jim_jm
Well-known
I can't say I've had any problems wet-printing P30. I did notice the increased contrast at ISO80, and have shot other rolls at 50, which many have recommended. Even when hanging the film to dry, the negatives had a unique look to them. Haven't seen any emulsion or other production flaws yet, but again this was an Alpha batch so it wouldn't be unexpected. I'm definitely buying more P30 when it's available, and hopefully they'll have it in 120 also. I contributed to the original Kickstarter (5 years ago!) and I don't really care if I get any color film, but I'm really jazzed about P30.
These are both from the first few rolls shot at 80, scans of the straight test prints at grade 2 or 2.5.
Attachments
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Jim, it's available today in the U.S. and Canada.
https://www.filmferrania.com (not filmferrania.it which is their other site)
And, they have said it will eventually be available in 120, possibly in 2020.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I wonder if Ferrania can send me box of this instead of the slide film I backed...
Trask
Established
Thanks for the tip, Larry, for it being available in the U.S. Just put in my order.
Freakscene
Obscure member
P30 has a totally abnormal density curve. It is almost impossible to match the film curve to a paper and get a normal tonal range. Even with extensive dodging and burning it looked poor. And why sign up for hard work when there are normal 50-100 speed films?
You can adjust the tones relative to each other much more after scanning, in a way that you can’t for a wet print.
Marty
jim_jm
Well-known
Thanks for the heads-up, Larry. I had thought it was only limited availability in Italy so far, but I guess they're getting it out quicker than that. Funny, I haven't been getting any email updates from Ferrania recently...
HHPhoto
Well-known
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
retinax
Well-known
Highlight one: Upswept?
Highlight two: so... develop it less? Of course you may need to increase exposure even more, but there must be a point where overall contrast is normal, no?
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
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.
Mackinaw
Think Different
As I mentioned a few days back in a previous post, with P30, it all depends if you wet print or scan. This pic of a Halloween decoration (yes, we had snow on the ground) is a high contrast pic. It would be a bear to wet print, but I had no problem teasing detail out of the shadows and taming the highlights with my scanner. EI 50, developed in Photographers Formulary FA-1027.
Jim B.
Jim B.
jawarden
Well-known
New film = very good news. Order placed!
A while back I was gifted an old Pentax K1000 with low contrast lenses so I'm looking forward to seeing what the bump from P30 looks like. And when it's available in 120 it's going to be so cool to try it in my Kodak Autographic. Good times.
A while back I was gifted an old Pentax K1000 with low contrast lenses so I'm looking forward to seeing what the bump from P30 looks like. And when it's available in 120 it's going to be so cool to try it in my Kodak Autographic. Good times.
SilverInversion
Newbie
How does the Ferrania P30 reverse?
HHPhoto
Well-known
Sorry, that is completely wrong. You expose and develop the film for such sensitometric tests. And this exposure and development on the film clearly show you the exact characteristics of a film. That are the results, that is the dinner!
Therefore this is the standard method used in film design, film production and with all experienced film photographers for years when they want to know how a film exactly works.
If you want that lack of shadow detail, you can also use Agfa aerial films like repackaged Superpan 200 or Retro 80S. If you use them, you dont have the P30 disadvantage of too dense highlights. And they are much cheaper, too.
Or you just use any other film you want, underexpose it and extend development time (pushing). Then you get also the wanted lack of shadow detail, and increased contrast. But you have the huge advantage, that you can get excellent tonality from standard films whenever you want it. You can get both looks with the established films. With P30 only one look is possible. And standard film is much cheaper, too.
And that is the main problem with P30:
- you can get much better results with established films at much lower price
- you can get the same look as P30 with other films, too, if you want, but at much lower costs
- other, cheaper films are more versatile then P30.
So, in the end P30 does not offer any real advantage to us photographers.
Film Ferrania is in a competition. And if they want to stay in the long term, they must offer us advantages or unique characteristics with their products other manufacturers have not.
There is a resurgence in home darkroom / optical printing, too. That is why Ilford, Foma and Adox are introducing new papers for it.
Of course you can expose it at EI 80. But then you have lack of shadow detail.
Compare the results with real ISO 80 speed films, and you will see immediately side-by-side the big difference.
Speed rating is not an esoteric business. There are clear ISO guidelines for it: You must have 0.1 logD at Zone I above base fog.
And P30 is far away from that!
Unfortunately Film Ferrania is cheating their customers by that. It is very sad. So they will lose further customer credit / confidence.
And I think that is not necessary at all.
I have had high hopes for them. But currently their results are quite disappointing. All other BW film manufacturers are doing better. I really hope they improve their performance soon.
Cheers, Jan
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I could care less about all the numbers and such.
I process all film the same way. What any given film records, I work with it to see whether it has value to me. If it doesn't, I don't use that film again. So far, I haven't found a film that has no value for some uses. I don't see any point to wanting every film to fit some perfect numerical model of density and response curves...
My image rendering and printing process is entirely based on scanning film and rendering it, printing to inkjet. I haven't had a darkroom or printed in a wet lab for more than 25 years, and I don't intend to do that again: I get better results from scanning film, image processing, and inkjet printing.
I've still got five rolls of P30 in my film inventory. My first roll with it made some excellent, satisfying photographs for me. It produces a very nice feel in the prints. That's all that matters.
G
I process all film the same way. What any given film records, I work with it to see whether it has value to me. If it doesn't, I don't use that film again. So far, I haven't found a film that has no value for some uses. I don't see any point to wanting every film to fit some perfect numerical model of density and response curves...
My image rendering and printing process is entirely based on scanning film and rendering it, printing to inkjet. I haven't had a darkroom or printed in a wet lab for more than 25 years, and I don't intend to do that again: I get better results from scanning film, image processing, and inkjet printing.
I've still got five rolls of P30 in my film inventory. My first roll with it made some excellent, satisfying photographs for me. It produces a very nice feel in the prints. That's all that matters.
G
jawarden
Well-known
Wait, you mean your first question about a new film isn't whether it produces 0.1 logD at Zone I above base fog???? What's wrong with you?
robert blu
quiet photographer
Now I'm curious...I think I should try it and make my own opinion ! It can be a good challenging idea to start the 2020
mteresko
Established
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Trask
Established
Nice — with some shadow detail. Your M5 has a spot meter, so I wonder what part of the image you metered to set your exposure? There are a variety of different reflectance values in your chosen subject.
Ted Striker
Well-known
I chucked my 5 rolls of P30 into the trash. Worst film I have ever shot.