Exactly that!
The density curve of P30 is a catastrophe. I've tried several developers, and measured all my tests with a highest-quality densitomter. In all cases P30 failed.
Another big problem:
This film is far far away from being an ISO 80 film. The speed is much lower!
Sensitivity of films is defined by shadow detail in the ISO norm: 0.1 logD density for Zone I.
But even at ISO 32 with high speed developers like DDX you don't get that density! Your shadows lack detail. But at the same time your highlights are completely blown out with an incredible high density.
Honestly, offering that film as an ISO 80 film is really cheating the customers.
I hope Film Ferrania can do better in the future, and then with color films (there are enough excellent and much better BW films on the market at even lower prices).
Cheers, Jan
Jan,
Everybody who follows this film with some interest knows by now that the density curve of P30 isn’t “right”, not the same old, same old textbook curve necessary to achieve a certain kind of result. You can say the same thing about ACROS to a much lesser extent. Marty has in the past provided some specific data explaining how and where the density curve of P30 deviates substantially from the theoretical ideal, for which work I thank him.
This isn’t news. It’s
part of the story; it’s unhelpful to the film community to pretend, loudly, that it’s the whole story. I am willing to indulge the hyperbole of “catastrophe” as it applies to the curve, but it’s fair to wonder if some people have ever taken the time to bother to look at the results that others are getting with this film, instead of obsessing over the curve. The curve is nothing but a data point, the results are the dinner.
P30 is a tool in the toolbox, and a good one,
if you need that particular tool for the particular result you are desirous of achieving. It won’t give you ultimate shadow detail no matter how you process it. Sometimes no shadow detail is exactly what makes a photo better, especially if combined with the midtones of which this film is capable.
It’s not good for wet printing, is the general consensus, although there is apparently at least one photographer here who, via his personal experience, disputes even that. But, for better or worse, probably worse, almost no one wet prints these days, so it’s more to the point to judge this film based on the actual results that actual photographers are getting in the real world, results that they actually like, instead of constantly banging on and on about the density curve.
Personally, I generally expose P30 at ASA 80, box speed, and do an eye roll every time I hear someone claim that it cannot be used at box speed. There are a myriad of results out here shot at 80 which would, I would hope, prove to anyone with an open mind that it
can be shot successfully at 80 by anyone who knows what to do with it afterwards. If seeing is believing, even seeing isn’t enough for some people, which is to me the oddest thing that comes up in internet discussions of this film. If someone can’t get photographically valid results exposing P30 at 80, they can surely learn from someone who can, if they wanted to, which I have come to doubt.
If the actual results from P30 are a “catastrophe”, then it necessarily follows that everything Josef Koudelka ever did was a catastrophe. P30 will get you half way there, now all you would need is Koudelka’s vision.
I like FP4, has a nice curve, but the world would be a drearier, sadder place if everything looked like it was shot with FP4.
Shots below are P30 shot at box speed. Some people are doing the “impossible” every day. As Rhett Butler said, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn about your curve!”
Shot at Box Speed/ASA 80 by Scott Micchiche developed in Paranol-S
Shot at Box Speed/80 developed in D-76
I’m not actually a troll, I just happen to live under a bridge.
