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

[Film-Niko]

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

Then reduce the Exposure Index down by 2,5 to 3 stops to get shadow detail, reduce the developing time and-or use a higher dilution with compensating developers like FX-39 II, Atomal or Rodinal in 1+100 dilution.
But as others have already said, at such a low speed there are also better options with other films.

 

[relistan]

Wonder about P30 in Diafine at box speed.

P30 in Diafine at EI50. It looks ok here and it’s printable at this speed, but the negatives are thin. Prints with split grade only.

 

[Craig]

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.

Ilford Perceptol might be a good choice too.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Then reduce the Exposure Index down by 2,5 to 3 stops to get shadow detail, reduce the developing time and-or use a higher dilution with compensating developers like FX-39 II, Atomal or Rodinal in 1+100 dilution.
But as others have already said, at such a low speed there are also better options with other films.

I've been using film for 40 years. I have a pretty good idea how it works, and how certain developers can have an impact on it. I have a pretty good handle on densitometry, too, making curves etc. As far as P30 goes, I have been using it at a reduced EI of 12-20 since it's release, and developing it in Pyrocat-hd, diluted slightly more than normal. Recently, I have been experimenting with Thornton's 2-Bath... Not with P30, though... But I will.

 

[Paul Howell]

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

My thinking is that Diafine is a low contrast developer with a one to two stop increase in film speed, down side is that it is fine grain, with a fine grain film it will lose acutance, or apparent sharpness. When a working PJ I always carried a quart can of Diafine in case I had to develop in the field in somewhat less than ideal conditions, the lab had to print grades higher than usual for the contrasted needed for the "wire." So maybe for P30? I did try Diafine with Tmax 100, improved contrast, issue was I thought the print looked mushy.

 

[Film-Niko]

My thinking is that Diafine is a low contrast developer with a one to two stop increase in film speed,

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.

 

[gone]

As you cannot transfer a truck into a formula 1 racecar by adding some spoilers or using different wheels and tires.......

Someone should explain this to the Haas team :>{

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

I shot a lot of Trix 2 stops over, 1600, PlusX at 400, but that was in the 70s and early 80s with the older thicker emulsions. The thicker the emulsion the more part A can soak in, as emulsions got thinner and thinner the recommended box speed drops. I think Tmax 400 is recommended at 400. If P30 is a traditional emulsion, I think a one stop boost or box speed may be possible.

 

[Film-Niko]

I shot a lot of Trix 2 stops over, 1600, PlusX at 400, but that was in the 70s and early 80s with the older thicker emulsions.

I believe you without doubt that you've got results which were good and pleasing for you visually. But have you measured these results of 2 stop underexposure with a densitometer, and got 0.1 logD density above base fog with the two stop underexposure?
Because only then - from a technical and physical point of view - you would have really got a real two-stop increase in film speed.

If P30 is a traditional emulsion, I think a one stop boost or box speed may be possible.

Box speed will definitely not be possible. Because with standard developers with a normal speed the real effective film speed of P30 (with 0.1 logD above base fog) is already 2.5-3 stops lower than official box speed.

 

[aparat]

I want to follow up on the discussion of the Exposure Index (EI) of the ILFORD PAN F Plus and Ferrania P30. My analysis will probably come as no surprise to those of you who know these films very well. For example, a lot of photographers use half the box speed as their EI for "normal" outdoor scenes. It is has been common practice for a lot of films out there, and so it turns out to be good practice for the PAN F Plus, but not exactly for the P30.

Here, I have a theoretical curve for the ILFORD PAN F Plus, based on my data, and, indeed, the EI (here I use the BTZS term "Effective Film Speed," or "EFS") turns out to be ISO 26 and a development time of around 5 minutes in XTOL at 20C in a rotary processor. The "normal" scene here is considered to be about 7 stops, or, to be exact, the Log Subject Luminance Range (LSLR) of 2.2. The BTZS framework uses the terms "Subject Brightness Range" or "SBR," instead of the more common "LSLR," but it is, essentially, the same thing, except SBR is typically expressed in stops, so the SBR of 7.3 equals the LSLR of 2.2.

For the Ferrania P30, I didn't have to generate such a curve, as the 2.5 minute curve happens to correspond to the LSLR of 2.2, with the EFS (or EI) of ISO 12. So, yes, the P30 turns out be quite a bit slower than the advertised EI 80 or even EI 40, but it doesn't bother me. It's an interesting "special purpose" film as far as I am concerned.


As far as the term "ISO film speed" is concerned, opinions are divided on whether or not a film can have a range of ISO speeds or just one. Strictly speaking, a film can only have one "true" ISO speed, one measured by means of a specific formula. However, we can measure the "effective" film speed, or EI, at different average gradients, or CIs, to obtain a range of film speeds, which would be characterized by quantifiable gain, or loss, in shadow detail. In my test, the PAN F Plus can range from around EI 15+ to EI 50+ whereas the P30 ranges from EI 13- to EI 40+ or thereabouts. In practical terms, this would translate into setting one's exposure meter to, say, ISO 15 if one wants to pull the PAN F Plus (on a bright sunny day, with lots of shadow detail needed) or ISO 50, if one wants to slightly push it (on an overcast day). I don't mean to dispute the definition of either "ISO film speed," "EI," or "EFS." I just report on my findings.

 

[aparat]

It occurred to me that it may be more clear if I showed how these "ideal" curves compare to the curve family. Those "ideal" curves are the ISO curve and the L7 curve. The ISO curve is characterized by the Average Gradient (Ḡ) of 0.62, and the L7 curve is characterized by the Log Subject Luminance Range of 2.2 (or SBR of 7.3). These two curves are generated by my program, but they are based on the existing data set, so they have the same characteristics as the other curves in the family. One thing that's immediately clear to me is that XTOL plus rotary processing are not a good match for the P30.

 

[relistan]

It occurred to me that it may be more clear if I showed how these "ideal" curves compare to the curve family. Those "ideal" curves are the ISO curve and the L7 curve. The ISO curve is characterized by the Average Gradient (Ḡ) of 0.62, and the L7 curve is characterized by the Log Subject Luminance Range of 2.2 (or SBR of 7.3). These two curves are generated by my program, but they are based on the existing data set, so they have the same characteristics as the other curves in the family. One thing that's immediately clear to me is that XTOL plus rotary processing are not a good match for the P30.

View attachment 325769 View attachment 325770

This is very clear, thank you!

 

[Film-Niko]

One thing that's immediately clear to me is that XTOL plus rotary processing are not a good match for the P30.

Yes, because it is constant agitation. And constant or generally more agitation leads to more density in the highlights.
To reduce highlight density with P30 I have used one single agitation per minute with hand developing.

 

[aparat]

Yes, because it is constant agitation. And constant or generally more agitation leads to more density in the highlights.
To reduce highlight density with P30 I have used one single agitation per minute with hand developing.

Yes, that makes sense. The interesting thing is Ferrania recommends continuous agitation for D-76 and D-96. I should have the D-96 results soon.

 

[Film-Niko]

Yes, that makes sense. The interesting thing is Ferrania recommends continuous agitation for D-76 and D-96. I should have the D-96 results soon.

Yes, that is very strange. But offering that film as an ASA 80 film is also very strange .
From my tests with different developers and different agitation schemes I recommend to agitate very carefully and little, as said above I ended up finally with 1x per minute.

 

[aparat]

Well, I mixed up a batch of D-96 and processed my Ferrania P30 samples, using the Ferrania official recommended time, temperature, and procedure. Here's a screenshot from that page:


Ferrania recommends eight minutes at EI 50 or EI 80 at 21C using continuous agitation. My Jobo set up is calibrated for 20C, so that's a deviation from the recommendations. I got a very interesting result. Essentially, exposing at EI 50 and processing in D-96 gave me somewhat lower effective film speed and slightly higher contrast than XTOL.



Yes, it's possible that the formula for D-96 I used is wrong, so I post it here so you can tell me if it's correct or not. My chemicals seem fresh. I use them often for mixing my own D-76 when I just need a one-liter batch. I repeated the test twice and got virtually identical results. This tells me that it makes little sense to run an entire curve family test again because D-96 does not produce results that are drastically different than XTOL, unless you guys think otherwise. I don't mind running the full test, if you guys think it makes sense.



@Film-Niko mentioned that inversion agitation should be used with the P30. That sounded like a very good idea, so I decided to try it. I used D-96 for six minutes at 20C with four very gentle inversions every minute. I though that was a good compromise between trying to tame contrast and reducing the risk of uneven development. Essentially, the curve has the same overall shape, so you can expect very similar tonality between inversion and rotary agitation, but contrast did drop a bit, along with a negligible change in effective film speed. At this point, inversion agitation seems to work out better because you don't have to cut development time below four minutes. So, perhaps five-six minutes at 20C in D-96 with gentle inversion agitation is the way to go, provided it gives even development. More work is needed to confirm that. I think @Paul Howell and @Andrew O'Neill mentioned using a two-bath developer, and I am beginning to think that that would probably be a good choice for Ferrania P30, I am just not sure how it would work for more fine-grained contrast control, as in pulling and pushing. I don't have much experience with two-bath developers, so perhaps someone would chime in and tell us more about them.



Here are the two curves on the same plot for comparison's sake:

It seems to me that Ferrania wants to promote a "punchy" kind of look, much like the recently launched CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro, doesn't it? It's an interesting look, no doubt, but, to me, it's only for a special occasion. I can also understand people being frustrated with the film and giving up on it. After all, the ILFORD PAN F Plus turned out to be exactly what Ilford promised in its documentation, whereas the P30 needs more careful treatment to get good performance out of it.

 

[Craig]

Wow, that's massive contrast! Definitely need to use a lower contrast developer with P30 film.

 

[Craig]

Is P30 something like Kodak Technical Pan, in that for normal pictoral use it requires a low contrast developer? Kodak made a special developer for Tech Pan, but that's long discontinued. A suggestion I saw in it's place was to use C-41 developer for 8:30 at 20°C. I wonder how that would work for P30?

 

[Film-Niko]

@Film-Niko mentioned that inversion agitation should be used with the P30. That sounded like a very good idea, so I decided to try it. I used D-96 for six minutes at 20C with four very gentle inversions every minute. I though that was a good compromise between trying to tame contrast and reducing the risk of uneven development. Essentially, the curve has the same overall shape, so you can expect very similar tonality between inversion and rotary agitation, but contrast did drop a bit, along with a negligible change in effective film speed. At this point, inversion agitation seems to work out better because you don't have to cut development time below four minutes.

Thank you very much for the info.
Four inversions per minute is still quite a lot for P30. I can understand that you have chosen it in fear of getting uneven development.
But at least with the developers I had tried so far, I did not get any problems with uneven development (like bromide drags) with using only one inversion per minute.
Generally by less agitation you get less highlight density and less contrast. That approach works perfectly with all standard films.
In my experience with P30 it works, too. But it is a kind of little finetuning only, and cannot solve the general contrast / too steep curve problem P30 has.

 

[Film-Niko]

Is P30 something like Kodak Technical Pan, in that for normal pictoral use it requires a low contrast developer?

No, it is not something like Technical Pan. I used Technical Pan in the past and the films are very different.

But what is very clear as several P30 testers here have already explained: This Film Ferrania P30 is very different to the former original Ferrania P30 movie film.
Definitely different emulsions.

But your idea to try special low-contrast developers for high-contrast films, like the dedicated SPUR developer for Agfa Copex Rapid or Adox Adotech for the CMS 20 II, could be worth a try.
Rodinal in 1+100 or 1+150 dilution maybe also an idea.........

 

[aparat]

No, it is not something like Technical Pan. I used Technical Pan in the past and the films are very different.

But what is very clear as several P30 testers here have already explained: This Film Ferrania P30 is very different to the former original Ferrania P30 movie film.
Definitely different emulsions.

But your idea to try special low-contrast developers for high-contrast films, like the dedicated SPUR developer for Agfa Copex Rapid or Adox Adotech for the CMS 20 II, could be worth a try.
Rodinal in 1+100 or 1+150 dilution maybe also an idea.........

Since I am about to test the Agfa Copex Rapid, this is very good to know. Thanks! The Rollei SPUR HRX Film Developer seems expensive. I wonder if similar results can be achieved with something like Agfa 14 or Ilford ID-3?

 

[Craig]

Since I am about to test the Agfa Copex Rapid, this is very good to know. Thanks! The Rollei SPUR HRX Film Developer seems expensive. I wonder if similar results can be achieved with something like Agfa 14 or Ilford ID-3?

Or the low contrast developer from the Formulary? https://stores.photoformulary.com/td-3-techpan-developer/

 

[Film-Niko]

Since I am about to test the Agfa Copex Rapid, this is very good to know. Thanks! The Rollei SPUR HRX Film Developer seems expensive. I wonder if similar results can be achieved with something like Agfa 14 or Ilford ID-3?

SPUR HRX is a developer for standard films like T-Max, Delta, FP4+ etc. It is not designed for very high-contrast or micro films.

Exclusively for Agfa Copex Rapid SPUR has designed a special, dedicated developer: SPUR Dokuspeed SL-N

SPUR SW–Hochauflösungsfotografie – SPUR Photo

spur-photo.com

Probably the best developer on the market for Copex Rapid. SPUR has decades of experience in designing special developers for microfilms.

 

[aparat]

I though I'd include a couple of plots to add a bit of detail to the analysis.
The first pair shows the relationships between Contrast Index (CI), developing time, and Effective Film Speed (EFS). Both films respond very nicely to varying development times.



I am sure a lot of you already know this, but perhaps this will be useful to some of you. The term Contrast Index is often used interchangeably with Average Gradient (Ḡ) and Gamma (γ), but they are not strictly the same. Often, Ḡ is calculated as the ratio of DR to LogE, which you can see marked in red in the plot below. Gamma is the slope of the straight-line portion of the curve. Identifying that straight line was often done "by eye" but it can also be derived by statistical analysis, which is what my program does. It is marked with the green dotted line. Finally, CI, is calculated based on Kodak's graphical model, which involves two circle segments, measuring the slope by means of a graphical "calculator," such as this one below. In my program, CI is also derived programmatically, rather than graphically, but it amounts to the same thing. It is marked with blue dotted lines in the plot below. So in this particular curve, the CI is 0.42, Ḡ is 0.4, and γ equals 0.38, so they are all very close. It's not always this way, as some of the more idiosyncratic curves, esp. s-shaped ones, often produce divergent values for these three parameters. Personally, I don't mind using these three parameters interchangeably, but since I calculate them separately, I thought I'd mention it.

This plot also shows one possible way of deriving Zone System information from the characteristic curve. This is just one example of several models that have been used in ZS literature. Here, I am using relative log exposure values so the axis looks reversed. It's a convention used in the Beyond the Zone System model.


Kodak's CI graphical calculator:

 

[aparat]

I think I have found a decent match for the Ferrania P30, namely six minutes in replenished XTOL (XTOL-R) with rotary agitation, exposed at EI25. I would have preferred more shadow detail, but XTOL-R was able to tame some of the high contrast that neither XTOL (stock), nor D96 was able to do. Overall, I found the P30 a frustrating film to work with. The emulsion has had some defects, such as scratches and spots, and it's not a very forgiving film. However, the film is capable of magic, if the conditions are just right.

Here is a photo of a standard color chart, showing Ferrania P30's interesting spectral response.



And here's a neighborhood cat on a dark blue car:



And, finally, I would not use this film for a conventional portrait because skin tones come through looking blotchy and dirty.