Any shooters of Ilford Pan F Plus?

David R Munson · Sep 3, 2009

Oh, something I meant to post earlier is that if you have a thing for red filters, a #29 does NOT mix well with Pan F. It filters out enough that you're left with little sensitivity with Pan F. 4 stops doesn't compensate nearly enough. Ten stops would probably be closer. A #25 would probably be fine, but do be aware that red sensitivity can be an issue with this film if you like heavy red filtration.

Jeff Kubach · Sep 3, 2009

I have used Pan F over the years. I really like it. I develop it with D-76.

Jeff

Herzeleid · Sep 3, 2009

Lucky, this thread is opened.
I got myself some Pan F+ to try. If I finish them shortly I'll try it with ID-11 1+3, I plan to expose for shadows and development times with other dilutions are quite short.
Hopefully with rodinal sometime later. Thanks for the rodinal info btw.
I hope I can contribute later with some pictures.

Jim Chinn · Sep 3, 2009

It's been a few years since I shot it with any regularity but when I did I liked it souped in Rodinal 1-100.

Perry Way · Sep 3, 2009

Pan F is up until now my overall favorite film. I just wish I could shoot it hand held in dim light sometimes, that's my only grief and it's not much of a grief. My order just came in from Freestyle today. I added to my normal Pan F, FP 4 and Delta 100 a mess of Adox which I am suspecting I'm going to like a lot. We will see if it passes up Pan F, but for different reason than sharpness and very little grain. My opinion is Pan F is contrasty at high noon but after sunrise and just before sunset, Pan F is not particularly contrasty. But then I live in a coastal area of California where fog is a daily thing except maybe for two weeks in high summer.

michaelbsc · Sep 3, 2009

Dave in Kansas said:
You know, the problem with threads like this on a particular film - and I think there has been one recently on just about every major film, is that after reading them and seeing some examples I tell myself "I need to try that."

Bet I'm not the only one.

Dave

Boy, that's no joke. It always amazes me the number of folks who can't find something to do. If I won the lottery and never had to get out of bed the rest of my life my alarm would still be set to 5:30am. I'm not going to live long enough to get it all done, even if I live to be a hundred. And threads like this just add to the pile.

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Sep 3, 2009

I shoot it at 50EI and just leave it sitting around in Rodinal 1+100 for about an hour. Excellent results no matter how I look at them.

k_jupiter · Sep 3, 2009

If I win the lottery, my alarm is NOT going to be set at 5:30. And no, I am not going to continue my job (which I do like) because I am such a good guy. And I won't give up rib-eye steaks so I live longer.

Getting back to the subject. 120 experiments that work well... Rodinal 1+100 IE 25. or... Rodinal 1+250 45 minutes stand IE 50. or... W2D2+ IE 25 with a yellow filter.

All make good.

If I were coming down from shooting 400 ASA film, I would make a pit stop at FP4 for awhile. A lovely film that gives tonality and a bit of speed.

Overall, when I shoot 135 film, it's in the 100-125 range, the contrast issues of PanF or Adox 25 are too much for that small a negative. Now when we get into the larger sized films (4x5) the Adox is a beautiful film and I wish Ilford made PanF in that size.

tim in san jose

geoferrell · Sep 3, 2009

I like Pan F and use it both at EI 50 and 125 depending on developer. Usually D76 but sometimes Acufine and get good results.

clayne · Sep 4, 2009

This was on 135, developed in Rodinal 1+50, Nikon F3+20/2.8.
Negs were moderately underdeveloped but contrast was easy to dial-in on the print (Agfa MCP+Dektol+Se):

Great film.

dwdmguy · Sep 4, 2009

mcgratten, the shots are stunning but that model is just so dang pretty! Nice job.

mcgrattan · Sep 4, 2009

I was walking along that path when she saw me with the 'old' camera and literally ran across the grass from where she was hanging out with her friends to insist I take her photo. I promised to send her a print [which I need to post out soon].

Steve Roberts · Sep 4, 2009

mcgrattan said:
she saw me with the 'old' camera and literally ran across the grass from where she was hanging out with her friends to insist I take her photo.

Ah! The advantages of analogue photography!
I'm sure your excellent photos will inspire a lot of people to try Pan F.
The trouble with experimenting with photography for me (and I suspect many others) is that time is against us. As much as I'm thankful that I have a reasonably secure job (and have had since 1978), I wouldn't be too disappointed if someone wanted to pay me the same money to stay at home playing with photography and cars all day. No 5.30am starts, though - a leisurely 10.00 would be fine!

Have a good weekend,

Steve

michaelbsc · Sep 4, 2009

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9530/4.7.0.148 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)

k_jupiter said:
If I win the lottery, my alarm is NOT going to be set at 5:30. And no, I am not going to continue my job (which I do like) because I am such a good guy. And I won't give up rib-eye steaks so I live longer.

Getting back to the subject. 120 experiments that work well... Rodinal 1+100 IE 25. or... Rodinal 1+250 45 minutes stand IE 50. or... W2D2+ IE 25 with a yellow filter.

All make good.

If I were coming down from shooting 400 ASA film, I would make a pit stop at FP4 for awhile. A lovely film that gives tonality and a bit of speed.

Overall, when I shoot 135 film, it's in the 100-125 range, the contrast issues of PanF or Adox 25 are too much for that small a negative. Now when we get into the larger sized films (4x5) the Adox is a beautiful film and I wish Ilford made PanF in that size.

tim in san jose

Well, I certainly wouldn't go to work. But I would still get up at 5:30. There's just too much to do to let daylight slip away wasted.

elekm · Sep 4, 2009

Ilford Pan F has such wonderful tones. It's a very easy film to handle with fine grain and very forgiving. It's just a sweet film.

Perry Way · Sep 5, 2009

Fleath said:
I shoot it at 50EI and just leave it sitting around in Rodinal 1+100 for about an hour. Excellent results no matter how I look at them.

"sitting around" means no agitation?

Last time I messed with Rodinal was in High School but I just bought a bottle with my last order. I've been using one-shot Ilfotec and Ilfosol exclusively for Pan F but I'm willing to try something else for the heck of it and see if I like it.

So, can you explain your technique with 1+100 Rodinal? I usually presoak for 2 minutes before development and agitate twice, banging the side of the tank as I set it down so as to ensure complete coating of water around the film therefore when developer makes contact no air bubbles and even development. Is that also advised with such a weak Rodinal dilution?

reellis67 · Sep 5, 2009

I prefer (Agfa) Rodinal 1:200 with stand development, but to each his own. No presoak (I never do this with any roll film), agitate for 1 minute, rap the tank a few times, and let it sit for an hour undisturbed, followed by a water rinse, fix, etc. This works well for FP4+ as well...

- Randy

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Sep 5, 2009

1SharpMonkey said:
"sitting around" means no agitation?

A minute's initial agitation, then I set an alarm on my phone and go for lunch. It's actually something I read here on APUG - since then I've tried Rodinal stand development with a lot of different stuff just to see what happens. Kodak Hawkeye Surveillance film was interesting, grain like the dickens shot at 400EI. I imagine a presoak would be a good idea, but I'm of the "let's just see what happens when I do this" school of science. I still have a dozen or two rolls of expired Pan F kicking around my bedroom, I bought 300ft when freestyle had it out on special years ago and spent an evening bulk rolling.

Perry Way · Sep 5, 2009

reellis67 said:
I prefer (Agfa) Rodinal 1:200 with stand development, but to each his own. No presoak (I never do this with any roll film), agitate for 1 minute, rap the tank a few times, and let it sit for an hour undisturbed, followed by a water rinse, fix, etc. This works well for FP4+ as well...

- Randy

Any reason for 1/200 dilution instead of 1/100? I see Fleath and others have suggested 1/100. I'm real curious with that weak of a dilution does it even matter if it's 1/100 or 1/200. Much obliged for your feedback. I'm going to go shoot a roll today at something and give this Rodinal thing a try tonight.

Anon Ymous · Sep 5, 2009

1SharpMonkey said:
Any reason for 1/200 dilution instead of 1/100? I see Fleath and others have suggested 1/100...

Changing the dilution doesn't only affect the development time, but also affects the characteristics of the developer. In this case, it has a "compensating" effect. How much is enough is up to you to decide. I'd advise you to do a search here about stand development. There are the success cases, as well as some failures. Stand development can be fine, as long as it works. IMHO, it's the lazy man's approach to development. Nothing wrong with it, it's just that it's a bit risky. Others have also used the 1+100 dilution, but with reduced agitation, not stand development. To a large extent, they also got that compensating effect, but with a much safer technique. I'd say it's not a substitute for real testing to get your development times for a film + developer combination. For the record, I've used stand development and I think some frames showed that failure was near.

reellis67 · Sep 5, 2009

You should test each dilution yourself so that you know what to expect as different people have different ideas about what makes a good negative (from the exposure and development point of view). The same goes for the 1 hour developing time - some people go 1.5 or 2 hours, but I prefer to stick to 1 hour.

At first I though to use 1:200 for one hour because I use 1:100 with my normal processing method (30 secs initial and 5 secs/min thereafter) and 1:200 just seemed a little strong to let sit for an hour. To find out if it really was or not I did some testing with a couple of films (Pan F+ and FP4+) exposed the same way, of the same subject, and then developed them at different times/dilutions. I stuck with the process that I liked the best at that time and have never found a reason to change (at least so far). I should note that I don't develop using this method all of the time, just when I want to get the benefit of that type of developing. Like most things in life, there is hardly ever one choice that best fits your needs for every occasion...

- Randy

k_jupiter · Sep 6, 2009

Anon Ymous said:
IMHO, it's the lazy man's approach to development. Nothing wrong with it, it's just that it's a bit risky.

And how is it risky? Like I go and shoot something and then say "I'll try stand development and see what happens?"

Some of us take this sort of thing seriously.

Stand development and PanF+ has a distinct look, one you must be shooting for, pre-visualize, and develop for.

tim (the best engineers are lazy) in san jose

Perry Way · Sep 6, 2009

Well, I went out shooting today. I went to Carrizo Plain which is a desolate piece of hell in the summer time. There are maybe 20 trees in the entire valley, the rest is dead grass. I drove wondering what the heck I went out there for in the dead of summer because what was I going to shoot? But I went up some dirt road I never went up before and that yielded some old combines and threshers and other farm implements that appear to be from around the turn of the century, left to rot slowly. These combines were made mostly from wood.

Anyway, I just finished developing a roll of 120 Pan F with a 1/50 Rodinal dilution, with agitation every 30 seconds, and on every minute a more vigorous shake for a total of 11 minutes as it says to on Digitaltruth's Massive Dev Chart. I presoaked, as I usually do, I like to see the dirty purplish blackish blue color come out, it makes me feel like my film is being cleaned of all impurities haaaa! Maybe next time I will get bold with this stand development. I just couldn't this time because I actually wanted to print these negs and so I relied on known objective and published data. So.. the negs are drying now.. they sure look good but I won't know anything for certain until I get them enlarged which maybe I might do tomorrow since the weather has gone decidedly cooler and it probably won't be a big waste of time to set up (I'm reliant on a takedown darkroom in my small apartment bathroom). Will return with my findings and perhaps some photos scanned if I can get my all-in-one scanner/printer to work.

clayne · Sep 6, 2009

k_jupiter said:
Stand development and PanF+ has a distinct look, one you must be shooting for, pre-visualize, and develop for.

bs.

Anon Ymous · Sep 6, 2009

k_jupiter said:
And how is it risky? Like I go and shoot something and then say "I'll try stand development and see what happens?"

Some of us take this sort of thing seriously.

Bromide drag is a possibility when using stand development and it ruins a photograph. And while edge effects might be desirable (for many of us), if they're exaggerated they can also be ugly. Have you seen halos around objects? I have and they look ugly (IMHO). If it was a subtle effect, that would be desirable, but you can't really control it, can you? That's why I said that reduced agitation seems to be a better choice. You get the benefits or stand development without the risks involved.

In any case, I'd rather have a hard to print negative than a ruined negative.

Any shooters of Ilford Pan F Plus?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency