Developer suggestion for Ilford Pan F plus at box speed

[Sidd]

I have just exposed a few rolls of Pan F plus at box speed (ISO 50). The rolls were shot at a cold desert more than 10,000 feet above sea level. The sky was clear and the sun blazing, sunlight bouncing off the rocks and snow. Can you please suggest options for the best possible development of my rolls? Please mention the developer and the development time.

 

[pentaxuser]

I note that you asked a similar question in 2016 and from what I interpret from your reply to, I think, Ian Grant you seem to have chosen Pyrocat HD. Can I ask what you found to be not ideal from that developer?

With a low ISO film with less grain and assuming Pyrocat HD after trying it was not your ideal developer, I'd be tempted to use the likes of Perceptol or if you make your own, good old D23

Can you say what qualities you want the negative to have such as more or less grain, more or less accutance etc Otherwise we are "punching at the air" i.e. advising something which might not be what you are seeking

pentaxuser

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I would venture to say that the shooting conditions you describe is not ideal for Pan F plus, since this film tend to have high contrast (at least from my limited experience).

I have used this film with D-76 and some other general-purpose developer (with very gentle agitation), but I would suggest a developer that produce lower contrast, like D-23 or POTA. Unfortunately, POTA decrease speed, I don't think D-23 will lose too much speed.

D-23 would use time similar to D-76 and POTA developer would use something between 14-16 minutes at around 75 degrees (I guess probably 20 something minutes at 68). Also, would suggest gentle agitation, like 1 inversion each minute?

I don't really use much Pan F Plus a lot (probably 10 rolls) since I think Pan F is quite temperamental. Its great when you get it right but horrible when you miss the spot.

 

[Sidd]

I note that you asked a similar question in 2016 and from what I interpret from your reply to, I think, Ian Grant you seem to have chosen Pyrocat HD. Can I ask what you found to be not ideal from that developer?

With a low ISO film with less grain and assuming Pyrocat HD after trying it was not your ideal developer, I'd be tempted to use the likes of Perceptol or if you make your own, good old D23

Can you say what qualities you want the negative to have such as more or less grain, more or less accutance etc Otherwise we are "punching at the air" i.e. advising something which might not be what you are seeking

pentaxuser

Being new to the community I was not sure whether my question in the older thread from 2016 would reach Mr. Grant. For this reason I started this thread.

Moreover, my rolls are very precious to me, I don't want to ruin them. For this reason, I wanted some valuable suggestions from the experienced contributors here.

 

[Sidd]

Can you say what qualities you want the negative to have such as more or less grain, more or less accutance etc Otherwise we are "punching at the air" i.e. advising something which might not be what you are seeking

I would want negatives with controlled highlights (a problem with Pan f+), good tonality and sharpness.

 

[xkaes]

As already mentioned, for lower contrast in a high contrast situation -- deserts in the full sun -- you have basically already under-exposed the film somewhat. That typically means over-developing the film -- which increases the contrast.

In your situation, the solution is easy -- but time-consuming. Take a few tests shots at ISO 50, on a new roll, in a similar situation -- as close as you can get -- and develop them as you might expect (or as others advise). If the results are OK, you are all set. If they are too contrasty, take another set of shots -- only a few are needed -- and adjust the development (change the developer, dilution, time, method, etc.). Rinse and repeat.

Another point to consider, desert scenes normally should have plenty of contrast, and you can always use a lower contrast paper & developer/method.

I'd run some easy tests before you develop any of the film.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

As already mentioned, for lower contrast in a high contrast situation -- deserts in the full sun -- you have basically already under-exposed the film somewhat. That typically means over-developing the film -- which increases the contrast.

In your situation, the solution is easy -- but time-consuming. Take a few tests shots at ISO 50, on a new roll, in a similar situation -- as close as you can get -- and develop them as you might expect (or as others advise). If the results are OK, you are all set. If they are too contrasty, take another set of shots -- only a few are needed -- and adjust the development (change the developer, dilution, time, method, etc.). Rinse and repeat.

Another point to consider, desert scenes normally should have plenty of contrast, and you can always use a lower contrast paper & developer/method.

I'd run some easy tests before you develop any of the film.

that's pretty sound advice xkaes, more for important rolls.

Also, Sidd, remember that this film is famous for NOT keeping well on undeveloped state, meaning should be developed soon, otherwise image quality tends to degrade.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Rodinal 1:100 semi stand development for low contrast or Ilford PQ with higher dilution to achieve low contrast
If you dont have access to these, develop with whateer you have and maybe have less agitation to protect the highlights?

 

[Mark J]

If these are still the rolls from 2016, then prepare yourself to find nothing left of the images on there.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

If these are still the rolls from 2016, then prepare yourself to find nothing left of the images on there.

Once I went to a mountain hike travel and rolls where left undeveloped for something more than a month, and image showed sign of degradation. Something like fogging but not exactly. Thats what keep me from using this film too much. Too much "babysitting".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

John Finch has a good set of videos on how to deal with the contrast of Pan F+

 

[BobUK]

The 10,00 foot height caught my attention.
A bit late now that you have your exposures, but it reminded of a leaflet for an ultra violet (UV) filter I was reading a few days ago.

UV Haze filter.
For taking pictures in the mountains at a height from 4000 feet up.
Protects against ultra violet rays, causing trouble when taking pictures.
For both colour and black and white films.
No exposure corrections required.

 

[pentaxuser]

Being new to the community I was not sure whether my question in the older thread from 2016 would reach Mr. Grant. For this reason I started this thread.

Moreover, my rolls are very precious to me, I don't want to ruin them. For this reason, I wanted some valuable suggestions from the experienced contributors here.

I understand your worry in the second sentence above but you have already made a decision on the film and used it so what you need to do is use the times suggested by the makers of the various developers if you want to be relatively safe in producing usable negatives

D23 is a good developer or Perceptol if you want fine grain but there is not a magic combination of a particular developer that was made for Pan F. for those conditions you describe. It depends what you want as I said

pentaxuser

 

[mrosenlof]

Look at the Ilford datasheet for Pan F and use the time suggested for box speed for D-76 or ID-11 if you have either of them available. If not, do the same for HC-110 or Ilfotec HC.

 

[cliveh]

14 minutes in D76 at 1:1 and at 20 degrees C

 

[warden]

John Finch has a good set of videos on how to deal with the contrast of Pan F+

Thanks for the intro to John Finch, Alex. he’s new to me.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the intro to John Finch, Alex. he’s new to me.

Yes most if not all his videos are worth watching. His presentation skills are as good as anyone on YouTube I have seen

pentaxuser

 

[dynachrome]

I have read many times that D-23 is "softer working" than D-76. When the two developers are used to get the same contrast index, they are quite similar. For the Pan F+ at box speed, I would try Perceptol 1:3. I used to develop it in Microdol-X 1:3 with good results.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I settled on D-23 1+3, but at an EI of 25. MDC suggests D-23 1+3 ISO 50 15:00.

 

[bluechromis]

I have read many times that D-23 is "softer working" than D-76. When the two developers are used to get the same contrast index, they are quite similar. For the Pan F+ at box speed, I would try Perceptol 1:3. I used to develop it in Microdol-X 1:3 with good results.

In The FDC 2nd ed. p. 54, Troop and Anchell say that if undiluted, D-23 is not a lower contrast developer than D-76. It it only when it is diluted or used as two-bath that it becomes a lower contrast, softer working developer than D-76.

 

[bluechromis]

The conventional wisdom holds that it may be problematic to use a film like Pan F that has trouble accommodating high dynamic range scenes for landscape photography. But the conventional wisdom does not provide the best artistic answer in every situation. For example, the renowned photographer Brett Weston would intentionally have substantial areas of an image with totally blocked shadows because he wanted a more abstract effect. The OP should use their own judgment as to whether Pan F serves their purposes. If Pan F cannot accommodate the dynamic range of a scene, it means that either the shadows, the highlights, or possibly both, are going to get blocked up and lack detail. In that case, it would be best for the OP to decide which he wants thrown out of the sled, the highlights or the shadows. This would be best done when exposing the film, but it could influence how he develops it. Longer development will help the shadows but put the highlights at risk and vice versa. https://www.westongallery.com/original-works-by/brett-weston

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I would try Ilford Microphen 1+1 for 5-6 minutes to start.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I have read many times that D-23 is "softer working" than D-76. When the two developers are used to get the same contrast index, they are quite similar. For the Pan F+ at box speed, I would try Perceptol 1:3. I used to develop it in Microdol-X 1:3 with good results.

Any implication on using perceptol for a roll exposed at box speed? Heard that with Perceptol made made you lose about one step of speed.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Any implication on using perceptol for a roll exposed at box speed? Heard that with Perceptol made made you lose about one step of speed.

Yes, that's why I suggested Microphen. Perceptol is contraindicated. The film is very fine-grained to begin with, so no need for a fine-grain developer.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have just exposed a few rolls of Pan F plus at box speed (ISO 50). The rolls were shot at a cold desert more than 10,000 feet above sea level. The sky was clear and the sun blazing, sunlight bouncing off the rocks and snow. Can you please suggest options for the best possible development of my rolls? Please mention the developer and the development time.

Microphen, Xtol, Atomal 49. Follow the instructions for the developer. Diluted for one shot use. These will help with the film speed.