New Ilford Large Format Film?

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on what you mean by "good" results - seems more like marginal mediocre results to me, perhaps acceptable in the same sense old Kodak Recording Film was in dim light for detective work. But in the case of D3200, one just has to read their own fine print. Same with Kodak TMZ3200.

So-called "Pushing" (a mis-appropriated color film processing term) doesn't do a thing toward salvaging shadow values if they aren't really there to begin with. I'm not suggesting that D3200 isn't a worthy film; I've gotten some lovely results with it; but being unrealistic about its effective speed isn't in my recipe book.

As far as Pan F goes, half the "hopeless" frustration with it would probably be resolved if more people actually thought of it as realistically a 25 speed film. Trying to rate that exaggerated S-curve on the same premise as more linear films curves simply due to some kind of one-shoe-size-fits-all geometric interpolation convention doesn't really help all that much.

People can fool around with it as much as they want. That's part of the fun of it. But at a hundred dollars US per box of 4x5, it makes sense to figure out your Pan F exposure and development strategy using 35mm or 120 version first. Let's just say that more mainstream films like FP4 and HP5 present a more forgiving learning curve.

 

[MattKing]

Consumers never cared much about shadows.
Darkroom printers cared about shadow detail in the past.
Nowadays people who post process for the sort of qualities that Darkroom printers used to target also care about shadow detail.
Consumers care about how pictures look - which primarily means the mid-tones and highlights, and in particular how well people look in their photos.
And yes that standard is probably biased toward Caucasian skin tones.
Because the standard was developed at a time and in parts of the world where Caucasian skin tones predominated.
The EI 3200 films tend to give far better results when they are exposed and developed for EIs of 1600 or 3200.
If you expose and develop them at their ISO speeds, you will get good shadow detail, but your photos will look lousy.
As for Pan F, I've never used it, but if it is like the other lower ASA or ISO films I have used, it has a very particular and demanding response. To me, that says you have to make your metering and development decisions based on your own needs and preferences, adjusted for the subject and lighting conditions you are working with. That may very well mean that using a lower EI with your metering technique is most appropriate.
But if you are just pointing your camera at the subject and allowing the camera meter to decide for you, followed by letting your lab develop it for you, I would suggest starting with the ISO speed of 50.

 

[Craig]

If the box states 3200 you should be able to expose correctly at 3200 and have shadow detail.

You can't, so it is completely misleading.

Shadow detail isn't always needed. I've seen an original print of Karsh's famous portrait of Winston Churchill - there is nothing for shadow detail, but it's still considered an iconic photograph.

If the shadow is your subject, meter in the shadows.

 

[Agulliver]

If the box states 3200 you should be able to expose correctly at 3200 and have shadow detail.

You can't, so it is completely misleading.

The consumer who relies on box labelling does not give a hoot about EI vs ISO, and should not even need to know about it.

Couldn't disagree more. Delta 3200 works best at 3200 and even 6400 when developed according to Ilford's instructions. It is designed to work that way. While technically speaking the true ISO may be closer to 1000-1200, the film's characteristics are designed for push processing.

As for PanF, I rarely shoot it but when I have done so....I've never had any trouble shooting at 50 and developing according to Ilford's instructions. Would I buy it in sheets? Possibly once my stash of glass plates and Adox sheet film is depleted for my quarter plate camera. Such cameras are never "point and shoot" and so setting up a scene for a lower speed film isn't a problem.. And PanF is a good deal faster than the glass plates I've been using.

 

[tcolgate]

I might just have to buy a box as a hat tip to the quality of the pun!

 

[tykos]

B&H is listing it at 87$/25 sheets.
FP4+ is 76$/25 sheets.
Pricing for the box is nice (yeah, if you look at 100 sheets fp4 these are 50% pricier, but...)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Karsh most certainly didn't use any kind of film resembling Pan F or D3200! - even if either had hypothetically existed in 8x10 sheets at the time. In more ordinary circumstances, good crisp bold blacks come from a sharp cutoff of a relatively steep film curve. Try TMY400, for example. But studio pros like Karsh resorted to fresnel hot lights, like Arri, and dark backdrops, to get that chiaroscuro effect.

As far as arguments this or that per what I recommended per realistic film speeds, saying you get "fine" results with Pan F at 50, might not look so fine after all, if you optimize it for lower speed and compare the results. And lots of the time I get pushback for saying these things is by people who do live and shoot predominantly in foggy or smoggy climes, where atmospheric lighting ratios are rather subdued. Try the same thing in the clear air or the Alps, and you might be quite disappointed. That's why I stated Pan F is not a "versatile" film; it can be quite nice under the right circumstances.

Same goes for D3200. If you like what you get at 3200 or 6400, fine. Just realize what you're doing is lopping off three entire stops of shadow value from the native curve, and creating an image wholly dependent on over-developing the upper half. Nothing wrong with that if it's your creative objective. But it does itself amount to throwing SBR versatility out the and window and making this a narrow-niche specialty film. But I don't roam streets at night, so don't have any need to use this film in that manner.

 

[isaac7]

& to be honest....how many do we need? In 8x10 what advantage is there over the tonality of FP4+, or the sharpness of Delta 100 or Tmax 100 ??

<shrug> Panf looks different than the other films. That’s all justification I need for it to exist.

 

[miha]

Despite all the criticism and naysayers, my experience with PAN F+ has been nothing short of extraordinary. I love this film in 35mm. developed in either ID-11 or Rodinal, it enlarges beautifully. I’m looking forward to being able to purchase it in 4x5!

 

[Craig]

Despite all the criticism and naysayers, my experience with PAN F+ has been nothing short of extraordinary.

How so? What do you like about it?

 

[miha]

How so? What do you like about it?

Paris

www.photrio.com

 

[mshchem]

I might just have to buy a box as a hat tip to the quality of the pun!

View attachment 424085

Absolutely Agree

 

[mshchem]

chiaroscuro effect.

Oh Yeah!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bingo, Miha ! Gray light.

 

[GregY]

Paris

www.photrio.com

Nice photo, but explain to me why Pan F would be useful in 8x10."

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just checked, and stores have it listed, but not on the shelves... I'll snag one the minute it's on the shelf!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nice photo, but explain to me why it Pan F would be useful in 8x10"

I'd have to give some a whirl before I can see if a sheet film version would be useful... 8x10 is out of my price range now, but I can swing for a box of 4x5.

 

[pbromaghin]

I really enjoyed the results from it in direct mid morning light and using Analogue Andy’s approach back in my scanning days. The prospect of using it awhile learning to get along with the Graflex View and darkroom printing is really exciting. And what’s to complain about at only half a buck more per shot than Fp4?

 

[Kino]

I'll wait for Andrew's assessment before I come to a conclusion, but from the get-go, I don't need more contrast in my 4x5 shots!

I have buckets full with "normal" film and a condenser enlarger. Seems quite a niche market, but...

 

[GregY]

I'll wait for Andrew's assessment before I come to a conclusion, but from the get-go, I don't need more contrast in my 4x5 shots!

I have buckets full with "normal" film and a condenser enlarger. Seems quite a niche market, but...

I get lots of contrast from my 45MXT with cold head and Durst 138 with colour head.
I especially can't see the use for 8x10"....... exposures are long enough either with long bellows extension or filtration for landscapes.....

 

[lecarp]

Slow film and big old fast lenses, just the ticket.

 

[miha]

Nice photo, but explain to me why it Pan F would be useful in 8x10"

No idea, sorry. I only shoot up to 4x5. Different formats and films work for different people.

 

[mshchem]

I get lots of contrast from my 45MXT with cold head and Durst 138 with colour head.
I especially can't see the use for 8x10"....... exposures are long enough either with long bellows extension or filtration for landscapes.....

No idea, sorry. I only shoot up to 4x5. Different formats and films work for different people.

Slow film and big old lenses like Wollensak or Ilex with lower max shutter speeds and series 8 or bigger (I don't have ND filters that size) I mean, I'm not going to spend (more than FP4 or HP5) that kind of money. Still it's fine, I'm sure it will be something if you want it buy it.

 

[Rick A]

Well, I'm on the waiting list for a box of Pan F+ 4x5. I really would like to try it in 8x10 but it's pricy plus I'm seriously considering parting with my 8x10 kit.

 

[cowanw]

I got mine today up in the North.