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

[aparat]

I started a project testing slow B&W films. To begin with, I chose the Ferrania P30 and ILFORD PAN F Plus. If you are interested in a particular slow film (ISO 50 or lower), please let me know. I will try to add it to the list.

I enjoyed working with both films. The PAN F Plus was a typical, nearly flawless Ilford product, but the Ferrania P30 surprised me. It comes beautifully packaged, in well-made boxes and high-quality cassettes. Additionally, each roll comes with a unique QR code. Ferrania says that "From now on, every roll of film we produce will come with a QR code that links to a secure database, making every roll completely unique!" More on this on the company's blog. Whether it is a useful feature or a gimmick, remains to be seen. Still, it's a novel idea in the film market. The film seems like a terrific product, at least superficially. Ferrania might have had some problems getting the project off the ground, but the company has remained fairly transparent about their process and engaged with the community.

Judging by the information provided by the manufacturers, Ferrania P30 and ILFORD PAN F Plus should have similar speed and, possibly, other characteristics. Let's see how they perform.

I ran my usual six-curve family test of the two films, targeting ISO 50 exposure. I processed the samples in XTOL (stock) for 2.5, 4, 5:45, 8, 11, and 16 minutes at 20C in a Jobo 1510 tank. I have detailed test reports available as twelve-page PDF documents, so please, let me know if you'd like me to upload it.

For now, let's look at the curve families and analysis summaries. In terms of film speed, the Ilford film is close to the ISO 50 box speed, but the Ferrania P30 appears to be much slower than the manufacturer's recommended EI 80, at around ISO 15. The speed discrepancy did not surprise me, but the response to development did. Ferrania needs very careful processing. In Kodak XTOL, the film needs less than 4 minutes of development at 20C to give "normal" contrast. I would not recommend using stock XTOL or D76 with this film, unless one wants a high-contrast negative. I think a low-contrast developer or a dilute standard developer are probably better choices, otherwise, you're running the risk of producing negatives that might be hard to print or scan.

 

[removedacct1]

I used P-30 several times, and found its slower-than-stated speed and tricky development made it almost unusable for my style of image making. I had to expose it at closer to 20 ASA to get usable results. I gave away my last few rolls.
That said, I'm sure some will find it suits their needs to a T.

 

[Auer]

No Agfa/Rollei Copex stuff?

 

[pentaxuser]

aparat, for what it is worth in terms of a comparison with your tests here's the Greg Davis video on P30



pentaxuser

 

[aparat]

aparat, for what it is worth in terms of a comparison with your tests here's the Greg Davis video on P30



pentaxuser

Thank you! That is a fantastic video. He got the same overall curve shape, but the way the TRI-X and P30 curves are shown highlights the differences in shape, rather than relative position along the log-E axis. It's a very interesting test. Here are my P30 and TRI-X curves in isolation for comparison:

 

[AZD]

Thanks for posting this. It supports my entirely empirical experience that P30 is nowhere near ISO 80. I wasn’t going crazy!

I figured my best results were around 15-30 depending on lighting, and still haven’t worked out development to prevent excessive highlight density.

When P30 works it is very nice, and certainly unique, but definitely not flexible in the ways we’ve gotten used to with other films.

PanF+ has been much more predictable. I should use it more often.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you! That is a fantastic video. He got the same overall curve shape, but the way the TRI-X and P30 curves are shown highlights the differences in shape, rather than relative position along the log-E axis. It's a very interesting test. Here are my P30 and TRI-X curves in isolation for comparison:
View attachment 325607 View attachment 325608

What I thought stuck out like a sore thumb apart from the real speed of P30 was his conclusion that it was even more ortho than any of the Rollei or Ilford films. There was a debate on this in the very long thread on P30.

pentaxuser

 

[cmacd123]

Just this week I developed some P30 that I had shot over the summer. I had previously used ASA 80 and 5 minutes in HC-110B. this batch I had switched to L110-B and was surprised that all three rolls came out very thin. As It happened the three were from different batches, including one from the Latest batch with the bar codes.

I must assume that the differences between Classic HC-110 and L110 affected the P-30 more than the other films I have developing at the same time, including a Kentmere 400 in the same tank. I will have to take MANY more notes with the next roll of P30 I shoot.

FWIW, the P30 out of the latest batch, with the ASA 80 coded DX cassette, did come in a reusable cassette. The end caps are chrome colored. Don't know if that is just a exception or if the machinery they used is from the time before the factory changed to the crimped style. The edge numbering however looks like it was accomplished with a seven segment display. The Serial numbers on all in the last order were in the Hex "D" range, with three active digits, so they were made as part of the 4000 rolls they made during the time of getting the packing line up and running. "Production" batches may differ.

Also FWIW, I did note that the leaders I cut from all three rolls of P30 were a different colour (Lighter colour) emulsion than the Kentmere I was developing at the same time.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have not used P30, looking at your results, wonder how D23 would work, or Phil Davis's BTZ developer he formulated for TMax 100?

 

[aparat]

I have not used P30, looking at your results, wonder how D23 would work, or Phil Davis's BTZ developer he formulated for TMax 100?

That's a great idea. I was also thinking of trying D-96. It seems that XTOL and D76 stock are too aggressive for this film, needing development times below 4 minutes to get normal contrast.

 

[otto.f]

That's a great idea. I was also thinking of trying D-96. It seems that XTOL and D76 stock are too aggressive for this film, needing development times below 4 minutes to get normal contrast.

Now that you mention this, it‘s usefull to point out that you developed with constant agitation too. That alone is already quite aggressive, apart from the stock solutions you already mentioned as not preferred.

 

[otto.f]

Just this week I developed some P30 that I had shot over the summer. I had previously used ASA 80 and 5 minutes in HC-110B. this batch I had switched to L110-B and was surprised that all three rolls came out very thin. As It happened the three were from different batches, including one from the Latest batch with the bar codes.

scanning the QR-code led to nothing in my case btw

 

[Agulliver]

I would agree that Ferrania P30 isn't really ASA (or ISO) 80. I tend to shoot it at 50 and get results that I like. I haven't shot Pan F in years, since before the "plus" designation but I will as I have a roll in my stash. What I think is important with P30 is that it's near lack of discernible grain.

 

[relistan]

Very interesting @aparat . Thanks for sharing!

 

[Henning Serger]

Judging by the information provided by the manufacturers, Ferrania P30 and ILFORD PAN F Plus should have similar speed and, possibly, other characteristics. Let's see how they perform.

I ran my usual six-curve family test of the two films, targeting ISO 50 exposure. I processed the samples in XTOL (stock) for 2.5, 4, 5:45, 8, 11, and 16 minutes at 20C in a Jobo 1510 tank. I have detailed test reports available as twelve-page PDF documents, so please, let me know if you'd like me to upload it.

For now, let's look at the curve families and analysis summaries. In terms of film speed, the Ilford film is close to the ISO 50 box speed, but the Ferrania P30 appears to be much slower than the manufacturer's recommended EI 80, at around ISO 15. The speed discrepancy did not surprise me, but the response to development did. Ferrania needs very careful processing.

Thank you very much for your detailed test. Again very good work, highly appreciated.

As someone who used and tested both films intensively as well, I can confirm your results. I just want to make some additions:

Ilford PanF+:
Old "trusty workhorse", I have used it a lot in the past. And really loved it! The only reason I've switched after several years of regular use was that Ilford with Delta 100 introduced a new film which has been even better for my personal needs:
In direct comparison Delta 100 delivers even higher resolution and better sharpness. And that at about a stop higher light sensitivity.
These advantages were the reasons for me to switch from PanF+ to Delta 100.
PanF+ has the advantage of a bit finer grain compared to Delta 100. But as Delta's very fine grain is really fine enough for me (and for big enlargements from 35mm negatives), Delta's overall performance matched my needs.

Film Ferrania P30:
I've tested it intensively in several developers, different dilutions, with diffuse pre-exposore etc., but no matter what I've tried, the result has never been really convincing.
Like you I had to go down with the real film speed / EI below ISO 16/13° (!) to get shadow detail, but then with most developers I had also to go down with development time below 4 minutes, which makes processing precision more difficult.
And the curve shape has also not been optimal, and significantly worse to other low and medium speed films.
And if you are working with higher EIs trying to get standard density at Zone V, you'll loose shadow detail and get too high densities in the highlights (blown out highlights).
Offering this film as an ASA 80 film is really completely misleading. And compared to other films in the ISO 50/18° to 100/21° speed range like for example ADOX HR-50, Ilford PanF+, Ilford Delta 100, Fujifilm Neopan Across II or T-Max 100, Film Ferrania P30 is not offering any advantage. But has the severe disadvantages of a very problematic cc shape / tonality, much too low real film speed and higher price.

P30 unfortunately is not really a competitive product. I hope Film Ferrania can introduce much better film(s) in the future. I know the staff there, very nice guys, I've visited the factory. They are really dedicated to film and hard working. And I wish them success.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan9940]

For my equipment and development methods, and based on densitometer readings, I shoot P30 at EI 32 and develop in D-96 1:1. I, too, found that shooting at box speed and developing in stock solutions led to "soot-n-chaulk" negatives that were unprintable. P30 is an okay film, but IMO in this speed class there are much better choices out there. I will shoot what I have, but doubt I'll be buying any more. I wish Film Ferrania success as we can always use more players in the film community!

 

[Henning Serger]

What I think is important with P30 is that it's near lack of discernible grain.

Right, but well, we have that as well with PanF+, Acros II, TMX and especially with ADOX HR-50.
And in absolute perfection with ADOX CMS 20 II.
And as the real effective speed of P30 is unfortunately so low, it is at least a reasonable question why not using CMS 20 II with its world record capabilities in resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain instead of P30 (which cannot compete in these parameters). And CMS 20 II is also cheaper, too, offering an outstanding price-performance ratio.

For those who want a film with more inherent contrast compared to standard films (and not too much contrast), but without the problems of P30, ADOX HR-50 is certainly the right choice. As it offers
- excellent separation of the midtones
- higher overall contrast, but not too high
- with correct developing no blown out highlights because of a flattened curve in the highlights (S-shape)
- excellent resolution
- excellent sharpness
- extremely fine grain
- very low price
- outstanding price-performance ratio.

This film is a kind of "Geheimtipp" .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[relistan]

Right, but well, we have that as well with PanF+, Acros II, TMX and especially with ADOX HR-50.
And in absolute perfection with ADOX CMS 20 II.
And as the real effective speed of P30 is unfortunately so low, it is at least a reasonable question why not using CMS 20 II with its world record capabilities in resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain instead of P30 (which cannot compete in these parameters). And CMS 20 II is also cheaper, too, offering an outstanding price-performance ratio.

For those who want a film with more inherent contrast compared to standard films (and not too much contrast), but without the problems of P30, ADOX HR-50 is certainly the right choice. As it offers
- excellent separation of the midtones
- higher overall contrast, but not too high
- with correct developing no blown out highlights because of a flattened curve in the highlights (S-shape)
- excellent resolution
- excellent sharpness
- extremely fine grain
- very low price
- outstanding price-performance ratio.

This film is a kind of "Geheimtipp" .

Best regards,
Henning

100% agree. I have shot both and HR-50 is very good! Some sample HR-50 scans:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For me, P30's EI is 20, and Pan F's is 25. It's a no-brainer as to which one I prefer to use... Pan F. BUT... I'd still like to try P30 in 120 when it's available!

 

[Paul Howell]

Wonder about P30 in Diafine at box speed.

 

[otto.f]

Very interesting @aparat . Thanks for sharing!

Agree!

 

[aparat]

@relistan Those are great photographs. @Henning Serger Thank you for all the additional detail. I bet visiting the Ferrania factory was a memorable experience.

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I think I am going to mix up a batch of D-96 and try it next with the P30, following Ferrania's recommendations of 8 minutes with continuous agitation. It would be interesting to see how D-96 affects the characteristic curve. Diafine would be another interesting choice, but, sadly, I don't have it. Maybe at some point I'll try it.

Here's another interesting slow film, the Lomography Potsdam Kino 100. It is supposedly ORWO UN 54. Like the Ferrania P30, it is a cine film, but unlike the P30, it seems to be inherently a low-contrast film, needing a long-ish development time in XTOL to reach the "normal" CI of 0.5-0.6.

In my test, the Potsdam Kino 100 is approximately ISO 45, so close to the ILFORD PAN F Plus but with a different tonality.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wonder about P30 in Diafine at box speed.

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

 

[Film-Niko]

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

That won't change the main problems with this film. Nor any other developer.
Because with a developer you can only "finetune" a film in a certain direction. But it is impossible to change the general characteristic, the general design of a film.
As you cannot transfer a truck into a formula 1 racecar by adding some spoilers or using different wheels and tires.......

I can agree to the results of the op aparat, to Henning, Alan9940, and AZD.
For those who are interested, I have described my results just recently here in this thread:

Ferrania P30: curve shape and (un)coated lenses

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). Harry, maybe you can or should think about it this way: In the time you...

www.photrio.com

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That won't change the main problems with this film. Nor any other developer.
Because with a developer you can only "finetune" a film in a certain direction. But it is impossible to change the general characteristic, the general design of a film.
As you cannot transfer a truck into a formula 1 racecar by adding some spoilers or using different wheels and tires.......

I can agree to the results of the op aparat, to Henning, Alan9940, and AZD.
For those who are interested, I have described my results just recently here in this thread:

Ferrania P30: curve shape and (un)coated lenses

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). Harry, maybe you can or should think about it this way: In the time you...

www.photrio.com

Never said anything about fixing the film. I'm more interested in minimising its contrast.