Ferrania P30: curve shape and (un)coated lenses

[Cholentpot]

Instead of wasting words, get two rolls of P30, two lenses, one coated and one uncoated. Shoot at same time, speed, light etc, develop in same tank and lets see the scans.

Otherwise, I'm bored.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Actually, more like something that deserves its own thread.

I see. But then we had to start all over again... i already can smell the finish line...

 

[Harry Callahan]

Instead of wasting words, get two rolls of P30, two lenses, one coated and one uncoated. Shoot at same time, speed, light etc, develop in same tank and lets see the scans.

Otherwise, I'm bored.

I`d like to waste some words first, than money and time.
Also i`d needed a camera for which there are/were multicoated, singlecoated and uncoated lenses for - as the test should be made with the same camera body to rule out this factor (internal light reflections, flare produced by the body, deviating exposure times...).
The only maker i can think of having made this probably was Leica - and i cannot afford anything of them. Even their bubble levels are pretty costly...
...and in the end, taking some reactions into account here, i wouldn`t be surprised if my proof would be put into question. If, of course i could deliver some proof, which also is a question, but you may get the idea...

 

[Cholentpot]

I`d like to waste some words first, than money and time.
Also i`d needed a camera for which there are/were multicoated, singlecoated and uncoated lenses for - as the test should be made with the same camera body to rule out this factor (internal light reflections, flare produced by the body, deviating exposure times...).
The only maker i can think of having made this probably was Leica - and i cannot afford anything of them. Even their bubble levels are pretty costly...
...and in the end, taking some reactions into account here, i wouldn`t be surprised if my proof would be put into question. If, of course i could deliver some proof, which also is a question, but you may get the idea...

Come on, it's easy. Find some vintage uncoated lens and then find a nice coated filter to throw on top of it. You don't even need two rolls. Shoot a few before and after.

 

[cmacd123]

Also i`d needed a camera for which there are/were multicoated, singlecoated and uncoated lenses for - as the test should be made with the same camera body to rule out this factor (internal light reflections, flare produced by the body, deviating exposure times...).

you are acknowledging that there are Many variables. Adding flare if it were to improve a given image, would also be very hard to control.

one similar technique is preflashing, where a small amount of controled light is used evenly on teh entire film with the idea is that it provides a little more speed.

no matter how one applies light to the film, the "H&D" curve will show the response of the film to the total amount of exposure that a given location on the film receives. Both deliberate flair and pre-flashing, [also done as Post flashing] will increse the amount of light that each point on the film receives, and thus the response will be the same as the curve shows for "THAT" amount of light (Subject Exposure+flare Exposure+Flashing exposure) All three methods will scatter extra light into all areas of the film.

the Italian Cine folks who used the namesake film in the 1950s managed to get Famously great results using a film based on the same formula. they no doubt used the best lenses that they could get their hands on. With what I know of history, they may have ONLY been able to obtain Ferrania Film because of high tariffs common at the time in the post war world. that they were able to get what are considered classic results, proably had to do with very careful exposure and lighting. that may have included extra light in the shadow areas of the set. I have no doubt that they also ran many tests and took very careful notes to ensure that they were getting the best results that the film had to offer.

FILM Ferrania has said for the beging that P30 is an unusual film, and needs careful exposure to get the best results. this is NOT a forgiving film like 5222 or Tri-X

 

[Harry Callahan]

Come on, it's easy. Find some vintage uncoated lens and then find a nice coated filter to throw on top of it. You don't even need two rolls. Shoot a few before and after.

I`m afraid, but i don`t think its that easy.
I needed to take some test shots with a mc, to prove that it`s worst with mc. Some pictures with singlecoated, to prove it's getting better and some shots with uncoated to see what is best - single- or uncoated?
To rule out as much variables as possible all lenses should be same focal length - and prefferably just one camera body.
In addition i also needed a good but uncoated enlarging lens, as i also assume an effect in printing - and as most of these lenses are collectors items today, this would become expensive - if a longtime manufacturer like Leica hasn`t changed his lens mounts for decades at all.

 

[Cholentpot]

I`m afraid, but i don`t think its that easy.
I needed to take some test shots with a mc, to prove that it`s worst with mc. Some pictures with singlecoated, to prove it's getting better and some shots with uncoated to see what is best - single- or uncoated?
To rule out as much variables as possible all lenses should be same focal length - and prefferably just one camera body.
In addition i also needed a good but uncoated enlarging lens, as i also assume an effect in printing - and as most of these lenses are collectors items today, this would become expensive - if a longtime manufacturer like Leica hasn`t changed his lens mounts for decades at all.

If the variables are so fickle, in my mind they're to be dismissed. A half stop or fourth of a stop gain or loss is nothing. I doubt it's even a fourth of a stop.

Or, if Ferrania is making a film that is so touchy as to what kind of lens coating the film needs they may need to rethink things.

 

[Harry Callahan]

you are acknowledging that there are Many variables. Adding flare if it were to improve a given image, would also be very hard to control.

one similar technique is preflashing, where a small amount of controled light is used evenly on teh entire film with the idea is that it provides a little more speed.

no matter how one applies light to the film, the "H&D" curve will show the response of the film to the total amount of exposure that a given location on the film receives. Both deliberate flair and pre-flashing, [also done as Post flashing] will increse the amount of light that each point on the film receives, and thus the response will be the same as the curve shows for "THAT" amount of light (Subject Exposure+flare Exposure+Flashing exposure) All three methods will scatter extra light into all areas of the film.

the Italian Cine folks who used the namesake film in the 1950s managed to get Famously great results using a film based on the same formula. they no doubt used the best lenses that they could get their hands on. With what I know of history, they may have ONLY been able to obtain Ferrania Film because of high tariffs common at the time in the post war world. that they were able to get what are considered classic results, proably had to do with very careful exposure and lighting. that may have included extra light in the shadow areas of the set. I have no doubt that they also ran many tests and took very careful notes to ensure that they were getting the best results that the film had to offer.

FILM Ferrania has said for the beging that P30 is an unusual film, and needs careful exposure to get the best results. this is NOT a forgiving film like 5222 or Tri-X

I`m not sure if flare was that hard to control. Of course you probably wouldn`t get total control, as you would in a studio with artificial light only, maybe even doing test shots the day before, develop, print, view and adjust lighting accordingly.
But one very good means to control "flare-production" of a lens is the aperture. A singlecoated lens for example will create more flare at aperture wide open and fewer flare at aperture further closed. Also, as Adams noted you can increase flare-production by putting an uncoated glass in front of the lens... therefore i`d say there are ways to get some control on flare-production.

My point about single- or uncoated lenses in contrary to pre- or post-flashing is that the flare a lens does produce must be coming from somewhere. As i said before, there is no extra opening in the lens barrel to let in some light the lens does convert to flare - so the lens elements must be taking some light from somewhere to produce flare from.
And this should be the highlights. Where strongest light is hitting the lens, the most reflections will occur. If a single-coated lens element will reflect for example 3% of incoming light, it will do so with every zone. It will reflect 3% of zone 0, 3% of zone I,... and 3% of zone 10. 3% of zone 0 is 0, 3% of zone I will be very few... but 3% of zone 10 will be most.
This means the flare a lens does produce is for the most made of light from the highlight zones. The lens does "steal" light from the highlights and does put it across the entire picture - but as flare only will affect zone 0 to III, it only does brighten up shadows.
So the lens has "stolen" light from the highlights, therefore reducing brightness of the highlights a bit - and this is different to pre- or post-flashing. A single- or uncoated lens does brighten up shadows like pre- or post-flashing, but it should reduce contrast more than p- or p-flashing. It should reduce contrast a little, because it took light from the highlights - and this, in theory, should be more helpful on P30 than pre- or -postflashing.

That`s why i`m focusing on the lens. Pre- and post-flashing also would help to brighten shadows, but a flary lens should be more beneficial - also as P30 only is available as 135, it could get hard to pre- or post-flash it...


I also assume that they did careful lighting when using P30 for cinema, but who knows. Maybe they indeed also had uncoated lenses in mind when formulating P30 - as some older directors still might have favoured them in the 50s and 60s. I mean think of the stereotype of italian people - i really don`t want to get political incorrect here but - an older director, an artist, an italian artist - and you`re trying to take away his beloved set of uncoated lenses, because now there are new and "progressive" lenses and new type of films.
I know this is a little comical, but i really wouldn't be surprised if P30 also was formulated with uncoated lenses in mind.

In addition to that, if you want to bring a movie into cinema, the camera negative has to be copied several times - intermediate negatives, second and third generation and everything - so maybe they also formulated a higher contrast to compensate for losses in copying steps.

 

[Harry Callahan]

If the variables are so fickle, in my mind they're to be dismissed. A half stop or fourth of a stop gain or loss is nothing. I doubt it's even a fourth of a stop.

Or, if Ferrania is making a film that is so touchy as to what kind of lens coating the film needs they may need to rethink things.

This test had to be proper to show what's what. And exposure time should matter, as it also determines how long flare will hit the film to brighten up shadows. If camera body A has overall - or some - exposure times being longer by like 30% than body B, it will impair the result.
If i was just to dial in a certain body and a certain lens on this film, it would be way easier - but a comparison between different kind of lenses, also incorporating a modern mc lens to show how appropriate or inappropriate it is does require proper test conditions - which in turn should require one body for all lenses. Or several bodies being spot on every exposure time (and similar internal flare-production) - which in turn means service, which again can get expensive...

As i said in the beginning, my theory is that P30 was formulated in a time where there were no mc lenses. Maybe it was designed to match lenses of its time - and may work better on single- or uncoated lenses. But as most use mc lenses today, they find P30 very problematic. Not saying that there will be no problems with a single-coated lens, but it could reduce problems.

 

[MattKing]

P30 started as a movie film - meaning it would have been intended for development aimed at lower contrast than still film. I'm not sure whether motion picture film lenses of the time would have been lower in flare, or whether the light path in motion picture cameras of the time would have been more or less likely to involve flare, but I am sure that the film frame would have mostly been much smaller than full frame 135.

 

[Harry Callahan]

35mm motion picture basically is half-frame. It`s 18x24mm, while 135 still is 24x36mm. As half frame needs a little smaller image circle, cine lenses could actually have a little higher contrast and less flare... on the other hand if watching movies from the 40s for example, there often are pretty flary shots in them. When the beautiful girl does enter the room - flary close up, fluttering eyelashes - back to normal, also on contrast.
Usually motion picture cameras also are blackened between lens and film, back in those days some had a rotating mirror for reflex finder, but...this should be about the same as with a SLR still .
I`ve also been thinking about whether they did higher contrast on P30 for motion picture, but i havn`t found a solid theory yet. The only thing that came to my mind is that with motion picture you sometimes want small DOF. To get that you have to open the aperture - and then you get more flare. To counteract this higher contrast indeed was helpful, but for the rest... it doesn`t seem to make real sense.
...

But wait! Cinemascope hit in the 50s, you needed additional lenses to convert a standard lens to scope which then did reduce overall lens contrast! This reduced contrast would be there all the time - and needing compensation all the time!

 

[MattKing]

Motion picture stock was designed to be lower contrast - because it was printed to projection stock, not to paper.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Still, as scope came up additional lens elements were added to taking lenses introducing more flare. Also zoom-lenses came up in the 50s, having additional lens elements too. They were expensive and not as good as modern zooms, but it's possible that P30 was designed with those lenses in mind. Especially (single coated) scope-zoom-lenses would produce a lot of flare.
The additional lens elements needed for scope/zoom make perfect sense to me.
Also if shooting scope, picture angle is wider and the lens is more likely to collect more flare. Light beams which do not make it onto the film, but through the first or two lens elements... scope+zoom really is a solid theory i was looking for.

And apparently P30 is high contrast, which could counteract all this - to some extend.

Edit:

Also fine grain is beneficial for scope, as you try to "squeeze" more image detail on the same area of the film. And P30 is very fine grained for, well, having box speed of 80ASA. If you did not have to pull-develop to get some shadow detail and could keep those 80ASA because of low lens contrast brightening the shadows, it should be a good match for single-coated scope-zoom-lenses.

 

[koraks]

I feel like we`re coming to a point soon.

Ah, you're an optimist. I'm afraid I consider myself more of a realist

 

[fs999]

Moderators, could you split the P30 film curves discussion from the discussion of the company Film Ferrania ?

 

[koraks]

Folks,
Perhaps this P30 and uncoated lens conversation could be moved to a thread of its own?

Moderators, could you split the P30 film curves discussion from the discussion of the company Film Ferrania ?

Consider it done
Further discussion on P30 and its characteristics can remain in this thread; discussion of Film Ferrania as a company, their production schedule, product roadmaps etc. should go in the other thread about Ferrania in the Industry News section.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you very much for your answer.
Just to make myself clear, i don`t know whether you followed this entire conversation, i called it a theory right from the start - and also stated that i am no expert.

Hello Harry,

you're welcome.
Yes, of course I have followed the entire conversation from the start (I always do that, otherwise I would not participate in a discussion: one of my "golden rules"). I even have followed the whole thread right from the start (I visited the Ferrania factory some years ago and had intensive talks with the current leading staff and a former top manager).

What the members koraks, Film-Niko, Cubao and flavio81 have written and explained to you is correct.
And your "theory" is ignoring and / or misinterpreting lots of physical laws and fundamental characteristics of lenses and films.
And therefore it does not work as you think.
Uncoated or single-coated lenses are not a successful or really satisfying answer to the main characteristics and problems of P30. I can ensure you that with my knowledge of decades of scientific lens and film tests, including intensive P30 tests.

Your claims have been proven wrong by the above mentioned members. But in your reaction you are repeating just your falsified claims. Your reactions reveal especially a lack of knowledge / wrong understanding of sensitometry and curve shape evaluation on the one hand and lens characteristics on the other hand (especially the real nature of flare).

If you really want "Erkenntnisfortschritt" (improved, advanced knowledge) for you you have to build a very solid knowledge fundament / base first. For this topic of P30 the base is sensitometry. You need to completely understand that first to go further.
First step: Best education.
I can highly recommend the book of photo expert and physician Dr. Otto Beyer:

BUCH/ZEITSCHRIFT Belichtung und Filmentwicklung in der Schwarzweißfotografie von Dr. Otto Beyer - fotoimpex.de Analoge Fotografie

Das Buch ist so gestaltet, dass im Selbststudium schrittweise das nötige Knowhow aufgebaut werden kann, um seine SW-Filme richtig zu belichten und zu entwickeln. Zuerst ...

www.fotoimpex.de

Excellent current state-of-the-art book, very well written.
I know the author personally, and can confirm its excellent expertise and knowledge.
Yes, it is in German, but with a very good online translation service like DeepL that won't be a problem.

Next step will be buying a densitometer (I highly recommend the Heiland TRD-2 https://heilandelectronic.de/trd_2 ) and practising your knowledge (from reading the book) with different films and developers - and P30 of course. Then you will have "black on white" where the problems with P30 are. And you will see why uncoated or single coated lenses would not help you in a significant way.
Especially if you also follow member Film-Niko's excellent advice and look at the thousands of flare test pictures you'll find on lens test sources like lenstip.com, Christopher Frost, opticallimits etc.. Because there you can see that in almost all cases of lenses with high(er) flare this flare destroys detail (in shadows and highlights) by "Schleier" and "Überstrahlung". That is why you will loose much, much more by using them than achieving a tiny, non-significant advantage.

But what i was wondering was if P30 was formulated with lenses of its time in mind.

Well, as others here in the thread already have correctly explained, original Ferrania P30 has been a "Kamera-Aufnahmefilm" , movie camera film (in contrast to movie copy film, which is then projected in the cinema). Such films have to be lower contrast films, as later the master is copied to copy films used in the cinemas. And during the copy-process contrast is increased, therefore the needed lower contrast of the movie camera film.

But the current P30 from Film Ferrania has such high contrast that you can't make a usable / satisfying copy for cinema projection anymore.
This emulsion is therefore definitely significantly different compared to the original emulsion.
This has also been correctly explained in this thread by others before. And there are are also some further reasons for differences.

So the characteristics of original P30 are irrelevant, because current named P30 is an emulsion with very different characteristics.
They are different films.

Though there may not be a huge reduction of the problems, a multicoated lens still should make problems worse with P30 than single- or uncoated lenses.
That's all i`m trying to find out.

With uncoated lenses you will have in total more problems with P30, see all the explanations by others and me.
There are two much, much better strategies to reduce the P30 problems:
1. Learn the Zone System method, buy a densitometer and evaluate different film-developer combinations with P30. The result will be a big compromise of effective film speed (depending on the developer in the EI 12 - 20/25 range) and acceptable tonality (curve shape).
Not a perfect or very good result, but usable / acceptable (dependent on the standards you have).
Because as written by me in a posting above, you simply cannot fully work in the Zone System approach with P30.
Because of the very problematic characteristic curve shape and the very limited flexibility of adjusting that curve to really satisfying levels (you cannot fully exploit the N+ and N- options like with other films, too).

2. Just use a different film without such problems instead. There are lots of alternatives: For example ADOX HR-50, Ilford PanF+, Ilford Delta 100, Ilford Ortho Plus, Kodak T-Max 100, Fujifilm Neopan Acros II.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It's always entertaining to see a poster insist they know better than Adams.

Well, Sal, if Adams would still live and would have tested P30, he would have been extremely disappointed and definitely would not have used it, because for his working workflow with the Zone System this film belongs to the worst films...

Henning, my comment related not to the film but rather a series of posts denying the efficacy of inefficient (or no) lens coatings as a workaround for films that need help in the shadows. As described by Adams, among others. As for P30, whether its problematic curve can be helped sufficiently by such an approach, I cannot say, since I have no interest in the film. I stick with proven products from major manufacturers.

Sal, Adams has described it, but not used it. Instead he has used and optimized the Zone System approach, and set standards. That says all. The Zone System technique is completely superior, because it gives you full control and can be perfectly adjusted to very different object and lighting contrasts, different films and developers...in my opinion it does not make sense to waste time and resources for completely inferior approaches...

Henning, you're still reacting to my post as though I'm advocating for using lenses with inefficient or no coatings in combination with P30. I am not. I use the Zone System approach, employ a densitometer and sensitometry, and limit my film choices to those with linear (sometimes shouldering) curves produced by major manufacturers.

I originally commented that it is entertaining to see a poster insist they know better than Adams. In other words, if one is for whatever reason faced with exposing film that does not record shadow detail adequately, some benefit might be obtained by using a lens that produces veiling glare. For all the reasons that both Adams and "Harry Callahan" describe. Will this magically make P30 images look like they were taken with TMY-2? Of course not. But to dismiss the entire approach out of hand is, to put it charitably, "entertaining." That is all.

 

[cmacd123]

Motion picture stock was designed to be lower contrast - because it was printed to projection stock, not to paper.

AND the traditional work flow was to make a "Master positive" from the edited Camera Negative (which sometimes was also edited to include special Effects) and then that was used to make a duplicate Negative, or many negatives, and finally that was used to make the "Release Print" shipped out to the local CInema.

The old ORWO line has a DP31 (duplicating Positive) and a DN21 (duplicate Negative) for making those intermediates. as well as PF2-V3 release print film. for following that process in Black and white.

 

[Film-Niko]

I originally commented that it is entertaining to see a poster insist they know better than Adams.

But that is not true, as you are referring to my posting (no. 62 in this thread). I have not said I know better than Adams. Why should I, as I have learned a lot from his books and using his ZS.
I have only put the quoted statement in the needed context. What I mean with the expression of a "more theoretical concept" is the fact that this idea of using an uncoated lens for that approach is described in his book, but not used in daily photography for many decades (and also not used by Adams).
And experienced photographers know why they are not using it, because it does not work properly.
For better real detail in shadows you need a controllable solution with values you can change and vary as needed. The ZS offers that, fill-in flash offers that, but not an uncoated lens.
I have also tried to explain it in my posting no. 60.

Maybe my explanations are not good enough because English is not my mother language. I am sorry for that. At least I have tried it and sacrificed a lot of time to help H. Callahan.
But his reactions to my explanations and explanations from others show that there is little willingness to learn from his side. He said he is no expert. But he asks experts here. And when he then get answers he did not want to hear he is just repeating his statements, and the topic is going in circles.......

 

[Harry Callahan]

Hello Harry,

you're welcome.
Yes, of course I have followed the entire conversation from the start (I always do that, otherwise I would not participate in a discussion: one of my "golden rules"). I even have followed the whole thread right from the start (I visited the Ferrania factory some years ago and had intensive talks with the current leading staff and a former top manager).

What the members koraks, Film-Niko, Cubao and flavio81 have written and explained to you is correct.
And your "theory" is ignoring and / or misinterpreting lots of physical laws and fundamental characteristics of lenses and films.
And therefore it does not work as you think.
Uncoated or single-coated lenses are not a successful or really satisfying answer to the main characteristics and problems of P30. I can ensure you that with my knowledge of decades of scientific lens and film tests, including intensive P30 tests.

Your claims have been proven wrong by the above mentioned members. But in your reaction you are repeating just your falsified claims. Your reactions reveal especially a lack of knowledge / wrong understanding of sensitometry and curve shape evaluation on the one hand and lens characteristics on the other hand (especially the real nature of flare).

If you really want "Erkenntnisfortschritt" (improved, advanced knowledge) for you you have to build a very solid knowledge fundament / base first. For this topic of P30 the base is sensitometry. You need to completely understand that first to go further.
First step: Best education.
I can highly recommend the book of photo expert and physician Dr. Otto Beyer:

BUCH/ZEITSCHRIFT Belichtung und Filmentwicklung in der Schwarzweißfotografie von Dr. Otto Beyer - fotoimpex.de Analoge Fotografie

Das Buch ist so gestaltet, dass im Selbststudium schrittweise das nötige Knowhow aufgebaut werden kann, um seine SW-Filme richtig zu belichten und zu entwickeln. Zuerst ...

www.fotoimpex.de

Excellent current state-of-the-art book, very well written.
I know the author personally, and can confirm its excellent expertise and knowledge.
Yes, it is in German, but with a very good online translation service like DeepL that won't be a problem.

Next step will be buying a densitometer (I highly recommend the Heiland TRD-2 https://heilandelectronic.de/trd_2 ) and practising your knowledge (from reading the book) with different films and developers - and P30 of course. Then you will have "black on white" where the problems with P30 are. And you will see why uncoated or single coated lenses would not help you in a significant way.
Especially if you also follow member Film-Niko's excellent advice and look at the thousands of flare test pictures you'll find on lens test sources like lenstip.com, Christopher Frost, opticallimits etc.. Because there you can see that in almost all cases of lenses with high(er) flare this flare destroys detail (in shadows and highlights) by "Schleier" and "Überstrahlung". That is why you will loose much, much more by using them than achieving a tiny, non-significant advantage.




Well, as others here in the thread already have correctly explained, original Ferrania P30 has been a "Kamera-Aufnahmefilm" , movie camera film (in contrast to movie copy film, which is then projected in the cinema). Such films have to be lower contrast films, as later the master is copied to copy films used in the cinemas. And during the copy-process contrast is increased, therefore the needed lower contrast of the movie camera film.

But the current P30 from Film Ferrania has such high contrast that you can't make a usable / satisfying copy for cinema projection anymore.
This emulsion is therefore definitely significantly different compared to the original emulsion.
This has also been correctly explained in this thread by others before. And there are are also some further reasons for differences.

So the characteristics of original P30 are irrelevant, because current named P30 is an emulsion with very different characteristics.
They are different films.



With uncoated lenses you will have in total more problems with P30, see all the explanations by others and me.
There are two much, much better strategies to reduce the P30 problems:
1. Learn the Zone System method, buy a densitometer and evaluate different film-developer combinations with P30. The result will be a big compromise of effective film speed (depending on the developer in the EI 12 - 20/25 range) and acceptable tonality (curve shape).
Not a perfect or very good result, but usable / acceptable (dependent on the standards you have).
Because as written by me in a posting above, you simply cannot fully work in the Zone System approach with P30.
Because of the very problematic characteristic curve shape and the very limited flexibility of adjusting that curve to really satisfying levels (you cannot fully exploit the N+ and N- options like with other films, too).

2. Just use a different film without such problems instead. There are lots of alternatives: For example ADOX HR-50, Ilford PanF+, Ilford Delta 100, Ilford Ortho Plus, Kodak T-Max 100, Fujifilm Neopan Acros II.

Best regards,
Henning

Hello Henning,

Thank you for your answer. I`m aware that i lack knowledge of film characteristics etc. - but i`m not in shape to work into this now. Which also is a reason i came here to the experts (no sarcasm intended).
But the way some reacted and neglected things that should be true, like a lens producing flare, like flare brightening up shadows, or starting on light transmission which is irrelevant for my point - at least gave me the impression that it`s not only me who is lacking knowledge and therefore is wrong entirely.
Which is why i started to insist.
And some acknowledged that lens flare does about the same thing as pre- or -post-flashing a film to "increase speed". Though, from my point of knowledge, i wouldn't call this a true "speed increase". You`re giving additional light to the entire picture, which only will brighten up shadows - by reducing shadow contrast at the same time. Maybe pre- or post-flashing is defined as a "speed increase", but i`d call it a "selective speed increase" at best - as you only "increase speed" on the shadows. And it`s not a true speed increase, not even a true"selective speed increase".
Nevertheless this effect does help to increase shadow density and to make shadow detail better visible, or even visible at all - as there is a threshold. A minimum of light needs to hit the silver grain for the grain to develop at all. If the amount of light hitting the film in the shadows is too small, additional light by flare, pre- or post-flashing can help to lift shadow detail above this threshold - and make detail visible which otherwise was lost.

I did not know that the current version of P30 does differ from the original version, but i am focusing on the current version - i havn`t seen graphs or numbers from the original neither the current version. And what i see and read about the current version is, that it has too few response in the shadows if rated at 80ASA.
So what about pre- or -post-flashing it? Still i`m aware that this won`t turn a problematic film into a convenient any-light-situation-film, but shouldn`t it help a bit at least? And as pre- or post-flashing apparently is defined a "speed increase", wouldn`t this help to preserve at least some of its box speed?
You`re saying yourself that the current version is very contrasty. Shouldn`t this at least help a bit to counteract contrast loss in the shadows, caused by pre- or post-flashing?
...

I`m aware that i`m repeating myself, but i probably havn`t gotten an answer i do understand so far. Maybe you could express in percent? How many percent improvement there would be if current P30 was properly pre- or post-flashed? How many percent degradation of image quality would be created by pre- or post-flashing it?
And is the idea that film emulsions may have been matched to single- or uncoated lenses completely off?

Best regards,

 

[Harry Callahan]

Ah, you're an optimist. I'm afraid I consider myself more of a realist

Actually i`m trying to be a realist. But this optimism is just breaking through from time to time... i cannot tell where this is coming from...

 

[Harry Callahan]

...

Maybe my explanations are not good enough because English is not my mother language. I am sorry for that. At least I have tried it and sacrificed a lot of time to help H. Callahan.
But his reactions to my explanations and explanations from others show that there is little willingness to learn from his side. He said he is no expert. But he asks experts here. And when he then get answers he did not want to hear he is just repeating his statements, and the topic is going in circles.......

I hope you don`t get me wrong on this, i don`t want to start this all over again - but:

You insisted on the curve not to change - which should be irrelevant for my point. You said things like
"No, that does not work. The lens cannot "brightening up" shadows. Only additional light can that."
"In diffuse daylight or with the light source behind you you won't have any flare"
"And your object contrast / subject contrast is determined by the lighting conditions on that object, and not by the lens."

Then we found that a lens does produce flare all the time (sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on lens and light situation), that lens flare can brighten up shadows similar to pre- or post-flashing and that a lens has influence on what contrast is transferred to the film.

I`m not repeating this to rub your nose in this - no, i`m repeating this to show you how your answers were sounding to me. You denied effects which should be true - so you seemed to talk drivel to me. Can you understand this?
And that's why i kept insisting.

 

[Harry Callahan]

Oh, and many thanks to the moderators giving my little theory its own thread!

 

[Film-Niko]

I hope you don`t get me wrong on this, i don`t want to start this all over again - but:

You insisted on the curve not to change - which should be irrelevant for my point.

No, it is not at all irrelevant! Because the curve shape is the main problem of P30. And the curve tells you many of the important characteristics of a film:
Real film speed, shadow detail, midtone detail, highlight detail, tonality.
So the curve shape is P30 main problem, and you have claimed that this main problem can be solved with uncoated or single coated lenses.
But it cannot, not in a proper and satisfying way.

And please remember that it was you (!), and not me who started this discussion (look on page 1): I just reported my test results of this film. Nothing more.
And then you joined in and claimed the old, inferior lens coating technology could solve this main P30 problem.
As you are so extremely convinced that you are right and know much better than all the experienced photographers who have done all these tests, then you at least should finally start going out to do your own test runs and deliver evidence of your claims.
I have used old lenses, and therefore I know that they won't help with this specific problem, in lots of shooting situations they make things even worse. There are good reasons why production of uncoated lenses had stopped decades ago.

Then we found that a lens does produce flare all the time (sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on lens and light situation), that lens flare can brighten up shadows similar to pre- or post-flashing and that a lens has influence on what contrast is transferred to the film.

Again, as I have already explained that in one of my postings above:
Pre-flashing is not easy, and it only works well and as intended when the amount of light used is extremely precise adjusted to the used materials and shooting conditions.
You have to pre-flash your film with a light intensity which must be measured very, very accurately. You have to do quite a lot of tests and have to use a densitometer. If you use not enough light, then you won't have an effect. If you use too much light, you will destroy the quality by overexposure.

And flare cannot effectively be controlled. In most cases it is so much that the details are destroyed (see the sample pictures in the links).
You cannot vary the intensitiy as with pre-flashing.
And with flare you most often have the problem that it is not evenly spread acros the whole frame, but varying in intensity and direction. And therefore unusable for a targeted shadow zones influence.

You denied effects which should be true -

No, I did not deny effects in general, I tried to put them into a reasonable relation. Because that is extremely important for the final result.
Lens flare and pre-flashing are partly working in a similar direction, but they are not the same, and they have not end results on the same level and with the same impact. The differences in results are mostly very big. See explanation above.
And just look finally at the flare pictures on the links I have given you. Then you will see immediately.
But your posting behaviour cleary shows that you have not done that. There is clear evidence for my points in hundreds of sample pictures, and you simply ignore that. You don't want to see the facts.