Developing Ilford Pan-F @ 25?

[Cybertrash]

Hi everyone,

I shot some Pan-F+ in the studio yesterday, and I chose to expose it at ISO 25 instead of 50, as I read that would work better in contrasty lighting. However I'm not quite sure how I should develop the film now. I think I want to develop in Rodinal to achieve high acutance, but at what dilutions and times I don't know. I've heard that Pan-F can blow the highlights quite easily and that is something I'd want to be very careful about considering the lighting I used (blown out foreheads don't look too nice). Any ideas?

 

[polyglot]

Pan-F at 25 in Rodinal is great.

I do it in 1+49 for 6:30 at 20C, rotary development (continuous agitation). The continuous agitation bit is important because agitation has a very strong effect with Rodinal; if you do classic "Ilford Agitation" (a minute then ten seconds per minute) then you will need a longer time.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

if you do classic "Ilford Agitation" (a minute then ten seconds per minute) then you will need a longer time.

That's not exactly right.
Ilford agitation is 4 inversions for 10 seconds every minute.

From the PanF Plus datasheet:

Agitation
Intermittent agitation is recommended for use in
spiral tanks and deep tanks. With spiral tanks,
invert the tank four times during the first 10
seconds, then invert the tank four times again
during the first 10 seconds of each further minute.
Otherwise, follow the recommendations given by
the processing equipment manufacturer.

 

[ghart]

FWIW I use Perceptol with Pan F rated at 25. Not high acutance, if you want that, but excellent tonality with good control of the highlights and shadow detail. I use the developer diluted 1+1 for 9 min at 20 degC, agitation according to the Ilford datasheet.

George

 

[jim appleyard]

There's a gent by the name of Chris Waller (I'm not sure wether he's on this site or a different one), but he shoots Pan-F at EI 25 and soups in Rodinal 1+50, 20C for 8.5 min. H egives four inversions for the first 30 sec. and one inversion each 30 after that.

I believe he does this on a regular basis. He's taken some stunning shots this way. Good guy, too.

 

[MartinP]

It would be a wise idea to shoot another roll under the same lighting conditions, then use that for several tests of developing times, and developers, to select the one you prefer for the original roll. Of course, letting everyone know here what you chose, and why.

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

I'd go with 9:00-9:30 in Rodinal 1:50, but I haven't shot any PanF+ myself so this is based on available times on MDC.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

It would be a wise idea to shoot another roll under the same lighting conditions, then use that for several tests of developing times, and developers, to select the one you prefer for the original roll. Of course, letting everyone know here what you chose, and why.

Thermometers, water, and other thing are all different. What works for one may not work for you.

 

[gone]

My experience w/ Rodinal, which admittedly is with faster films, is to keep agitation gentle and minimal. A lot of this depends on how you shot the film of course (high or low contrast light, bright sun or diffused, subject matter, and where you placed your metering), and how you prefer your negs, but generally I find it's easier to bump contrast later in printing than to take it away. 30 seconds of initial agitation might be a good place to start, and w/ some films I only give it 2 slow inversions every minute or two. You'll have to experiment to see where you like it. Those shots polyglot posted on his link look wonderful though. For his water, thermometer, etc, he obviously has it dialed in.

 

[markbarendt]

There are a few things going on here, it isn't a one factor problem, so lets take it apart.

Hi everyone,

I shot some Pan-F+ in the studio yesterday, and I chose to expose it at ISO 25 instead of 50, as I read that would work better in contrasty lighting.

First, contrast and subject placement are at the most basic level is a product of the lighting in the scene.

In this case, in a studio, the lighting is controlled so the contrast and subject placement have technically been fully controlled.

I've heard that Pan-F can blow the highlights quite easily and that is something I'd want to be very careful about considering the lighting I used (blown out foreheads don't look too nice). Any ideas?

Negative films don't blow their highlights easily. Slides sure, but not negatives. IMO the thought that Pan-F or any negative film "blows it's highlights easily" is an urban myth based in people thinking negative shooting & printing works like it does with slides in that there is "one perfect exposure and one perfect development that will yield a perfect print."

Instead negative films almost universally have a significant amount of overexposure latitude. Pan F is not an exception to this rule. What I'm saying is that negatives normally catch a lot more highlight detail than we ask them to print. Your choice to use EI 25 instead of 50 simply means that you have extra shadow detail on the negative (that you may or may not use) not that highlights get blown out on the negative. You can still print the same highlights you just need to make a print exposure adjustment.

The problem isn't the negative.

When people talk about blown highlights and they are printing from negatives, IMO they are really saying, "the highlights don't straight print easily."

The fix for that can be softer development of the film (pulling or minus development), a softer paper grade, burn and dodge, or in your case here the use of controlled lighting in the studio.

IMO for shots on any film that are done in studio lighting there should be no reason to deviate from "normal" film development. The contrast and highlights should already be right if the studio was set up well. Adjustments will be small and easily corrected with VC printing methods.

However I'm not quite sure how I should develop the film now. I think I want to develop in Rodinal to achieve high acutance, but at what dilutions and times I don't know.

Next, The acutance decision is a separate decision from contrast. Just using Rodinal in place of a more solvent developer is a big step that direction. If the above logic makes sense to you then just pick a scheme that gets you normal contrast on the negative.

 

[MartinP]

Thermometers, water, and other thing are all different. What works for one may not work for you.

Exactly. So the OP can best guarantee success with his valuable film by carrying out his own tests on another roll, shot in similar lighting (but not needing the same subjects as the original of course). Precisely copying a suggestion that works for someone else, in a different location etc. etc. is uncertain without a local test and any modifications that might be necessary.

 

[kreeger]

Lots of variables come into play to answer your question Cyber.

Generally speaking the length of development can vary in starting recommendation based on what your target output for these negatives is. Is it for silver prints or scanning? If for silver prints, is your enlarger condenser or diffusion?
One other question, in your studio did you use strobe or continuous light? How did you determine the exposure for ISO 25, flash meter, reflected or incident readings?

 

[StephenT]

I use Diafine with PanF. I now expose at ISO 50, not 80 as suggested as a starting point.

It works well for me.

I'll second the recommendation of shooting multiple rolls and testing. Since you can get PanF in bulk, load up some short rolls and give it a whirl.

Lot's of ways to keep busy in analog photography!

 

[BMbikerider]

Rodinal & Pan F @ 25 ISO

The recomended development for Ilford Pan F @ 25 ISO in Rodinal is to dilute 1-100 and process for 15 mins @ 20C or 68F. The CORRECT agitation using Rodinal as stated by Agfa themselves was to fill the tank, then continuous agitation for 30 seconds then one inversion every 30 seconds.

As Rodinal is a high accutance developer, (or edge developer) this depends upon exhaustion of the developer along the edges of differing tones. Constant agitation or even agitating for 10 seconds every minute will stop or reduce this edge sharpening (Also known as the Sabatier effect) becoming apparent, which will in turn reduce the apparent sharpness and a slight increase in grain.

 

[Xmas]

The critical thing is to fix properly if you want the negatives to last.
Development any of the above ways should work.

I use Rodinal 60 minutes 1:100 20c three inversions to shake the bubbles at the beginning and set the kitchen timer for 60 mins, this is full stand. Might blow your highlights but mine have been ok.

Depends too if you are going to wet print or scan.

 

[AlanC]

The recomended development for Ilford Pan F @ 25 ISO in Rodinal is to dilute 1-100 and process for 15 mins @ 20C or 68F. The CORRECT agitation using Rodinal as stated by Agfa themselves was to fill the tank, then continuous agitation for 30 seconds then one inversion every 30 seconds.

As Rodinal is a high accutance developer, (or edge developer) this depends upon exhaustion of the developer along the edges of differing tones. Constant agitation or even agitating for 10 seconds every minute will stop or reduce this edge sharpening (Also known as the Sabatier effect) becoming apparent, which will in turn reduce the apparent sharpness and a slight increase in grain.

For PAN F rated at 25 Ilford don't actually give times for Rodinal. though they do give times for rodinal at 1:25 and 1:50 for PAN F rated at 50.

For PAN F rated at 25 ( and exposed in sunny conditions) I have had good results with ID11 at 1+3, for 12.5 minutes at 20 degrees C. Ilford give this time and dilution for ID11 on their data sheet. They give the same time for D76 at 1:3.
ID 11 or D76 at a dilution of 1:3 give very sharp results - as sharp as you will get from Rodinal IMO - with finer grain than Rodinal. And the 1:3 dilution gives good control over highlights, allowing you to print on the middle paper grades.

Alan