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

[bluechromis]

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.

Nice. Shadow detail looks good.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

View attachment 325890 View attachment 325891

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.

View attachment 325892
Kodak's CI graphical calculator:
View attachment 325893

What great information, thanks! If I am understanding correctly, the chart on film speed shows that with Xtol for 16 minutes you have nudged the effective. film speed up to 40? If so, that's pretty good. Is that Xtol 1+2? This may shed light on why I get decent results with Rodinal semi-stand.

 

[bluechromis]

It looks like Ferrania P-30 is a near mondisperse 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.

Thanks Alan. Might I ask what mondisperse (monodisperse?) means?

 

[abruzzi]

characterized by particles of uniform size in a dispersed phase

I would take that to mean something like Tech Pan or Adox CMS20 or other microfilm type emulsions?

 

[bluechromis]

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.

Thanks. If the replenished Xtol did better, what might be difference that causes that? Presumably Xtol-R has more development by products like bromides. Does this imply that if one added additional restrainer to a one-shot formula that it might do better with P30?

 

[bluechromis]

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.

I am curious to tease out which factor had biggest role in your positive result. The Ferrania folks say the P30 loves continuous agitation, which I don't understand. You gave it continuous agitation. Do you think that was important or was it mainly the use of Xtol-R?

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I've had an interesting experience trying to reverse Ferrania P30: first it was a single roll of the Alpha batch and it didn't quite work out for me: overdeveloped + extreme contrast and blacks was the deal I got back then and I loved it!

At least a couple of years later I tried to reverse anther P30 I got - this time 3 straight production rolls without the "Alpha" and considering the over-development that occurred the last time, I decided to start fresh. To cut the film in 2 strips and start with plain PQ Universal 1+5 with no silver solvent (sodium thiosulfate) added. So I got to loading the film and.. loaded all of it, forgot to split. Ehh.

Well, here it goes: 84ml PQ Universal + water to make 500ml developer to reverse my roll at 20°C for 12 minutes with 3 inversions every 2 minutes to give shadows a chance. And what I got was a massive underdevelopment this time around. I mean - all is kind of visible, but hidden under murky dark veil - no highlights cleared to the base whatsoever regardless the overexposure given, which I find funny. It's as if the "latitude" goes away only with proper development...

So I proceeded to reverse it to completion and after fixing I put the film back into permanganate bleach for 5 minutes. I was guesstimating to take 20ml Part A + 20ml Part B + 240ml water and it turned out great - recovered about 2 stops, extreme highlights cleared to the base. Finished bleaching with Clear + Fix + Rinse Aid. The slides I got have wild, "graphic" contrast that tends to render things on the creepy side or something, - an interesting look for sure. Next time I'll remember to split my film in 4 parts to nail the reversal. Agitation used: 3 inversions every 2 minutes.

Meanwhile let me share some examples from this run:

 

[aparat]

I've had an interesting experience trying to reverse Ferrania P30: first it was a single roll of the Alpha batch and it didn't quite work out for me: overdeveloped + extreme contrast and blacks was the deal I got back then and I loved it!

At least a couple of years later I tried to reverse anther P30 I got - this time 3 straight production rolls without the "Alpha" and considering the over-development that occurred the last time, I decided to start fresh. To cut the film in 2 strips and start with plain PQ Universal 1+5 with no silver solvent (sodium thiosulfate) added. So I got to loading the film and.. loaded all of it, forgot to split. Ehh.

Well, here it goes: 84ml PQ Universal + water to make 500ml developer to reverse my roll at 20°C for 12 minutes with 3 inversions every 2 minutes to give shadows a chance. And what I got was a massive underdevelopment this time around. I mean - all is kind of visible, but hidden under murky dark veil - no highlights cleared to the base whatsoever regardless the overexposure given, which I find funny. It's as if the "latitude" goes away only with proper development...

So I proceeded to reverse it to completion and after fixing I put the film back into permanganate bleach for 5 minutes. I was guesstimating to take 20ml Part A + 20ml Part B + 240ml water and it turned out great - recovered about 2 stops, extreme highlights cleared to the base. Finished bleaching with Clear + Fix + Rinse Aid. The slides I got have wild, "graphic" contrast that tends to render things on the creepy side or something, - an interesting look for sure. Next time I'll remember to split my film in 4 parts to nail the reversal. Agitation used: 3 inversions every 2 minutes.

Meanwhile let me share some examples from this run:

That's a fantastic result! Thank you for sharing. So is the developer formula of your own design? It's a really creative approach. The pictures look really good, especially the forest road. You captured the mood perfectly. It makes me feel a bit nostalgic, as these kinds of roads are very common around where I grew up.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Thanks, aparat - enjoy your fix of nostalgia

I'm using Ilford Reversal Processing recipe and PQ Universal, playing around and adjusting the reversal with 1st development time, with agitation frequency (more frequent = more contrast), with silver solvent (needed if overexposed highlights didn't clear to the base), and with dilute permanganate bleach (1A+1B+1C, which is water) - all the rest goes by the book.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

So it seems that Ferrania P30 needs a longer bleaching step and we can speculate that the film exhausts faster the permanganate.

Interesting idea and Ferrania quotes higher silver content. May I ask where this idea came from?
Because I only suspect insufficient development, because insufficient bleaching leaves artifacts on film - such as uncleared leader, solarisation-like effect, or blotches in denser parts of the film, or more commonly - grain-like specs in highlihgts that can be fingered away. Example of "dirty highlights" and an example of "solarization effect".

I did not observe any of this and by all means it looked bleached properly to my eyes. Therefore I suspect only insufficient 1st developer activity which will be boosted next time around with some Sodium Thiosulphate (Hypo) crystals added to the same reversal process down to the same inversion number.

Then I'll report again my results.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Thanks for pointing out how the residual silver might form - it was unclear to me and I narrowed it down to the bleach stage just by experimentation and deduction.

But what's great - your input will be tested and maybe I'll gain a grain of knowledge or two in the process, which is nice and always welcome!
With strip 1/4 and 2/4 I intend only to alter developer strength by adding silver solvent in it in 0.5g increments - this usually solves underdevelopment problems just like these.

And if this doesn't improve with strip 3/4, I'll bleach the shit out of 4/4 just for the giggles. Just to reiterate - leaded did clear, no specs were observed during re-exposure stage, no anomalies, thus I ruled insufficient bleaching out, and second bleach was performed to eat the density away enough to arrive at a usable picture.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I was wondering if this can cause damage to the sub layer of the film, peeling off the emulsion from the base.

I was somewhat expecting for this to happen, knowing that Permanganate bleach can chew up emulsion if overdone. But no, 2nd bleach after fix did not cause any damage whatsoever, just allowed to recover a massively underdeveloped film.


I did the dance and yesterday reversed one roll of P30, cut in 4 individual strips. My process was:
1) Took the same developer (that yielded underdevelopment) to reverse second film in it - I rate it up to 2x 135/36 films, third is a stretch and requires compensation - I avoid third generally.
2) Then I added 1g Sodium Thiosulphate (hypo) crystals to it as a starting point for strip 1/4, based on the severity of previous underdevelopment.

Everything else remained the same to allow control for one variable: the necessary hypo concentration in developer for Ferrania P30 to clear overexposed highlights to the base:
- 84ml PQ + Xg hypo: 12min 1st development with 3 inversions every 2 minutes: Strip 1/4: 1g | Strip 2/4: 1,5g | Strip 3/4: 2,5g | Strip 4/4: 3g hypo
- 6min dilute bleach bath > 2min Clear > 2min Reexposure, unspooled
- 6min 2nd development in the same juice > 2min hypo fix > 2min Antistatic Rinse aid.
- Strip 1/4 and 2/4 got 1,5g hypo in second developer | Strip 3/4 and 4/4 got 3g of hypo in 2nd developer.

What I got is something that finally approaches perfection - fine-tuning is all that remains. Shadow's are alive, highlights aren't blown + I like it!
And by the looks of it - next time I'll do this the same, starting with 4g of hypo. This amount approaches that of what Delta 100 - a T-grain film - needs for successful reversal. I'm mentioning this, because it's known that T-grain films need more oomph in the juice.

Samples from a DIY light table:

 

[Ivo Stunga]

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.

Agreed and I like the lower blue response - renders skies black.

However I wouldn't take anyone's findings as a law, especially dealing with curves that can be rendered unrecognizable with simple agitation/temp. and developer change, because I've shot and reversed Infrared 400 @400 and it looks decent enough: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=108634366@N07&sort=date-taken-desc&text=infrared 400&view_all=1

That said - I'll try it @200 the next time around and let's see.

 

[Scott Micciche]

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.

This took me a while due to weather here in Chattanooga: (P30 Alpha (expired) @ EI 32 Barry Thornton Two-bath 4m+4m

P30 EI 32 BTTB

Ferrania P30 @ EI 32 Barry Thornton Two-bath Nikon F3

www.flickr.com

 

[warden]

This took me a while due to weather here in Chattanooga: (P30 Alpha (expired) @ EI 32 Barry Thornton Two-bath 4m+4m

Nice result! Thanks for sharing Scott.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

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.

Links are dead now - could you fix that?

 

[Mark J]

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.

ps. thanks for the work on this, a great thread, nice to see full curves for Pan F+ at least in one developer !

I would caution that Pan F+ is as universal as you suggest. I've used most of Ilford's films since around 1990, and though I love Pan F+ and use it a lot, I don't regard it as a general-purpose landscape film. I would used it for selected subjects and abstractions, and yes, it handles up to approx 7 stops of SBR. However any landscape shot into the light, with sky/clouds and near-field shadows is going to be heading towards 10 stops of SBR, and shots taken in the woods where there is also bright sky showing through, could be more than 10 stops. I would definitely prefer FP4+ or HP5+ in these cases. If you shoot against the light a lot, be aware of Pan F's limitations.
The strength of Pan F+ for me is when developed in PMK, which gives excellent edge-enhancement and on 120, is totally grainless up to at least a 16 x20" print. The PMK also helps retain a bit more highlight gradation. It would be interesting to see how the Ferrania would respond to any of the Pyro developers.

 

[loccdor]

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.

Do you think that Ferrania P30 would look good @25 in Diafine? I'm thinking of trying this in order to get more midtones from the P30.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Do you think that Ferrania P30 would look good @25 in Diafine? I'm thinking of trying this in order to get more midtones from the P30.

If you have both Diafine and P30 why not give it a go.