Good development in image, no frame numbers. Ilford Pan F+

[SchwinnParamount]

Ilford Pan F+, Xtol stock 68 degrees. 7 minutes. 10 sec agitation every 60 seconds.

This combo resulted in good negatives. The problem is, the frame numbers and film type labeling that you normally see on the film edges was NOT there. That usually means that I developed with exhausted developer, water, or fixer. But the images would be blank too.

What's up?

 

[AgX]

That film was made when they were having a bad day at Harman and they went out of light...

 

[SchwinnParamount]

That film was made when they were having a bad day at Harman and they went out of light...

Quality control? I thought Harman had that under control. I believe you... but it sorta shakes my faith a bit.

 

[gone]

If the neg images look good, then the development was fine. You must have bought a roll of film where they just forgot to put the edge markings on it, or something odd happened during it's production. I've seen the edge markings that were real light light on my films, dark, etc and finally gave up trying to determine anything from them. This is maybe the 1st time I've heard of it happening w/ Ilford 35mm film though.

 

[abruzzi]

Since Ilford state that PanF+ does not have long latent image retention, is it possible that a 10 year old roll of PanF+ lost its edge numbers? (not saying this is a 10 year old roll, but just a thought.)

 

[MattKing]

How old is the film.
Pan F+ has acknowledged (by Ilford, and others) problems with latent image degradation.
Frame numbers and other edge printing is made by creating latent images through light exposure.
I'm guessing that the frame numbers were once there, but they deteriorated.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

How old is the film.
Pan F+ has acknowledged (by Ilford, and others) problems with latent image degradation.
Frame numbers and other edge printing is made by creating latent images through light exposure.
I'm guessing that the frame numbers were once there, but they deteriorated.

I don't have the box anymore, but I could swear I bought a fairly fresh 100' roll. But I may be wrong. Perhaps it is old. How old would it have to be before it lost edge markings when stored in a cool basement?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

This is an image from the roll. By the way, this is Barry Young (APUG original gangster). He builds cameras, grinds glass, wrote a book on bellows making... etc.

But you can see that I slightly under developed the film. I used my Leica M6 whose metering I fully trust. I didn't under expose the film.

 

[MattKing]

I don't have the box anymore, but I could swear I bought a fairly fresh 100' roll. But I may be wrong. Perhaps it is old. How old would it have to be before it lost edge markings when stored in a cool basement?

Pan F+ is weird. Latent images fade far faster than most other modern films.
People find that their exposed but not developed images fade in months, rather than years.
And it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with storage conditions.

 

[NB23]

Bulk= extra faded markings.
Even with Kodak.
Common knowledge.

With regards to latent image, pan-f is just fine. Understand that iso 50 is already pushing it. Shoot it at iso 25 and you will never experience a latent image problem.

Same with any film: underexpose any film and first thing you know, you find yourself frustrated with “latent image fading”... i have tested all this, trust me...

 

[Anon Ymous]

I don't have the box anymore, but I could swear I bought a fairly fresh 100' roll. But I may be wrong. Perhaps it is old. How old would it have to be before it lost edge markings when stored in a cool basement?

I have an in date Delta 100 100' roll and the edge markings are barely visible...

 

[bedrof]

I've never seen edge markings look fine on Pan F+, 135 or 120 though frames were ok. I believe that is due to quick fading over time.

 

[Nitroplait]

Just a thought from a film-fading-illiterate. If the image/numbers can fade completely as it is theorised in this thread, is it then possible to re-expose previously exposed areas with good results?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Since Ilford state that PanF+ does not have long latent image retention, is it possible that a 10 year old roll of PanF+ lost its edge numbers? (not saying this is a 10 year old roll, but just a thought.)

+1 The latent image keeping properties aren't very good. After a couple years the markings are really faded and eventually disappear.

 

[pentaxuser]

So we appear to have a film, Pan F where latent image fading has only affected the edge marking to the extent of it disappearing but we don't know for sure the age of the film? So once exposed the image on the frame can last quite a long time or not depending on we know not what. It would seem from member's experience to vary immensely

However we seem to have come to the conclusion that while there may or may not be frame exposure fade( although that does not appear to be the case here) after some months, the weakest part of latent image retention lies in the edge markings

I can't recall Ilford differentiating here or making any mention of edge markings being particularly vulnerable but maybe they wrap it up in the blanket recommendation to develop as soon as possible and to avoid a delay of more than 12 weeks

There seems to be more questions than answers here. If I were a Pan F user I'd be tempted to ask the direct question of Ilford: Do the edge markings fade faster than the exposed frames and if so by how much in terms of time

pentaxuser

 

[tezzasmall]

As it happens, I developed a 120 roll of Pan F+ yesterday. Fresh film, no more than a year old, but overlooked and left in the camera until yesterday. There were no film or exposure number markings, although the three exposures yesterday came out, but the rest of it was a totally blank film.

I've barely used this film over the years, with HP5+ being my standard in both 35mm and 120 format and have never had any trouble with that. After reading more about Pan F+ film, HP5+ is what I think that I will stick with.

Terry S

 

[AgX]

I developed a 120 roll of Pan F+ yesterday. Fresh film, no more than a year old, but overlooked and left in the camera until yesterday. There were no film or exposure number markings, although the three exposures yesterday came out, but the rest of it was a totally blank film.

How many exposures were done with this film? Just those 3 from yesterday, or did you make exposures in the months before?

 

[NB23]

Guys, ever seen tmax100, tri-x edge markings on 100’ rolls? Super faded almost nonexistsant.

That’s how 100’ rolls are made

 

[AgX]

That’s how 100’ rolls are made.

Bulk rolls in this respect are not made differently than 135 rolls.
Aside of ordening the figures differently.

 

[NB23]

Bulk rolls in this respect are not made differently than 135 rolls.
Aside of ordening the figures differently.

Sure they are made differently.

First, the edge markings are always, always, almost invisible. Look, this topic has been beaten to death many times before. And I’m onto bulk rolls for more than 20 years now. For 2018-2020 I’ve just finished 20 bulk tmax 100, 2 hp5, 4 tri-x and I am starting my stash of 12 bulk pan-f.

Secondly, bulk rolled Kodak film is clearly marked “tma*x” which is different than the usual TMX 100. So you see? There is a difference.

 

[AgX]

Why should a manufacturer make bulk film differently ?

 

[koraks]

First, the edge markings are always, always, almost invisible.

I've used all kinds of bulk film, including TMAX100 that must have been 15 years out of date by the time I shot it. Edge markings perfectly fine. Same with the HP5+ I'm currently using. I never saw any noticeable difference in edge marking quality between bulk film and individual rolls. Nor is it likely that there is any difference in such quality; it would actually take effort on behalf of the confectioner to expose edge marking to a different degree depending on how the film is packaged later on. It just doesn't make sense.

One situation where Pan F+ can appear to have lost its markings entirely if it happens to be Pan F film that's actually not Ilford, but a respooled German cine copy film stock that was marketed some 15 years ago in very misleading yellow/black packaging that looked like Ilford's at first glance, but really wasn't. It had no edge markings whatsoever. But AFAIK it only came in 35mm, and if you looked closely it actually didn't say 'Ilford' or 'Harman' on the packaging. So if the packaging is explicitly Ilford's, it's probably just the latent image fading issue.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That film was made when they were having a bad day at Harman and they went out of light...

. Yes; it must mean that.the sun wasn't shining in Mobberly that day!

 

[Vaughn]

There seems to be more questions than answers here. If I were a Pan F user I'd be tempted to ask the direct question of Ilford: Do the edge markings fade faster than the exposed frames and if so by how much in terms of time

pentaxuser

light is light -- just how much is used. No other difference.
The numbers are just expose at time of manufacture, thus have a longer time to fade than one's exposed image.

My guess on 100' rolls. They pass thru the numbering machine faster

 

[Nitroplait]

Edge markings on my HP5+ bulk (100feet) does not differ from the commercial rolled HP5+ in intensity.
They are different of course, the commercially rolled also have machine readable bar code, the bulk rolls has numbering beyond 40 frames.