I stuffed up Pan F+ Exposure Index - Suggestions Please

Palmer

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
25
Location
Australia
Format
35mm
As the title states, I stupidly thought I had my camera loaded with FP4+, and rated at EI160, but I actually had Pan F+ loaded. So, it's been under exposed by a stop and a half, (not a lot but it is Pan F+) and I'm seeking recommendations from the brains trust as to which of the following options you think are best to develop it with.

1. Stand develop in Rodinal 1+100 for 60 - 90 minutes (suggestions regarding time needed here)
2. Push with Mytol developer (again, times and dilution suggestions needed)
3. Use a Diafine Substitute (once again, time and dilution needed here also)

I list these 3 options because I have the chemicals on hand but if someone has a better option I'm all ears.

I keep changing my mind as to which one would be best so I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks.

Steve
 

glbeas

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2002
Messages
3,937
Location
Marietta, Ga. USA
Format
Multi Format
Ive stand developed Pan F in Rodinal before and got quite good results with exposures in that range. Other option if it were available is acufine of ethol developers which raise the ei.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Stand will not help in this situation. For stand to work it's magic, you need ample exposure in the shadows. I would push in Rodinal 1+25 for about 15 minutes. I'm guessing here, now. When I push, I use Xtol-R... and of course, the push is intentional, with HP5
Good luck... you'll end up with something, I'm sure!
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,415
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Palmer said:
2. Push with Mytol developer (again, times and dilution suggestions needed)
Click to expand...

I'd give this a try, and then use something like Mytol stock (1+0) and 10 minutes or so. This is going by the massive dev chart and then rounding up a bit. The time wouldn't be all that critical as long as it's long enough. I see an entry for pan f+ at EI 200 and 9 minutes 1+0 XTOL.
Shadows will of course be lost to oblivion at least in part, but you've got to work with what you've got.

Not sure if I'd risk this with Rodinal if you have access to something XTOL-like. You need all the help you can get in salvaging whatever is left of the shadows; Rodinal doesn't seem the tool of choice under those conditions, but that's just my 2 cts.
 

NB23

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
4,307
Format
35mm
Stand? {Moderator's deletion of rude and dismissive coined word intended to indicate poster's dislike of "stand development}

Develop double the time, 5 energetic inversions every 30 seconds. Be done with it.

Why are some people afraid of agitating? The whole point of agitation is to save the film.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • pentaxuser
  • Deleted
  • Reason: response to inflammatory part of post
  • NB23
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Argumentative

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,411
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
{Moderator's deletion of otherwise reasonable response to rude post}
To OP [Original Poster] ==>


Welcome to APUG Photrio!!​
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,232
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Rude and argumentative posts deleted. If you disagree with a recommendation for stand or other types of reduced agitation development, make a civil argument for your position.

To the OP: FWIW, I too recommend against stand or semi-stand development in this situation, and in most other situations as well.
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,014
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Matt, post 3 makes a sensible, polite and friendly argument why stand development is not the right option but I felt the response to what was a reasonable question and was in fact his first post was neither polite nor friendly to put it mildly and it was reasonable to point this out. Had this been a response to the same question from me as my first question I might well have not bothered to use Photrio again. I felt that it was reasonable to say something.

Anyway, I take it that the correct response from members is to ignore such responses in the thread itself and if it represents an inappropriate response to the extent that a member feels it should be drawn to that person's attention then it should be reported to a moderator who decides if any action needs to be taken?


Thanks

pentaxuser
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,014
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Andrew O'Neill said:
Wow what did I miss?? I'm always late to the party!
Click to expand...

Well nothing now, Andrew. It's like the famous British Bobby( policeman for anyone not familiar with the term Bobby) who says: " Now now, move along there. There's nothing to see here"

Matt has sorted it out

pentaxuser
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,232
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Essentially:
1) Report rudeness, don't respond to it;
2) Respond to content with more content.
3) When content is intermixed with rudeness, see 1) and 2).
There are certainly times when people's content-full responses make moderation unnecessary.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Essentially:
1) Report rudeness, don't respond to it;
2) Respond to content with more content.
3) When content is intermixed with rudeness, see 1) and 2).
There are certainly times when people's content-full responses make moderation unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Very simple guide to follow.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
pentaxuser said:
Well nothing now, Andrew. It's like the famous British Bobby( policeman for anyone not familiar with the term Bobby) who says: " Now now, move along there. There's nothing to see here"

Matt has sorted it out

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

and some still refer to police as "the Old Bill"
 
OP
OP

Palmer

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
25
Location
Australia
Format
35mm
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Apologies for ruffling some feathers by mentioning the "stand" word. I only asked about stand development because I have Rodinal on hand and didn't think just extending developing time with Rodinal would work, so I asked about stand development. That's all. I'm not a Stand developer type, but that's not to say I have anything against it. My standard Dev / Film combo these days is FP4+ developed in Divided D23, hence my mistake with the Pan F+, and I knew DD23 would not work to save the Pan F+.

Pentaxuser, thanks for looking out for me but don't worry, I am not new here on APUG / PHOTRIO and have witnessed a few verbal fisticuffs over the years. I've actually been here for many years but a couple of years ago I had a real Dickens of a time trying to log in for some reason so I tried to change my password several times but that didn't work either so in the end I just created a new account. My previous user name was "ssp65".

It seems like XTOL / MYTOL is the way to go so that's what I'll do.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

Steve
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,232
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

I'll give Sean a heads up on this - he can probably merge your two accounts.
Thanks for persevering.
 
  • pentaxuser
  • Deleted
  • Reason: ththis needs to be let be - the incivility has been dealt with through moderation.

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format

I really don't understand why some people have to get their knickers in a knot whenever stand dev is brought up, then spewing their displeasure all over everyone. Palmer, please let us know what route you go and how it turned out. I use Pan F a lot...
 
OP
OP

Palmer

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
25
Location
Australia
Format
35mm
Matt, thank you. If my accounts can be merged, that would be nice but if not, it's OK. It was my fault initially as I forgot my password. The problem was, if I remember correctly, that I had trouble changing my password. That's why I created a new account. Photrio is a great site and a great resource and I'll be around as long as it is.

Pentaxuser, I didn't see the posts that were deleted as they had been moderated out by the time I got back to looking at the replies. I'm not sure why the poster was so annoyed or angered by the suggestion of stand development but I will say that I have been known to get irritated by a thing or two myself.

Andrew, I will let everyone know how it turns out but my more immediate problem is getting the film onto the reel. I attempted to load the film onto the reel last night, using a changing bag, but the reel must have been very slightly damp ( l live in a very damp location currently) and the film would not go on fully. I could kick myself because I know better and usually, just as a matter of course, blast the reels with a hair dryer before loading. I got complacent and now am paying the price. Lesson learned.

Steve
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,232
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Further moderation done. Let's leave the subject of why moderation was needed behind - it had absolutely nothing to do with stand development, and had everything to do with posting behavior on Photrio.
 

albada

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
2,175
Location
Escondido, C
Format
35mm RF
Palmer said:
It seems like XTOL / MYTOL is the way to go so that's what I'll do.
Click to expand...

Xtol is known to boost film-speed by 1/3 stop in comparison with many other developers. That's 1/3 stop more shadow detail, and you need dig out all the shadow detail you can. Hence the suggestion to use Mytol, as it's similar to Xtol. Please let us know how it goes.
 
OP
OP

Palmer

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
25
Location
Australia
Format
35mm
Albada, I will definitely let you know how it turns out - if I can get the film onto the reel.

Raghu, thanks for the suggestion of SLIMT. I've not used this process before but have read a little about it and must try it out. Thanks for your processing recommendations.

Steve
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,072
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format

I used to use SLIMT a lot back in the 90's. It's pretty amazing, but I only used it with films that received ample exposure. I might have to dig up my dusty old notes and give it another whirl...
 

albada

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
2,175
Location
Escondido, C
Format
35mm RF

The website (link above) describing SLIMT contains this sentence: "A contrastwise bleach reduces image contrast while mostly leaving film speed alone..." The word "mostly" implies that such a bleach will reduce shadow detail a little. But the OP has underexposed the roll, so he needs to boost shadow detail, not reduce it. So dense highlights in his negs must be dealt with some other way, such as pre-exposing (flashing) the paper or scanning the negs and adjusting them with the curves tool.

But given ample exposure, SLIMT sounds like a good way to deal with high contrast scenes, such as those with both sun and shade.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,415
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
SLIMT is not going to harm shadows that didn't get recorded.
Click to expand...

Ok, but it WILL harm the shadows that DID get recorded

SLIMT is nice, but IMO takes some testing on the particular film used. I would be weary of just giving it a go with the .1% solution, at the risk of (1) either it not having much of an effect at all or (2) worse, a detrimental effect on the lower densities that are in principle recoverable, but that could be degraded by bleaching.

Although I don't have the amount of experience you have with SLIMT, I did do some testing at some point and found that it was absolutely critical to adjust the dilution of the bleach to the film used and to a lesser extent the strength of the effect. It sure is a very interesting technique, although I personally see it as more of a relevant one when using sheet film.

Long story short: I would not recommend SLIMT without prior testing on this particular film to establish a baseline.
 
OP
OP

Palmer

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
25
Location
Australia
Format
35mm
Well, the results are in and they're not great but not unexpected either. I decided to use MYTOL stock for 9 minutes @ 20 celcius. 30 seconds initial agitation then 10 seconds of agitation every minute. The negatives are still drying but as expected the shadow detail is not great. There is detail but it's a bit blocked up. To be fair though, the photos were taken in bright sunshine so the Pan F+ really should have been rated at least at EI 25. The midtones are OK and the hightlights won't require much burning in if I choose to print any of the negs. The photos are of my wife and dog and unfortunately, my wife is dressed in black and dark grey and my dog is all black so luck was not on my side with this one.

In addition to this the negatives have a strange mottling all over them that I don't know the cause of. It has nothing to do with the underexposure. The roll of Pan F+ would be quite old (over 10 years and not refrigerated) so that could be the cause but I have seen something similar, but not nearly as bad, using XTOL stock with TRI-X . XTOL 1+1 I have found to be very satisfying.

So, with the job done the takeaway is obviously, don't underexpose Pan F+ by a stop and a half and expect MYTOL to save you. But having said that, the negs really are printable (with some effort) so maybe MYTOL did save me.

Thank you to everyone for your advice and recommendations. I'm in half a mind to go and do some experiments to find the best option for when I stupidly underexpose my film next time.

Steve
 

pentaxuser

Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
20,014
Location
Daventry, No
Format
35mm
Once cleaned and dried, try running a soft-leaded pencil round both "wheels of the the reel" from outside to centre, The softer the better such as a 6-8B. I tried this thanks to a tip from member Richard Gould and it worked for me

pentaxuser
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…