Failed film test with Pan F+ and Tetenal Ultrafin

[sanderx1]

I'm an occasional B&W shooter and up to now have not really done my own development. So I decided to make a jump and try out developing myself. So I took a couple of rolls of Ilford Pan F+, Les McLeans book and followed the instructions for a film test. As I like the results I have seen from it, I picked Tetenal Ultrafin @ 1+30 as the developer.

The result was ... a total failure. Normal development filmstrip was totally blown out, part of the minus one development was okayish and I haven't dared look at the +1 development strip. It looks like I got abot 2.5 or 3 stops of speed increase.

Does anybody have an idea what might have went wrong? Are the published development times for Ultrafin & Pan F+ way overboard? Is the combination very sensitive to agitation regime? Or should I simply rate Pan F+ at say 200 and try again?

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

Hi,
I've got no idea what went wrong in this case as I've only used PanF+ in D76 and Xtol. If you've checked your dilutions it could just be that the developer has changed since the published times were tested.

I wouldn't think that rating PanF+ at ISO200 is the way to go. In Xtol at 1:3 I rate it at ISO32 to get the results I want.

Did the test involve a blank wall or similar?

Hope someone can help, Matt.

 

[reub2000]

If your negatives are too dense or "burnt" then you shorten your development.

Edit: What do the edge markings look like?

 

[sanderx1]

The Edge is marked ILFORD PANF PLUS 1 0 6 3 on one side, the other has frame numbers and stripecode.

The test didn't involve a blank wall - it involved snow (with several walkways stamped in), bushes and some young and shortish spruces. The test frames ran from -2 of the chosen normal exposure to +2 in steps of 0.5 stop.

 

[reub2000]

The Edge is marked ILFORD PANF PLUS 1 0 6 3 on one side, the other has frame numbers and stripecode.

But are they really dark?

Also, how does this test that your running work?

 

[jstraw]

The Edge is marked ILFORD PANF PLUS 1 0 6 3 on one side, the other has frame numbers and stripecode.

The test didn't involve a blank wall - it involved snow (with several walkways stamped in), bushes and some young and shortish spruces. The test frames ran from -2 of the chosen normal exposure to +2 in steps of 0.5 stop.

Let's say that your meter reading for snow is 1/125th @ f-16.

This represents a Zone V exposure. If you want your snow to be Zone VIII, then your meter reading is three stops under what you need and you'd want to shoot something like 1/125th @ f-5.6. So if you shot a range from -2 to +2 stops relative to your meter's recommendation (say, f-32 to f-8), your range is actually from five stops under to one stop under and your negatives should range from extremely thin to thin. If your underexposed film is too dense, you would have to either develop it WAY too long, or more likely, something's up with the dilution and your developer is WAY too strong.

 

[sanderx1]

This represents a Zone V exposure. If you want your snow to be Zone VIII, then your meter reading is three stops under what you need and you'd want to shoot something like 1/125th @ f-5.6. So if you shot a range from -2 to +2 stops relative to your meter's recommendation (say, f-32 to f-8), your range is actually from five stops under to one stop under and your negatives should range from extremely thin to thin. If your underexposed film is too dense, you would have to either develop it WAY too long, or more likely, something's up with the dilution and your developer is WAY too strong.

Uhh... dude, I have shot snowy scenes many times before and specifly wrote "chosen exposure". Exposure for the 0 or "normal exposure" scene is not what is is question here.

 

[jstraw]

Uhh... dude, I have shot snowy scenes many times before and specifly wrote "chosen exposure". Exposure for the 0 or "normal exposure" scene is not what is is question here.

Actually, that's not what you said. You said "chosen normal exposure" which could have meant more than one thing and I was intentionally focusing on one possible meaning that might help deliniate a possible problem. I was trying to help and meant no offense.

 

[sanderx1]

Sorry I was being a bit testy, hard week. I guess I'll develop the other roll (I shot several) with different times and see how it comes out.

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

If you've got texture on your test frames tell us how the darkest areas in the scene have recorded on the negative. Is there still detail even in the darkest branches?

It is possible that you'll need to rate it at 200 but it would suggest your meter is totally out of whack.