1st time with Pan F+ - what happened?

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

So I developed my first roll of Pan F+ last night in D-23 1+1 for 8.5 minutes @ 20C. It was the second roll through 500ml of working solution. the 1st roll was Acros 100 and it turned out as expected. The Pan F roll had no edge markings or frame numbers, and the negs look severely under exposed.

Its definitely possible that I under exposed the film, this is my first time with something this slow. The odd part is the edge markings and frame numbers. Is that typical with Pan F?

I'll scan a strip a little later, I need to find the cables to hook up my scanner

Ian Grant · Jan 20, 2012

First D23 won't give full box speed and secondly the D23 would be partially exhausted both factors contributing to under exposure as well as underdevelopment.

Ian

Aurelien · Jan 20, 2012

And third, PAnF needs more developing time than what Ilford says on their boxes : this is for PAnF, FP4 and HP5 (moreover in D76)

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

I went with the time at the Mass. Dev Chart. I figured I should have added a bit more time, but from the looks of these, it would have needed ALOT more. I should say I haven't been using D-23 until recently, and before that D-76. I am used to running 2 rolls through D-76 in the same manner without much problem, and figured I could with D-23 as well.

Thanks for the input guys!

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

Did you rate the film at ISO 50?

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

Yes, and I bracketed several shots.

zsas · Jan 20, 2012

Inside or outside photographs?

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

Outside Photo's (Bodie, CA)

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

akaa said:
Yes, and I bracketed several shots.

First time I used it I either rated it at 50 or 32...probably 50 but I do remember I got thin negs.
I bet it's closer to ISO 25 in most developers realistically.

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

Well, the bracketed shots are better, but the developer must have exhausted on me for the edge markings and frame numbers to not show up?

zsas · Jan 20, 2012

This film really shines outside, how was the sun that day?

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

akaa said:
Well, the bracketed shots are better, but the developer must have exhausted on me for the edge markings and frame numbers to not show up?

Both edges?
Maybe you under filled the tank???

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

zsas - It was a bright beautiful day

bruce - I actually over filled. I was using 500ml with only 1 reel on a 2 reel patterson tank. I believe the minimum as shown on the tank for 1 reel is something like 360ml?

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

Okay, next...
what developer and how old and storage conditions please

edit: okay sorry...I see now D23 but I have zero experience with that.
Seems like 500ml should be okay for 2 rolls of 120 but I'm guessing.

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

Uh, I mixed this D-23 about 2 weeks ago, stored in a black accordian bottle.

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

Did you cut it 1:1 right before use?

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

Okay I'll shut up now and let someone with more D23 experience weigh in.
Seems a bit risky using a 1:1 solution twice but I'm unaware of capacities.

Good luck figuring it out.

NB23 · Jan 20, 2012

No edge markings=severe under development.

I've had the same issue with this film. Thin negs. I agree with others that this film needs more
development time.

NB23 · Jan 20, 2012

1:1 twice? There, the severe under development explained.

akaa · Jan 20, 2012

Hey Bruce - that makes 2 of us

I read so much about D-23 being very similar to D-76, I never really thought about an exhaustion problem, since I did it so much with D-76.

I won't do that again

brucemuir · Jan 20, 2012

akaa said:
Hey Bruce - that makes 2 of us

I read so much about D-23 being very similar to D-76, I never really thought about an exhaustion problem, since I did it so much with D-76.

I won't do that again

Well I just was researching this and it appears the some people dilute it even further like 1:3/1:4 for a compensating situation.
Like I said though I don't know how much stock solution is needed per roll.

You probably got a double whammy of underexposure and underdevelopment due to the slight exaustion.

Since you are scanning you will probably salvage some images though unless you have uneven skys or some agitation issue.

vpwphoto · Jan 20, 2012

"Down the drain" except for fixer that's what I have been doing for 30 years."

Sometimes edge markings are thin or non-existant depending on reel contact... more-so since you severely underdeveloped things.

I have never had any defective film YET and your experience level points to user errors.

cliveh · Jan 20, 2012

Aurelien said:
And third, PAnF needs more developing time than what Ilford says on their boxes : this is for PAnF, FP4 and HP5 (moreover in D76)

I would totally agree with this quote. Never believe chart times, but if you use the same film, same dev, same concentration, over and over and over again you will discover what works for you.

1st time with Pan F+ - what happened?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency