Any shooters of Ilford Pan F Plus?

PhotoJim · Sep 6, 2009

clayne said:
bs.

How did this post add value to this thread?

See: the thread on civility.

Seriously, instead of just calling someone a liar, maybe you could give some evidence.

Perry Way · Sep 6, 2009

PhotoJim said:
How did this post add value to this thread?

See: the thread on civility.

Seriously, instead of just calling someone a liar, maybe you could give some evidence.

Hey Jim, how's it going? Haven't run into you in late night chats for some time. Anyway... I digress to the topic. Actually, if the evidence is to not stand develop by providing non-stand developed negs, he did provide some evidence of that by providing a link to his website where you can view all kinds of images in his own portfolio. He even posted one of them here in this thread. On the other hand, (and this isn't to knock the other fellows who claim stand development is appropriate for Pan F) the other fellows don't have any online examples that I can find, whether on APUG or elsewhere. I was naturally curious to see what this other method was all about by looking at end results. I was trying to wrap my mind around why letting the chemistry just sit would make better as it just seems incorrect all ways up and down and sideways and backwards and forwards from what I know by experience. All that to say I can't find the end results of stand developed negatives being superior, at least by the promoters of it in this thread.

Anyway, I'm not saying that "bs" added value.

clayne · Sep 6, 2009

PhotoJim said:
How did this post add value to this thread?

See: the thread on civility.

Seriously, instead of just calling someone a liar, maybe you could give some evidence.

You're right. I shouldn't have posted that. Sorry guys, and sorry Tim.

It was a flippant reaction to the mystical wonders of stand development that people seem to bring out commonly these days. Although, honestly, I was a bit inebriated at the time as well.

reellis67 · Sep 6, 2009

1SharpMonkey said:
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.

Awesome! That sounds like a fascinating subject - can't wait to see the results.

1SharpMonkey said:
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.

Excellent decision in my opinion. It's never a good idea to risk something good. I always use test subjects that I've used with other processes when I'm testing something new. That way you don't lose anything important if things don't turn out the way you expected.

- Randy

waynecrider · Sep 6, 2009

1SharpMonkey said:
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.

I definitely want to see those..

Well the current B&H catalog has an advertisement for Pan F+ in 100 ISO long roll but apparently on the website it's not available. I was thinking a stop up would be nice in windy locations. Still I like the film and may roll my own.

k_jupiter · Sep 7, 2009

1SharpMonkey said:
Hey Jim, how's it going? Haven't run into you in late night chats for some time. Anyway... I digress to the topic. Actually, if the evidence is to not stand develop by providing non-stand developed negs, he did provide some evidence of that by providing a link to his website where you can view all kinds of images in his own portfolio. He even posted one of them here in this thread. On the other hand, (and this isn't to knock the other fellows who claim stand development is appropriate for Pan F) the other fellows don't have any online examples that I can find, whether on APUG or elsewhere. I was naturally curious to see what this other method was all about by looking at end results. I was trying to wrap my mind around why letting the chemistry just sit would make better as it just seems incorrect all ways up and down and sideways and backwards and forwards from what I know by experience. All that to say I can't find the end results of stand developed negatives being superior, at least by the promoters of it in this thread.

Anyway, I'm not saying that "bs" added value.

Because I chooose not to present my work on APUG does not preclude the validity of my argument.

I don't present work flows I have not tested. Try it, ignore it, do whatever you wish to with the information offered. Just don't tear down something you don't understand. I have spent a fair amount of time testing PanF with Rodinal in stand development. It has certain attributes of which I have tried to describe.

Good day.

tim in san jose

Perry Way · Sep 7, 2009

k_jupiter said:
Because I chooose not to present my work on APUG does not preclude the validity of my argument.

I don't present work flows I have not tested. Try it, ignore it, do whatever you wish to with the information offered. Just don't tear down something you don't understand. I have spent a fair amount of time testing PanF with Rodinal in stand development. It has certain attributes of which I have tried to describe.

Good day.

tim in san jose

I wasn't tearing down anything. The way I was taught is the chemistry near the film gets exhausted and thus the need to agitate so as to circulate the developer around so that fresh developer hits the emulsion. So, stand development just seems out of the ordinary given that training. How is that tearing things down? I have asked questions mostly (as I'm intrigued by the lower cost of Rodinal with a weak dilution since I spend big bucks for the manufacturer's recommendations), and stayed away from making any claims other than I sure love Pan F, and that it's my favorite film. I think you meant someone else as tearing something down.

Colin Corneau · Sep 7, 2009

Anyway, so while this pointless argument has been taking place, I've been developing Pan F+ I've actually shot and hope to have some posted up this week.

A few other members have mentioned, in threads and in PMs to me, that they've tried stand or semi-stand...it sounds interesting and I'm willing to try it. What would be useful would be to have someone post up actual results - perhaps an image developed normally and one with stand? - along with the science behind it. Would be a real learning experience for all reading.

PhotoJim · Sep 7, 2009

And what sort of scenes are the ones where stand development is most effective? I assume ones with large contrast ranges.

Jim Edmond · Sep 7, 2009

PhotoJim said:
And what sort of scenes are the ones where stand development is most effective? I assume ones with large contrast ranges.

Yes, the idea is that the highlights will exhaust the developer and slow local development while the shadow areas continue to develop. Also, increasing accutance through edge effects.

There's a Rangefinder forum member with good examples and his processing method: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=927796&postcount=47

I've only tried it a couple of times with mixed results (too much contrast), but had no problem with streaks.

naugastyle · Sep 16, 2009

Beautiful film. Feels like there's never enough time in the year to shoot all the great b/w films out there. This was developed in DD-X.

Any shooters of Ilford Pan F Plus?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency