Slow and steady: Ferrania P30, ILFORD PAN F Plus, etc.

[aparat]

With that c.i. the Ferrania P30 must be an excellent candidate for reversing. Has anyone tried to do so?

That's an interesting idea! I am wondering if the base density is low enough for satisfactory reversal processing. In my test, it was around 0.26, compared to PET base of around 0.09 or so. From what I've read, people seem to prefer low B+F density for reversal processing, though I have no personal opinion on the matter.

 

[cmacd123]

Does Ferrania P30 have triacetate or polyester film base?

looks like a 5 mil acetate base to me.

 

[relistan]

That's an interesting idea! I am wondering if the base density is low enough for satisfactory reversal processing. In my test, it was around 0.26, compared to PET base of around 0.09 or so. From what I've read, people seem to prefer low B+F density for reversal processing, though I have no personal opinion on the matter.

You are right that lower b+f density is better for reversing but actually at 0.26 that will still look pretty good. Probably worth trying. cc @Tsubasa

 

[john_s]

Reading this reminds me of my early quest for "best" results. I chose Adox KB14 (box speed 20) and used it at box speed in glaring sunlight on a mountain top. Contrast was astronomical. That was 55 years ago. I've learned a lot since then.

 

[aparat]

I started testing the Adox CMS 20 II and Rollei Copex Rapid. So far, I have been trying to establish a baseline, having no prior experience with either film. I chose the Adox ADOTECH IV developer because it is commercially available and seems specially designed for these types of films.

I exposed the film for an ISO 25 film. I picked the eleven-minute development regime (see below) and obtained the following curve (repeated twice, plotted mean values). As you can see, you get somewhat high contrast (CI=0.85) and an effective film speed of about ISO 8. I am quite happy with the result. I will continue testing the film to see if I can obtain a broader range of contrast.





The Rollei Copex Rapid turned out to be problematic. My 35 mm sample has been fogged at some point, giving me base density of around 0.47, which is unacceptable. I handled the film in complete darkness so I doubt it happened on my end. I will try my 120 sample to see if I get the same result. It's disappointing, to say the least.

 

[braxus]

Im all about using slow films. Another film you could try is RPX 25. And if you can find some, some long since discontinued Efke 25 and Agfa APX 25. The RPX 25 film was hard for me to get decent tones out of it, but it works for some shots. I do like Efke 25 a lot, and also APX 25.

 

[Craig]

RPX25 is really Agfa Aviophot 80, and ariel reconnaissance film. It's optimized for the midtones but not shadow or highlights.

 

[twelvetone12]

With that c.i. the Ferrania P30 must be an excellent candidate for reversing. Has anyone tried to do so?

I tried! But the first tests i did all came out very very underesposed. Then the pandemic happened and i did not have a chance to try again. IMHO P30 would make for a nice low Speed super8 film.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I have reversed one roll years ago and got some results, but not shareable. Bought 3 rolls of it in Januaryt to test out - maybe I'll do P30 after HR-50...

 

[aparat]

Im all about using slow films. Another film you could try is RPX 25. And if you can find some, some long since discontinued Efke 25 and Agfa APX 25. The RPX 25 film was hard for me to get decent tones out of it, but it works for some shots. I do like Efke 25 a lot, and also APX 25.

Yes! I just started testing RPX 25. I have six more trials to go and will post the results shortly. Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[ic-racer]

What is EFS?

 

[Craig]

What is EFS?

Effective Film Speed.

 

[ic-racer]

Effective Film Speed.

Yes, but what is it. Where is it defined? Who came up with it, what does it mean with respect to exposure index and ISO? How does it relate to image quality on this graph?I can't say I ever ran across this term.

 

[Craig]

It comes from Phil Davis's "Beyond the Zone System" and he goes through the math of how it is derived. It's based on the ISO speed determination, and when you have a family of curves like the ones that Aparat has presented, each of those lines has a different speed. Several pages in the book are devoted to how to determine it.

The software that you can feed in all the densitromtry data will plot the curves and generate the EFS.

 

[ic-racer]

Ok, thank you, it is a Zone System thing.

when you have a family of curves like the ones that Aparat has presented, each of those lines has a different speed.

Ceratinly not an ISO speed.

 

[Craig]

I wouldn't have called it a zone system thing per se. This isn't an area I have great knowledge in, so I am probably misinterpreting the book; but roughly ISO speed is where the curve crosses the 0.1over B+F line. As that crossing point is different for each of the different developing time lines, the speed point is also different; thus the speed assigned to each developing time is also different.

That's shrinking 6 pages of explanation into 2 lines, so obviously I'm leaving a lot out. You should probably read the book for his explanation, I'm sure you'll understand it better than me.

 

[aparat]

Yes, but what is it. Where is it defined? Who came up with it, what does it mean with respect to exposure index and ISO? How does it relate to image quality on this graph?I can't say I ever ran across this term.

The idea behind Effective Film Speed (EFS) is that every film curve will have its own "speed point," which will vary along with contrast as a function of development. In the literature, it has been described as Effective Speed (e.g., Henry, 1988), Effective Film Speed (e.g., Lambrecht and Woodhouse, 2011), or simply "speed point" (White, Zakia, and Lorenz, 1976). Only one curve in a family will have a speed point that meets the current ISO definition, and that is what most people refer to as "box speed." All the other curves in the family, have their own EFS. In the Zone System literature, EFS is linked very closely to the notion of "N-development." I do not know who was the first person to coin the term Effective Film Speed. In my program, I have three options for calculating EFS, but the results are usually virtually identical, so I just use the default method.

Here are a couple of images that illustrate the idea of EFS.

This one is from Lambrecht and Woodhouse (2011, p. 119):

And this one is from White, Zakia, and Lorenz (1976, p. 106):

 

[GLS]

The Rollei Copex Rapid turned out to be problematic. My 35 mm sample has been fogged at some point, giving me base density of around 0.47, which is unacceptable. I handled the film in complete darkness so I doubt it happened on my end. I will try my 120 sample to see if I get the same result. It's disappointing, to say the least.

Yes that is a shame, and hopefully just bad luck.

I've shot half a dozen rolls of Copex Rapid in 120 and have had no defects with the film itself. The end paper tape to bind the exposed roll is another matter, as in my experience the adhesive on it is rubbish and not to be trusted; when I finish a 120 roll I remove the tape and bind the roll closed with sellotape instead. Just something to be aware of so you don't get caught out in the field!

 

[aparat]

I have been trying to find a simple, commercially available developer for the Adox CMS 20 II film. Adox recommends the ADOTECH IV developer and a very specific temperature and agitation scheme. I tested the film in this developer and found that it produces a linear response and an ISO of about 8 (see earlier in this thread).

Since, then, I tested Clayton F76 Plus, D-76, XTOL, and Pyrocat HD. The first three required a very high dilution, which meant that I needed to use less developer than the manufacturer-recommended minimum per roll of film. You are welcome to try high dilutions at your own risk.

So far, the best pairing I found was with Pyrocat HD 1+1+200 using semi-stand agitation at 20C. I found the developer to produce a range of useful contrasts and offer some interesting highlight compression. This can be very useful with this film.

Here are the curves with Pyrocat HD 1+1+200. The first two minutes: continuous agitation, followed by stand, then, 2 inversions at the half-way point, followed by stand. Water stop bath, followed by TF-4 fixer. Most importantly, you get a very convenient range of developing times, between 10 and 25 minutes, or so, depending on your contrast of choice.

This experiment also told me that there's nothing magical about the ADOTECH IV developer. In fact, I prefer the results in Pyrocat HD, but, as always, YMMV.

adoxCMS20II_PyrocatHD by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[Craig]

I have been trying to find a simple, commercially available developer for the Adox CMS 20 II film.

As a thought process, CMS 20 is a microfilm and naturally has high contrast. Kodak Technical Pan was also a very high contrast film (could easily achieve a CI over 2) so I was thinking that a low contrast developer suitable for Tech Pan might also work for CMS 20.

My Dad was cleaning up and gave me a bunch of paper from when he was really into photography and in that was a Kodak sheet talking about pictorial application for Tech Pan from 1980. In it they give a formula for a low contrast developer suitable for pictorial use. I don't have the ingredients, but perhaps you do and could run a test on the CMS20?

The formula:
Sodium Sulfite: 30 g
Phenidone: 1.5g
water to make 1 litre

Developing time 15 min at 20°C, 5 second agitation every 30 seconds.

It says the developer is prone to oxidation and aging effects and should be mixed immediately before use and used one shot. Says that developer is susceptible to changes in pH, so distilled water should be used.

I realize not commecrially available, but certainly simple to make.

 

[retina_restoration]

My Dad was cleaning up and gave me a bunch of paper from when he was really into photography and in that was a Kodak sheet talking about pictorial application for Tech Pan from 1980. In it they give a formula for a low contrast developer suitable for pictorial use. I don't have the ingredients, but perhaps you do and could run a test on the CMS20?

The formula:
Sodium Sulfite: 30 g
Phenidone: 1.5g
water to make 1 litre

Developing time 15 min at 20°C, 5 second agitation every 30 seconds.

This is the recipe for POTA, a developer oft-cited for use with high contrast "copy" films like CMS20. It does work well, as Andrew can attest. See: https://youtu.be/GvJqtRkLuY4

 

[Roger Cole]

Wonder about P30 in Diafine at box speed.

Can't say about P30 but I've shot a fair amount of Pan F+ 120 and developed in Diafine. EI 50-64, really nice combo.

Apalachicola Beach, Pan F+, EI 64, Diafine, Yashicamat 124:

 

[Roger Cole]

...or in a two-bath developer...

Diafine is a two bath developer. So I assume you meant "or ANOTHER two bath developer?"

 

[Roger Cole]

Honestly I have never seen a developer which is really capable of delivering 1-2 two stops real more shadow detail = film speed.
Proven by sensitometric tests.
I have seen many marketing claims of manufacturers, but when these developers were tested they gave 1/3 to 2/3 stops additional shadow detail at best.
Therefore I am sceptical.
2 stops more would be the equivalent of 4x more light!! I am convinced that from a physical point of view it is impossible that a developer can achieve that.

Depends on the film but in a few cases it was true. Well, true "enough" - by which I mean film shot at such speeds resulted in prints that looked perfectly normal without either the reduced shadow detail nor the increased contrast from conventional pushing. I don't really care what a densitormeter would say. If I'm not too concerned with human critics I'm even less about machines. Useful tools, but if I disagree with 'em them I'm the one who's right. (I don't mean making baseless claims - I just mean if the densitometer says a film is really 400 but I actually like the results BETTER shot at 800, it's an 800 film/dev combo to me - may not be to you of course.)

Pre 2007 Tri-X in Diafine gave great results at EI 1600 and while I never tested it I can't imagine a tested EI coming in less than 800. I can tell you that any more exposure than 800 (like at box speed) built too much highlight density and made it grainy. I used to shoot a lot of Plus-X at 400 in Diafine because I preferred it to Tri-X at box speed in conventional developers. Diafine is as close to a magical developer in some ways as I've ever found.

BUT it doesn't work nearly as well with modern films. Oh it "works" fine as a developer, and still has the two bath developer contrast control going for it, as well as lasting practically forever and needing basically no temperature control (different temperatures will literally make no difference at all between 70 and 85F as long as the minimum development times are observed because it basically just goes to completion) but the at least nearly magical speed increase it gave some films just isn't there. It still tends to get good speed out of most films and maybe a little effective bump.

 

[aparat]

Can't say about P30 but I've shot a fair amount of Pan F+ 120 and developed in Diafine. EI 50-64, really nice combo.

Appalachicola Beach, Pan F+, EI 64, Diafine, Yashicamat 124:

This is a gorgeous photograph. You got such smooth tonality here, not to mention a great composition.