another topic, but many people will never be able to realize with wet printing the same quality they can already achieve using a hybrid technique.)
The curves you describe are not totally irrelevant with a hybrid technique, but are largely so, as images made with this film conclusively demonstrate.
From the standpoint of esthetics, a densitometer is not an arbiter, it’s just a tool which tells us some things, but not everything. I have used one, and I know how to use one. If every film stock available to us had the same mathematically perfect curve, would that be artistic Heaven or Hell? Our answers to that question likely differ, and that’s fine.
P30, developed a certain way, then scanned a certain way, gives me a file having a grain structure and, yes, tonality, that makes it one of my favorite films. It works because I make it work, and gives me things I can’t get elsewhere, as easily. The endlessly repeated position that this film is “useless”, just seems a bit over the top to me, given the existing photographic evidence.
And there’s this:
“If you only have subjects with about 3-4 stops contrast range, you will of course not have a problem. That is basic knowledge"
You can say the same thing about Kodachrome. That’s not a determinative fault. Being successful with anything requires living within the given parameters of your materials. Do that, and you can be extremely successful. Use anything wrong, and it will turn out wrong. Pretty sure.
Having said all that, P30 is not available anyway, so there’s that.
