Ferrania

>>3022342
>pay extra for film with dust, scratches, mould
Meighty8, just drop your damned film on the kitchen floor a couple of times while it's still wet, costs you nothing.

>>3022342
>really high amount of silver in the emulsion
in reality what does that mean? like it will be a "denser" negative, and that you will be able to pull out much more tonality and shades of gray compared to cheap bw film?

>>3022355
I'm not entirely sure honestly. I know that modern formulas have been changed to use less silver but I've never shot with an old stock since they stopped doing that in the 70s. I think I'm going to take this and do some test shots to compare it to Ilford Pan F and Kodak Tri-x so I can see the difference.

I know this used to be a Cine stock and they have said that when "processed correctly" is gets a huge latitude but I don't think they've measured it scientifically.

>>3022349
I'm not forcing you to buy it, m8. I just think it's cool to try out. I could wait until they get it perfect but I also have a chance to help these guys out.

When I think ISO 80, I think fucking colon-fulls of detail. When I see this samples, I don't see as much detail even as Ultramax. What's going on?

I'll be interested when I see legitimately outstanding results, even for a 200 speed film.

File: p30 skull.jpg (1MB, 2400x1484px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x1484px

>>3022359
Yeah, one of the problems they said was that the film was designed to work with a proprietary developer that they have the recipe for but that they aren't set up to make developer right now.

They said that, if you can get your hands on it, Kodak D96 gives the best results and that D76, a much more commonly available developer, gives results that are almost as good. Ilford Micropen is supposed to be pretty good too.

Some of it looks pretty good to me in terms of detail. I know these aren't the highest quality scans though.

>>3022364
I get that, but I'm not going to spend extra money and time to use a film that's worse than the Pan F Plus I can already get and use to the full potential now... For less.

>>3022365
Yeah, I get that. I'm not going to buy 10 rolls when it comes out. I'm probably going to buy a couple rolls just to mess around with and I'm going to see what results I get.

I feel like supporting these guys though. They have the machines to produce a ton of weird shit that you can't buy anymore like 126 film. I don't mind supporting them to see what they can be.

>>3022359
>When I think ISO 80, I think fucking colon-fulls of detail. When I see this samples, I don't see as much detail even as Ultramax. What's going on?
You're blind/ignorant.
This is clearly sharp film.
Sample one is obviously shot wide open, out in the shaky, movable world, with a not-modern lense, but the plane of focus is showing plenty of detail and no real grain.
Sample 2 is exceeding the resolution and density range of the scanner.

>>3022380
If the developers of a film cannot provide positive samples of their work, I won't be fucked to do it for them.

>>3022384
Wogs are all communists at heart, their entire worldview is prefaced on the gibs.

>>3022355
Higher maximum density, generally. Frequency response and so forth is a matter of the sensitizing dyes and film structure used, not the raw amount of silver. But it makes for a nice marketing point, e.g. with Silvermax.

>>3022364
Ooh a manufacturer suggests their own developer for their black and white, silver bromide in gelatin, film. I've never heard that one before. Special properties promised and everything. What'n tarnation.

I'm gonna buy about six rolls, shoot it at 80 over the summer, develop in HC-110 (B or E depending), scan, and wonder if this is worth the (presumably rather high) price over say Acros, or PanF+, FP4+, Delta 100, or Tmax 100, or fuck, why not RPX 100 as well.

For comparison with another boutique film, JCH StreetPan didn't work out so well for me -- the results that've been shown are mostly due to processing of the negative, which can be had with like most of the 400 speed B&W films today. Dunno, maybe it prints differently. However, RPX 400 and Retro 400s are 2.77€/roll at 30m a pop. Maybe if you're taking time off your job as a plastic surgeon to shoot your list-price-2017 film Leica.

... I did love BRF400+, but then Bergger killed it. And their Pancro 400 isn't available in 35mm on Maco yet, so bollocks to that as well.

>>3022388
t. kurwa