a couple stupid questions re. pan-f, fp4, plus-x and the like

So I normally use tmax and pan-f and for everything I've done in the past two plus years I've been doing this has worked out fine. BUT now I'm doing a project in the woods and having quite a lot of trouble controlling contrast.

I tried overexposing and underdeveloping the pan-f just once but I feel like I got my numbers mixed up, and overexposed and developed normally or something because there's nothing in the shadows and the highlights are bulletproof. I am working with 35mm and I don't really shoot enough to get an entire roll of the same lighting situations. Although I can (and do) borrow a mamiya 7ii or fuji 690 from school occasionally.

So my real question is that since I've heard that faster films handle extreme contrast better would it be worth my dollars to try some fp4 or plus-x? I don't really want grain for this project, although I'm doubtful as to how visible it would be given the detail in the subject.

I'm really bad at making sense, aren't I? The negatives from the 6x7 print alright with some pretty intense split filtering but I'm sure it could be easier. Any sort of help could be appreciated. I want this project to look really really good.

Weak shadows indicate, to me under exposure; and blocked highlights, over development. You do not mention what developer you used. In ye olden dayz, "higher" contrast films like Pan X reacted best to soft working, compensating, or semi-compensating development to tame their, supposedly harsh contrast characteristics. I do not know if the newer Pan X is the same.

I had been using D-76 but for the last five rolls my teacher gave me a bottle of Gamma Plus/Pro/something which I guess is a compensating developer made for tech pan. I'm not expected any sort of detail under rocks and stuff but it would be nice to get some more penetration under there while not blowing the highlights even more.

Tmax 100 is a bit less contrasty than Pan F but neither likes overdevelopment. Of the two, I'd favor Tmax, which I process in either Xtol or in dilute HC-110. Grain is not going to be a significant consideration with either film, especially in 6x7cm negatives.

Anscojohn's advice is sound. If the Gamma ? developer you're using is really a compensating developer, you'll need to sacrifice a roll or two to work out your development times. You can also try a divided developer---you can mix this yourself if the materials are available at your school.

Don't be surprised at this result. It is common and hard to avoid. If you want to make that Pan F workable in high contrast compositions, you need to do some testing. It is a particularly tough film that is not easy to use without some fairly extensive testing first. You need to find for it: 1. what EI to use that will let you predictably expose to control the tones of the dark areas of the composition, 2. what development time gives you the contrast that will print a normal contrast scene as a normal contrast print (to be more specific, the development that renders a zone III placement and a zone VIII placement as a zone III and a zone VIII on the print, when using your chosen "normal" printing filter or paper grade), and 3. what development times will increase or decrease contrast compared to the development time found in number 2.

Even then, you can only decrease contrast and control the shadows so much with that film.

I would recommend trying FP4 instead. For best results, you will have to do the same thing you have to do with Pan F, but it should give you bit more room to tweak using exposure and development. The Deltas and TMaxes of similar speed are probably going to be a little harder to work with in contrasty light than conventional-grain films like FP4, Plus-X, HP5, and Tri-X.

Try XP2 Plus.

Out of the faster films the new king seems to be TMY2, i.e. the new and improved TMax 400 version 2. This will give you a much faster film while taming the graininess to the level of (what I understand) e.g. Plus-X/FP4 and such. All of the advice above is good advice, but as you are somewhat used to working with a low-speed film (which inherently gives you lots of contrast to"tame" to begin with), you should be able to be careful with handling (i.e. careful developing) the TMax film. (Which is what it needs to bring out the magic of it.)
Else, TMX i.e. Tmax 100 should be comparable to Pan-F when it comes to grain. Some say that the grain is even finer. (A comparable film is Delta 100. It's not the same as TMX, but it uses T-grain tech. and the (lack of) grain is about the same as TMX.)

//Björn

srmcnamara said:

So I normally use tmax and pan-f and for everything I've
done in the past two plus years I've been doing this has
worked out fine. BUT now I'm doing a project in the
woods and having quite a lot of trouble
controlling contrast.

I tried overexposing and underdeveloping the pan-f just
once but I feel like I got my numbers mixed up, and
overexposed and developed normally or something
because there's nothing in the shadows and the
highlights are bulletproof.

Click to expand...

Most of my shooting is in the woods. Pan F has worked
well for me. Have you taken into account it's reciprocity
failure? I don't know how bad it is but if it is bad your
shadows will drop out.

As mentioned you should be using a developer which
provides good compensation. That will allow those areas
which are deep in shadow, likely within the realm of
reciprocity failure, to develop with out delivering
overly dense hightlight areas. Dan

Thanks to everyone. There's some good advice in here that I'm planning on using next time. I think reciprocity is probably a likely contributer that I hadn't though much about. My exposure times are in the seconds and I'm more used to Tmax long exposures with very little reciprocity. It's definitely something I'll keep in mind. I think it's going to take a lot more rolls to get comfortable with these woods.

srmcnamara said:

I think reciprocity is probably a likely contributer that I hadn't though much about. My exposure times are in the seconds and I'm more used to Tmax long exposures with very little reciprocity.

Click to expand...

It's reciprocity failure AKA reciprocity loss, not just reciprocity.

You're right. Just got lazy.

srmcnamara said:

You're right. Just got lazy.

Click to expand...

Sorry; just making sure you did not have a misunderstanding about the fact that reciprocity is a good thing that gives us easy linear predictability. Therefore the bad stuff happens when it "fails" or is "lost".

Definitely. Just another reason why I should stop failing english class. Words matter