Tweet
As mentioned previously, I've been struggling to get decent results with long expired Ferrania B&W film. The results have been extremely grainy, even using Perceptol diluted 1 part to 3 parts water. Perceptol is known as a fine grain developer, and was a definite improvement over Rodinal but still nowhere near acceptable. Using stock strength Perceptol is said to give less grain and higher contrast so I gave it a go, and it's a much improved result!
The main problem is that you need around 2 litres of stock solution to bucket develop even 30 feet of film, not because the developer will be exhausted but just to give enough liquid to easily move the film around to prevent uneven development. This means a bucket of developer costs around £12, compared to about 30p for Rodinal. Luckily, stock strength can be re-used several times though re-using it carries risks of inconsistency.
This test was done with 13 feet of 9.5mm in 3/4 litre of stock, which was not enough, and sections of the film kept popping out of the solution. This has resulted in some uneven development I think, or it's possible the shutter speed on the Nizo camera is not consistent. The Cine Nizo F was a joy to use, with a start button that's easy to press and it doesn't shake the camera like the Pathe B does.
I read that another way to reduce grain is to overexpose when shooting. The reason is that, when underexposed, the larger grains "catch" the light first, and smaller ones get washed away during processing, leaving a higher % of large grains. Overexposing leads to a greater balance of grain size, and more smaller grains.
Here's a comparison to put this to the test. On the left are 2 frames from a 'correctly' exposed section. I guessed the shutter speed to be 1/30 second, and the Ferrania film seems to be around 10 ISO. The meter gave a reading of around f/4 for these settings but full strength Perceptol reduces film speed by around a stop, so I shot the film at 6 ISO. The 2 on the right side were shot at f/3. (then adjusted in photoshop in Levels to roughly match the left side).
Is the result on the right better? I'm not sure. The right side looks a little better I think, and the 2 on the left look a little "smeared" . This can be seen, perhaps a little more clearly in the close up crops underneath. Any difference is very small though. More experiments needed. All 4 images have been adjusted for contrast, the original film still has low contrast, but better than the 1:3 test.
And here's the video of the telecine results. The film was shot in very weak and variable sunshine in St Neots, Cambridgeshire 2 days ago. At the end I'm holding up 4 fingers to remind myself that it was shot at f/4. I did comparison experiments at f/5 and f/7 but didn't realise the film had already run out. 13 feet does not last long...
Telecine methods are improving too.
I'll put it as a link rather than embed it, as it seems to play better that way, on my laptop anyway.
https://youtu.be/wLjRkAw1p3g
The main problem is that you need around 2 litres of stock solution to bucket develop even 30 feet of film, not because the developer will be exhausted but just to give enough liquid to easily move the film around to prevent uneven development. This means a bucket of developer costs around £12, compared to about 30p for Rodinal. Luckily, stock strength can be re-used several times though re-using it carries risks of inconsistency.
This test was done with 13 feet of 9.5mm in 3/4 litre of stock, which was not enough, and sections of the film kept popping out of the solution. This has resulted in some uneven development I think, or it's possible the shutter speed on the Nizo camera is not consistent. The Cine Nizo F was a joy to use, with a start button that's easy to press and it doesn't shake the camera like the Pathe B does.
I read that another way to reduce grain is to overexpose when shooting. The reason is that, when underexposed, the larger grains "catch" the light first, and smaller ones get washed away during processing, leaving a higher % of large grains. Overexposing leads to a greater balance of grain size, and more smaller grains.
Here's a comparison to put this to the test. On the left are 2 frames from a 'correctly' exposed section. I guessed the shutter speed to be 1/30 second, and the Ferrania film seems to be around 10 ISO. The meter gave a reading of around f/4 for these settings but full strength Perceptol reduces film speed by around a stop, so I shot the film at 6 ISO. The 2 on the right side were shot at f/3. (then adjusted in photoshop in Levels to roughly match the left side).
Is the result on the right better? I'm not sure. The right side looks a little better I think, and the 2 on the left look a little "smeared" . This can be seen, perhaps a little more clearly in the close up crops underneath. Any difference is very small though. More experiments needed. All 4 images have been adjusted for contrast, the original film still has low contrast, but better than the 1:3 test.
And here's the video of the telecine results. The film was shot in very weak and variable sunshine in St Neots, Cambridgeshire 2 days ago. At the end I'm holding up 4 fingers to remind myself that it was shot at f/4. I did comparison experiments at f/5 and f/7 but didn't realise the film had already run out. 13 feet does not last long...
Telecine methods are improving too.
I'll put it as a link rather than embed it, as it seems to play better that way, on my laptop anyway.
https://youtu.be/wLjRkAw1p3g
Attached Files
Comment