a) Given equivalent ISOs, a T-grain or Core shell films tend to have less development latitude than convenitonal grain films. This has been my experience, though I feel the problem is worst when the films are underexposed.
b) Generally, the lower your film ISO the quicker the contrast builds. That's evident by just looking at the published development times.
c) Combining both a) and b), I expect Delta 25 would be more difficult to process vs. Pan F+ which - although it might possess elements of Core Shell technology - is really a conventional grain film. Pan F+ is an ISO 50 film - which suggests contrast should build more slowly than it would for ISO 25 Delta.
That suggests Delta 25 might be a difficult animal to process without very, very good tray technique with respect to consistent development time and agitation. With the near constant agitation of tray development and a need to develop the film for a condenser enlarger, we could be talking really short development times. That never helps consistency.
On the other hand, if you use a Jobo, than agitation rate aceases to be a factor and target development times can be achieved with great precision.
I don't doubt that Delta 25 would offer wonderful sharpness and fine grain, but since I don't intend to be using a Jobo any time soon I'd favor a film that was a bit easier to handle.
But, as I said, I'm open to a counter argument as to why the above may not be true. And though I probably wouldn't use the product - it's darn exciting to see a manufacturer willing to try to make this work.
In Ilford's case though, I don't know of any improvements to their films since the mid-80s, so I'd think it'd be more in their best interests to just cut PanF 50 to sheet film sizes and concentrate their R&D money into improving the faster films.
It has been said many times here in this forum if you do a little search.
Ilford has explained many times that they simply CAN'T coat sheet film support with the PanF+ emulsion. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. They cannot.
It has been said many times here in this forum if you do a little search.
I agree that I think it's a bit arrogant to assume that every photographer here is a slow-speed-philiac, that shoots at least 4x5 sheet film. I haven't shot a roll of B&W in almost a month. I've shot fiewer than 50 sheets fo sheet film in my life, and I shoot almost exclusively C-41. So why is it that you expect me to be well-versed on a product I have no need for? Or has APUG banned color as "too modern" now too? This site has even less knowledge of color films than Photo.net does.
It certainly has, and I can understand how someone would tire of hearing it--but I don't think it's kind (or hospitable) to expect that people search what has already been said about every topic they wish to ask or remark about.
As to whether APUG has banned color, that's something you should be able to figure out for yourself.
I was being sarcastic when I made that comment, but I'm sure you get where I was going with that one, the irony of one form of ignorance being acceptable but another, dealing with black and white not so much.
I have honestly never read a thread discussing PanF+ being available or being unavailable in sheets, hence my erroneous assumption that it was. Come on, would I really post suggesting that people use a product that I knew wasn't manufactured?
As far as "staple" for your thread goes, I'd say that Ilford not making 220 has been discussed so close to the point of death that it's become common knowledge.
Well, other than there being a slight disagreement between a and b, I tend to agree. One would think that there'd be more development latitude past the recommended time if t-grain films have less push- and pullability. I have heard that the speed-increasing developers of the '70s tend not to work too well with the new line of Deltas and T-Maxes.
I stand corrected; I thought PanF was available in sheet sizes. IDK. I thought the 25 speed'd not be T-grained, or Delta grained or whatever Ilford's version is.
Slower films tend to be upgraded less frequently than the faster ones due to the diminished need for fine grain with slow films. In Ilford's case though, I don't know of any improvements to their films since the mid-80s, so I'd think it'd be more in their best interests to just cut PanF 50 to sheet film sizes and concentrate their R&D money into improving the faster films. With digital now, IDK if the demand for high speed with fine grain is as great as it once was, but I'd say that's still where you get the most bang for your buck, or GBP in the case of Ilford. The improvements tend to be made in the 400+ ASA films and the improvements then "trickle down" in film improvements of the past.
~Karl
No doubt, the focus has been in higher speed emulsions. Outside of Photo EngineerI don't think there's been much research into ISO 25 and 50 emulsions lately.
No doubt, the focus has been in higher speed emulsions. Outside of Photo EngineerI don't think there's been much research into ISO 25 and 50 emulsions lately.
That may well mean worthwhile gains are possible in the area of grain and sharpness using Delta's core shell technology. Although I don't expect I'll have much use for an ISO 25 film, it would be nice to have something on the market in that speed range other than Efke R25 which looks great (when processed correctly) but is awfully fragile.
Have you tried Rollei Pan 25?
I have not tried it. Is the emulsion less prone to scratching?
I thought that the Rollei 25 was just Agfa Ortho 25/Maco Ort 25 under a different name. At least there have been numerous suggestions on the web that this is true.
Rollei Pan 25 is not like Agfa Ortho 25 nor is it like APX 25. It is made by someone else (Filmotec in Germany).
My website? You like it?
I think if you have financial problems
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?