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

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

Nope. Didn't realise it was a two-bath. Just looked it up. I should mix some up and compare... Thanks!

 

[Roger Cole]

Nope. Didn't realise it was a two-bath. Just looked it up. I should mix some up and compare... Thanks!

I've never tried scratch mixed and I'm not sure if the formula in the Darkroom Cookbook is the same/actual formula. It's readily available but pretty expensive to just try because it's only in gallons now apparently. With decent care that's a lifetime supply. The stuff for most practical purposes does not wear out (it does, eventually, but I've put over 150 rolls through a QUART before seeing any diminished results before, back in the late 70s and early 80s when I used a ton of it as my high school yearbook photographer.) Putting the dry film into bath A (do NOT pre-wet) results in some being carried out and into bath B which does no harm to B (the reverse is not true and be sure not to contaminate A with B - the instructions on the commercial version are clear on that) so the level will gradually decrease. But a gallon is expensive if you don't know if you'll like it.

Not the sharpest but it has its virtues (BTW I did the magnifier click on that image I posted above and I don't know if it's Flickr or my scan, which was made from a print, but the original print IS sharp, WAY more so than that. But you won't confuse it with Rodinal or anything.)

The suggest film speeds on the package are, or at least they were on the last batch I bought which has been years and I still have two unopened gallons because I stocked up, woefully outdated and list films no longer on the market plus speeds for old versions of film. Pre-2007 Tri-X was great in it at 1600. The current version does "ok" at 1000 but 800 is probably more reasonable. I was really displeased to learn that when I got back into photography in 2011 or so.

 

[Roger Cole]

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

Thank you!

My now-ex wife's family used to rent a house on the beach down there every year for the entire month of October. We went to stay a week or whatever time we could spare from our jobs, and I took it on one of those trips.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've never tried scratch mixed and I'm not sure if the formula in the Darkroom Cookbook is the same/actual formula. It's readily available but pretty expensive to just try because it's only in gallons now apparently. With decent care that's a lifetime supply. The stuff for most practical purposes does not wear out (it does, eventually, but I've put over 150 rolls through a QUART before seeing any diminished results before, back in the late 70s and early 80s when I used a ton of it as my high school yearbook photographer.) Putting the dry film into bath A (do NOT pre-wet) results in some being carried out and into bath B which does no harm to B (the reverse is not true and be sure not to contaminate A with B - the instructions on the commercial version are clear on that) so the level will gradually decrease. But a gallon is expensive if you don't know if you'll like it.

Not the sharpest but it has its virtues (BTW I did the magnifier click on that image I posted above and I don't know if it's Flickr or my scan, which was made from a print, but the original print IS sharp, WAY more so than that. But you won't confuse it with Rodinal or anything.)

The suggest film speeds on the package are, or at least they weret on the last batch I bought which has been years and I still have two unopened gallons because I stocked up, woefully outdated and list films no longer on the market plus speeds for old versions of film. Pre-2007 Tri-X was great in it at 1600. The current version does "ok" at 1000 but 800 is probably more reasonable. I was really displeased to learn that when I got back into photography in 2011 or so.

Thanks for the info, Roger.

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks for the info, Roger.

Actually that comment about only in gallons was based on Freestyle only listing gallons. B&H (who won't ship it) and Adorama, who will if they had it, list quarts but show them out of stock. Adorama and Freestyle both have the gallons in stock so I'm not sure - maybe quarts are still being packaged but just sold out everywhere. Sixty bucks give or take is a fair bit of change to just try out a developer.

At some point I need to get into mixing my own chems and then I'll try the published formula and compare to the commercial version. I need to do that anyway because while it's no longer my standard developer it's an old standby for me that I really like having available and I'm not sure how long it will be. On the other hand, with two unopened sealed packages, heck I think I have one in the old aluminum cans, of gallon size and given something like 400 - 600 rolls capacity for a gallon I'm not sure I'll ever need any more than I have anyway.

 

[bluechromis]

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

I agree that Adox HR-50 is worthy of consideration. In Henning's tests of a film based on the same emulsion, it has some of the finest grain, better than TMX, bested only by the document films. I have used it with the special developer that some have said is similar to a Spur developer and gotten good results. Does it really requre the special developer? I don't know. I assume that the purpose of the developer is maximum speed increase and there are other ways to promote that. It is based on the same Agfa aerial film as Maco Retro 80S. But the 80S suffers from the usual challenges of aerial films of extreme contrast. The Adox Speed Boost treatment in my experience does mitigate the excess contrast considerably.

Unlike P30, HR-50 is red biased, up to near infrared. It might be argued that it is the best for IR in 35 mm. According to Henning's tests, the Maco IR 400 (and variants) is not that useable over EI 100, and probably less. If HR-50 fifty has a real speed of 40-50 then the speed is not that different than IR 400 but with much finer grain and the Speed Boost. I have to use a tripod for IR with both, so even if IR 400 were a bit faster it wouldn't matter much. So far, I can only get it in 35 mm. But its amazingly fine grain may be most beneficial in 35 mm and allow resolution more on par with medium format. It is somewhat more tricky that conventional pictorial films, but so to are the super fine grain document films.

 

[bluechromis]

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

I got the best results from P30 at EI 25 with Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand or Adox Silvermax developer at EI 30. Perhaps I should have used even an lower EI. There is debate about whether it is as blue biased as ortho. One would think this would be a an easy question to answer objectively. Has Ferrania published the spectral response data of P30? I agree that it is a temperamental film. One person said that some of his best and worst photos were with P30. I can understand that.

 

[bluechromis]

I have heard people say that Pan F does not cope as well in high dynamic range scenes as do faster films. Is that true?

I have also heard that its latent image is less stable than typical films and is best developed soon after exposure.

With the question of what films do well with Rodinal, there is, as usual, a huge range of opinions. For example, some say Tmax films are good in Rodinal and some say they are terrible with it. But there seems to be a pretty broad consensus that Pan F works well with Rodinal.

 

[bluechromis]

What about Rollei RPX 25, anyone used that?

 

[Anon Ymous]

What about Rollei RPX 25, anyone used that?

It is said that it's another incarnation of Aviphot Pan 80. In other words, the same as Retro 80S.

 

[aparat]

I have heard people say that Pan F does not cope as well in high dynamic range scenes as do faster films. Is that true?

In my tests, the PAN F PLUS is a versatile film that can handle a broad range of subject luminance range (labelled "SBR" in the plot below). For example, the SBR of 7.3 stops (considered "normal") is illustrated below with the curve labelled "L7 5.01," which means that you can set your light meter's ISO to 25, expose the scene of 7.3 stops (or so) and then processed in XTOL for 5 minutes at 20C in a rotary processor. This is just an example, and there's more nuance to it, such as flare, metering technique, etc., but this gives you a general ideal. You can achieve a similar result with any conventional developer and developing technique. I would just recommend that you run a test first, so you don't waste your film unnecessarily.

panfplusFamily by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

I have also heard that its latent image is less stable than typical films and is best developed soon after exposure.

With the question of what films do well with Rodinal, there is, as usual, a huge range of opinions. For example, some say Tmax films are good in Rodinal and some say they are terrible with it. But there seems to be a pretty broad consensus that Pan F works well with Rodinal.

I have tested a few films in Rodinal. I guess the question to you would be what you mean by "do well?" Rodinal curves tend to build contrast rather quickly, causing some expansion in the highlights, as demonstrated below with Ilford Delta 100. Whether one considers this a good result or not, is up to debate

delta100_Rodinal100DensityRange by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I got the best results from P30 at EI 25 with Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand or Adox Silvermax developer at EI 30. Perhaps I should have used even an lower EI. There is debate about whether it is as blue biased as ortho. One would think this would be a an easy question to answer objectively. Has Ferrania published the spectral response data of P30? I agree that it is a temperamental film. One person said that some of his best and worst photos were with P30. I can understand that.

After testing P30 in Thornton's 2-Bath, I think that is the road will be going... I'm also going to see how Pan F 50 responds to it

 

[relistan]

I agree that Adox HR-50 is worthy of consideration. In Henning's tests of a film based on the same emulsion, it has some of the finest grain, better than TMX, bested only by the document films. I have used it with the special developer that some have said is similar to a Spur developer and gotten good results. Does it really requre the special developer? I don't know.

I had good success with it in two bath developers to control the contrast. Works great like that. The photos in the post you replied to are developed that way.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have heard people say that Pan F does not cope as well in high dynamic range scenes as do faster films. Is that true?

I have also heard that its latent image is less stable than typical films and is best developed soon after exposure.

With the question of what films do well with Rodinal, there is, as usual, a huge range of opinions. For example, some say Tmax films are good in Rodinal and some say they are terrible with it. But there seems to be a pretty broad consensus that Pan F works well with Rodinal.

On item one, I don't know in regular developers. Because even a third of a stop is a useful effective speed increase when you're starting at 50 that many people think isn't really even 50 I've only used Pan F+ in Diafine. Like most (all?) two bath developers it tends to tame highlights. I certainly don't find any lack of range with it in Diafine.

Item 2 is absolutely true. Latent image stability is poor, which I see as the biggest drawback since I often don't develop film for a good bit.

No idea about Rodinal. I've never been able to get results I liked with it with any film, but I suspect that's just me.

 

[Scott Micciche]

After testing P30 in Thornton's 2-Bath, I think that is the road will be going... I'm also going to see how Pan F 50 responds to it

Andrew, I ran a roll through a Thornton Two bath and the results were really nice. I am running a roll at ISO 32 right now to compare to this ISO 80 roll. These are all inverted using Negative Lab Pro in standard lab mode.

Ferrania P30 Barry Thornton Two-bath

Home-mixed Barry Thornton Two-bath 4min + 4 min

www.flickr.com

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, I ran a roll through a Thornton Two bath and the results were really nice. I am running a roll at ISO 32 right now to compare to this ISO 80 roll. These are all inverted using Negative Lab Pro in standard lab mode.

Ferrania P30 Barry Thornton Two-bath

Home-mixed Barry Thornton Two-bath 4min + 4 min

www.flickr.com

Great! I look forward to seeing the 32 compared with the 80. Being a stop and a third more, I'd expect the EI 32's to have more shadow separation.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I got the best results from P30 at EI 25 with Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand or Adox Silvermax developer at EI 30. Perhaps I should have used even an lower EI. There is debate about whether it is as blue biased as ortho. One would think this would be a an easy question to answer objectively. Has Ferrania published the spectral response data of P30? I agree that it is a temperamental film. One person said that some of his best and worst photos were with P30. I can understand that.

I have not been able to find any spectral response graphs for P30. I guess all we can do is shoot a colour chart and compare with other pan films that I use... On that note, Scott Micciche posted his colour chart results on Photrio: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-ferrania-p30.146259/page-37#post-2378766

 

[aparat]

I have not been able to find any spectral response graphs for P30. I guess all we can do is shoot a colour chart and compare with other pan films that I use... On that note, Scott Micciche posted his colour chart results on Photrio: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-ferrania-p30.146259/page-37#post-2378766

Yeah. That's what I did and posted earlier in this thread. I am still working on creating a setup in my darkroom to test spectral response more accurately, but it's taking me a long time to make progress.

ferraniaP30_XTOL-R by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[bluechromis]

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:
View attachment 325792

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.

View attachment 325793 View attachment 325795

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.

View attachment 325796

@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.

View attachment 325798 View attachment 325803

Here are the two curves on the same plot for comparison's sake:
View attachment 325804
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.

The Ferrania folks make much of the idea that the original P30 was a cinema film. One of the arguments they make for the use of D-96 is that they used something similar with it in the film industry. But cinema is such a different context. The original negative is duplicated many times to arrive at the final print. Why would we think that what would work well for that situation would also be the best for pictorial photography when the end product is usually only one or two generations from the original?

 

[relistan]

The Ferrania folks make much of the idea that the original P30 was a cinema film. One of the arguments they make for the use of D-96 is that they used something similar with it in the film industry. But cinema is such a different context. The original negative is duplicated many times to arrive at the final print. Why would we think that what would work well for that situation would also be the best for pictorial photography when the end product is usually only one or two generations from the original?

I think that the smoke screen about cinema origins is to fend off some of the (often harsh) criticism of their fledgling product. There is a solid argument for D-96, though, which is that it intentionally produces lower contrast—which makes sense for this contrasty film.

 

[aparat]

The Ferrania folks make much of the idea that the original P30 was a cinema film. One of the arguments they make for the use of D-96 is that they used something similar with it in the film industry. But cinema is such a different context. The original negative is duplicated many times to arrive at the final print. Why would we think that what would work well for that situation would also be the best for pictorial photography when the end product is usually only one or two generations from the original?

Very interesting. I don't remember what their reason was for going with this particular emulsion. I seem to recall that they found the handwritten formula at the old factory building, but maybe I'm completely wrong on that.

 

[bluechromis]

I don't mean to impugn the members of the Ferrania Team or question their motives. But the situation with their film seems puzzling at best. On the one hand, they continue assert that the film really is 80 ISO. On the other hand, members of Photrio, reviewers and others have done testing that show it is much slower. This is not a minor discrepancy. If it really is not 80 ISO, how could they not known that when developing it, or not know it now? If it is 80 ISO, how is it that others are not seeing that in objective testing?

It's scandalous that Maco promotes Rollei IR 400 as a 400 ISO film when they sell the same product as a ISO 200 film and the effective ISO for pictorial use is lower still. It cannot be that Maco does not grasp the it is not an ISO 400 film. I think that people realize that Maco is, to put it charitably, a quirky vendor. I wouldn't want to think that the Ferrania folks are the same kind of sketchy level as Maco. But if not, what is it then?
*

 

[relistan]

I think the reason to revive a cinema film is that the folks who rescued Ferrania are cinema people. Still films are a higher volume product so they are selling still films, but their heart is in cinema stuff.

The spectral response is weird on the film and I would guess that part of the slower-than-expected speed is that something is wrong with one of the sensitizing dyes and thus the production film is losing out on some of the expected light from that part of the spectrum—which would have boosted the speed. Did it test 80 ISO without that problem? Maybe. The right thing to do would be to label it ISO 25 and sell it as a fine grain (it is) low speed film. But I guess they are already optimistic people and so you get an optimistic rating. Maybe they thought they would be able to fix it (if I'm right about the spectral response and speed being related).

This post by @Mackinaw is the best example I've ever seen of what is so odd with the spectral response: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/film-ferrania-p30.146259/page-38#post-2378866

 

[bluechromis]

Maybe 80 ISO is obtained when using a particular developer, I'm just guessing as I have no experience with the P30 whatsoever...
However I'm wondering why folks at Ferrania have resuscitated a cinema film when there were Ferrania still films as well at the time...

Ferrania does say that P30 is particular about developers and I have found it does better in specific developers. A similar thing could be said about Adox HR-50 where they cite a short list of developers likely to do well with it. But Adox, like most sellers, also publishes in the tech sheet a characteristic curve for their film citing a specific developer, in their case FX-39. Foma might be a bit cheeky to do their curves using Ilford Microphen, one of the most speed increasing developers. But they do acknowledge that in the tech sheets for their films. So someone would know that it could be difficult to attain the rated speeds with typical developers that don't boost speed as much.

But on the Ferraina website they have a page that says: "Please understand that this is not a classic data sheet or “dev chart” but a collection of best practices collected from user feedback - and so it is subject to users' personal and evaluative tastes." But an ISO speed is based on an objective engineering standard and is not a matter of personal taste. Have they published a curve for P30 or stated how they established its speed as 80?

For that matter, even if someone develops P30 ideally with D-96 using continuous agitation while walking in a counter clockwise circle under the light of the new moon while tossing salt over their shoulder, is it magically going to get it from IS0 25 or less to ISO 80? I appreciate the great challenges and duress the Ferrania team has faced, but how hard would it be to share the sensometric and spectral information about it that they presumably collected when formulating it? I don't hate the film or the company, but just think that lack of accurate information about its characteristics is creating unnecessary problems for users and for the firm.

 

[Alan Johnson]

It looks like Ferrania P-30 is a near monodisperse emulsion whilst Pan-F+ is not.
I agree with those who suggest trying it in low contrast developers to give more of a pictorial, but still ortho, result.
Here is another such developer:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/123323-REG/Photographers_Formulary_01_0065_TD_3_Developer_for_Black.html/specs

Some of the developers for the somewhat more moderate contrast Adox HR-50 might be OK:

https://www.fotoimpex.com/shop/images/products/media/63360_5_PDF-Datasheet.pdf

And for homebrew Bill Troop's TDLC-103 or, possibly, Crawley's FX-37.