Faulty Pan-F batches?

kdanks · May 25, 2006

I've just read on another forum that there were some faulty batches of Pan-F manufactured between August and December 2005. These gave very thin negatives even when developed for the recommended time.

I've had this problem with Pan-F and assumed it was user error. Has anyone else heard about this? Google and APUG searches don't return anything about it, and it sounds unlikely anyway.

Many thanks

Kevin

reellis67 · May 25, 2006

I have not, but I think that Simon Galley would be the best person to ask. I would send him a PM with the batch number from the box.

- Randy

david b · May 25, 2006

Send a PM to Simon R Galley. He will tell you.

jim appleyard · May 25, 2006

Oh, teriffic! I just got back from shooting some Pan-F 120

Is it re:35 or 120? Can you provide a link to the other forum?

reellis67 · May 25, 2006

I don't have access to my batch numbers right now, but I know that the film I have is normal (i.e. high quality) in both 35 and 120. When I get home I'll try to post the batches.

- Randy

kdanks · May 25, 2006

I've PM'ed Simon and will let you know what he says. I won't post a link to the other forum yet. Someone there mentioned they had underdeveloped some Pan-F, putting it down to user error. Someone else replied saying they had seen lots of messages on various forums which said this was due to manufacturing errors. They have been asked to supply a reference but haven't yet done so - I get the feeling they won't be able to.

This person also observed that the time in question was August to December 2005, which they said was the time when Ilford was being sold to the Chinese... Who knows where they got that from, but it suggests they have no idea what they are talking about.

I posted the question here because if anyone knew the answer it would be an APUG member. The fact that there is nothing in the archives here suggests that there is nothing behind the story, in which case I want to make sure it is corrected before it spreads.

More news when I have it.

Kevin

haris · May 25, 2006

First question about Ilford QC, now this, and I don't know what I missed. And all in past few days. Is this coincidence, or there is purposly planned releasing of informations like these in order to give Ilford products bad name and reputation? No, I don't know if Elvis is alive, who shot JFK and are there ETs, I am not conspiracy theory lover, but atleast two mentions of Ilford products in bad manner in past just few days, that is in very short time interval, I saw, is that coincidence?...

Should Simon (Ilford/Harman) need to make attention of what is going on (what kind of "information" flowing) on internet regarding to them...

And should we at APUG be more carefull, is this beginning of "ultimate attack" to finish analogue photography once for all

I use Ilford product about 10 years only (that is same time I am into photography in first place), and in that short time never had any problem.

haris · May 25, 2006

Sorry, forgot to write:

What I said above is not said against kdanks. I don't kill messenger for bad news

kdanks · May 25, 2006

haris said:
Should Simon (Ilford/Harman) need to make attention of what is going on (what kind of "information" flowing) on internet regarding to them...

If you read my posts above you will see that this is exactly my point. People assume that what they read is correct, and if it isn't then I want it corrected.

Kevin

reellis67 · May 25, 2006

I know that the PanF+ stock I have is from around that time (12/05) and I have not had any problems with it at all. In my experience, almost all of the 'information' of this sort is generated by someone who does not yet have a firm enough grasp on what they are doing to make these sorts of calls, but regardless are quick to blame the product rather than their own inexperience. It does worry me a bit to hear these sorts of rumors, but they do happen to every known product, over and over, at some point or another in time. The best plan in this case is to ask for detailed specifics - i.e. lot/batch numbers, etc. - and when, inevitably, they cannot produce said information, question why that person would believe hearsay without any evidence.

- Randy

haris · May 25, 2006

Yes kdanks, and I wrote that I am not saying you are responsabile for any rummors, you just informed us (Simon especially) to pay attention to those rummors. As English is not my native language, maybe what I said sounds like targeted against you. That is not case.

What triggered me to be suspicious (not over you kdanks, but what can be found on internet regarding this issue) is such lack of precision. For example, what you wrote: "Someone else replied saying they had seen lots of messages on various forums which said this was due to manufacturing errors."

Someone said that someone saw somewhere on internet... No names of forums, no sources of informations, nothing particular. Those hear-say can be potentialy dangerous and thank you for informing us about that.

I hope I didn't make more confusion in this attempt to clear my words...

c6h6o3 · May 25, 2006

kdanks said:
These gave very thin negatives even when developed for the recommended time.

I've had this problem with Pan-F and assumed it was user error. Has anyone else heard about this?

I haven't heard about it, but I surely have some awfully thin Pan-F negatives. I haven't used this film in quite a few years and the first roll I developed of the two I just bought is way too thin. I'd say that the speed of this roll is somewhere around 6 rather than 50.

It's not my development, which I did by inspection, but the underexposure of the film which I rated at 25 that makes for the defect. The midtones are weak and shadow detail nonexistant.

Tom Stanworth · May 25, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
I haven't heard about it, but I surely have some awfully thin Pan-F negatives. I haven't used this film in quite a few years and the first roll I developed of the two I just bought is way too thin. I'd say that the speed of this roll is somewhere around 6 rather than 50.

It's not my development, which I did by inspection, but the underexposure of the film which I rated at 25 that makes for the defect. The midtones are weak and shadow detail nonexistant.

This is similar to an experience I had with Pan F shot in Dec 05. All was fresh stock but I dont know when it was made. I rated at 40 and bracketed 1 stop over (ei 20) and all negs were very thin (underdeveloped) and very underexposed...even those at ei 20. I developed in new Ilfosol S, unopened and initially for the recommended time. I ended up developing the remaining roles at recommended time plus 50% and still got some of the worst negs I have ever produced. Could be my fault but I shot lots of APX100 and FP4 plus at the same time and had very full negs. The prob was confined to the Pan F Ilfosol combo - The same Ilfosol used with the APX gave good speed. Based on this experience I would have rated the Pan F at about 12. This is not right. Either I made an error solely with the Pan F or the film was dodgy. As I say I shot APX on some of the same scenes in another body and used the same dev (bracketed at ei 80) and had no issues. Both bodies areoperating perfectly.

Might not be an inexperienced photographer gassing, but a real, momentary QC error. I suspect the latter and threw out my remaing half dozen rolls a while back. I was only mucking about trying Ilfosol S and was not sufficiently bothered by losing the images, but threw out the film nonelthess. I thought something was very amiss, but had other things to worry about so just canned it.

Tom

reellis67 · May 25, 2006

Exactly. That's more along the lines of the kind of evidence you need to start looking into problems. It's too bad you didn't have the boxes though, it might have proved useful in tracking down a bad lot.

- Randy

david b · May 25, 2006

Could you guys also say what developer is being used?

I am having some issues with the last batches of Rodinal. I bought a few bottles in December or January and everything I am developing in it, including Pan F+, is coming out thin. This also includes APX 100 which I have been exposing and developing the same way for several years.

Let us know.

kdanks · May 25, 2006

reellis67 said:
The best plan in this case is to ask for detailed specifics - i.e. lot/batch numbers, etc. - and when, inevitably, they cannot produce said information, question why that person would believe hearsay without any evidence.

Indeed. Questions have already been asked, and as you say I think it is inevitable that the person concerned will not be able to produce any evidence at all.

Kevin

Claire Senft · May 25, 2006

Well let there be no mistake. Elvis is dead and I shot him.

c6h6o3 · May 25, 2006

reellis67 said:
Exactly. That's more along the lines of the kind of evidence you need to start looking into problems. It's too bad you didn't have the boxes though, it might have proved useful in tracking down a bad lot.

- Randy

The second roll of the two I just bought is still in the box. I will write down the emulsion number. They still have plenty of boxes of this film on the shelf in the store where I bought it, so it should be easy to see if they're all the same batch.

c6h6o3 · May 25, 2006

david b said:
Could you guys also say what developer is being used?

I used Panthermic 777. However, the developer is irrelevant since I developed the film by inspection.

The highlights have the right density, since that's how you determine if the film is cooked enough. If the highlights are right and the midtones and shadows below them are watery, we know that the film was underexposed. I rated the film at 12 using a No. 15 deep yellow filter in bright sunlight. This should have yielded plenty of density for a film ostensibly rated at 50 but did not.

sanking · May 25, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
I used Panthermic 777. However, the developer is irrelevant since I developed the film by inspection.

The highlights have the right density, since that's how you determine if the film is cooked enough. If the highlights are right and the midtones and shadows below them are watery, we know that the film was underexposed. I rated the film at 12 using a No. 15 deep yellow filter in bright sunlight. This should have yielded plenty of density for a film ostensibly rated at 50 but did not.

OK, you rate the film at 12, but how did you determine exposure? Did you meter the scene, and if so, what method did you use? Or did you go by the sunny and f/16 rule and add about two stops exposure for the deep yellow filter?

Before anyone concludes that the film has a real EI index of 6 or 12, I would suggest shooting a roll of film in the sun, with no filters, using the sunny and f/16 rule, and then develop in a standard developer that is known to produce full emulsion speed. D76 1:1 or ID 11 would be my suggestion.

I personally doubt very much that Ilford QC is so bad that they would let allow any significant amount of film on the market that is two or three stops slower than the rated ASA.

BTW, I bought a few 100 foot rolls of the outdated Pan F from Freestyle and ran some sensitometry tests with it. It gave full emulsion speed with two different developers where the ES was set for printing on silver VC papers.

Sandy

c6h6o3 · May 25, 2006

sanking said:
Before anyone concludes that the film has a real EI index of 6 or 12, I would suggest shooting a roll of film in the sun, with no filters, using the sunny and f/16 rule, and then develop in a standard developer that is known to produce full emulsion speed. D76 1:1 or ID 11 would be my suggestion.

I will. I'll buy a few more rolls on the way home tonight along with some fresh Ilford developer.

sanking said:
I personally doubt very much that Ilford QC is so bad that they would let allow any significant amount of film on the market that is two or three stops slower than the rated ASA.

I doubt it, too. Pan F+ has always been my favorite film and I've never had any trouble with it.

How's this for a deal? I'll shoot the film, develop it and send you the negatives. You can read the densities, as I have no densitometer.

Earl Dunbar · May 25, 2006

ethanol: What batch number(s)? If you posted it I apologize. That would be important information, both for others here and for Simon.

jim appleyard · May 25, 2006

I just did 3 rolls of Pan-F 120, all fine. I bought it from Adorama in Feb. Batch #03BPY1C01/02, exp. 12/06

sanking · May 25, 2006

c6h6o3 said:
How's this for a deal? I'll shoot the film, develop it and send you the negatives. You can read the densities, as I have no densitometer.

Be happy to do that. I would suggest that you expose half of the roll, cut that part off and develop it. *If* your results suggest that the speed of the film is really low you can then send me the other half of the roll to expose and develop. I will then simply test with sensitometry in the same way I test other films, which will establish a film speed relationship between the Pan-F and other films and developers.

Unfortunately I am leaving for a trip out west very soon and won't be able to run these tests until mid- to late July.

Sandy

Ondrej1 · May 26, 2006

I've seen this once on my negative. To verify this, I shoot another film from the same batch, without filters, carefully checked exposure, extremely precisely developed, and guess what - problem disappeared. PanF+ is great film, just too easy to screw it up, in my case it was most likely cold developer.

Just try another one from the same batch and rule out other possible errors.

Faulty Pan-F batches?

haris

haris

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency