Ilford Pan 100, 400

[maclin]

Hey Y'all !! Just asking for a little enlightenment.

I have noticed some Ilford films on Ebay that are not listed on the Ilford website, namely, Pan 100 and Pan 400.

They seem to be available only from sellers in SE Asia; Hong Kong, Thailand, etc.

Does anyone have any idea what these are, development processes for each, comparisons to FP4+ (125 ISO) and HP5+ (400 ISO) ?

Thanks in advance !!

 

[Links_147]

I may not be the best person to answer this but here goes.

Pan 100/400 are official ilford films made by ilford, so they are of the quality you are used to. I am under the impression that they are maketed to Asia and some areas of Europe. There has been some speculation to these films being older ilford formulae (fp3 and hp4), i am not sure of this.

As for devolopment time i did find this pdf http://www.darkroom.ru/info/manuals/ilford_pan_100_400_manual_eng.pdf . also there is the massive devolopment chart at www.digitaltruth.com for any other chemistry combinations you can think of.

-Doug

 

[Herzeleid]

I used Pan100 for some pinhole experiments, but my results are not good enough to compare it with FP4+.
Pan400 has a good latitude and forgiving like HP5+, has more apparent grain quite coarse, it is not like HP5+.
I can't compare the tonality, I still have to experiment.

Not bad films imo but not as sharp as others, one of my friends liked pan400 very much for the grain. You have try it for yourself.

 

[Aron]

I've used Pan 400 a few times. It was the first black and white film I tried. IMO it cannot be compared to HP5+.

Expect the grain to be large, larger than that of HP5+ and Tri-X, although its grain pattern looks pretty nice, if grain isn't a problem for you. It pushes acceptably, I'm holding an 8x10" print in my hands, the negative was expired 35mm Pan 400, EI 800 in ID-11 1:1 16 min, 20C, no cropping involved. Printed easily on Grade 2, grain was acceptable, but I wouldn't make larger enlargements of it. If it would have been fresh, it would have been much better, I'm sure.
I'm not impressed by it's tonality, again, compared to HP5+.

There is no reason I would choose it over HP5+ (except if I'd go for grainy photos). If we don't compare it to HP5+, then it's not a bad choice.

I would suggest ID-11/D-76 or X-tol as developers for it (for fighting against grain), others will probably have their own suggestions.

I attached 3 pages of the Ilford publication for these films.

Aron

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Aron,

Have you compared ILFORD PAN 100 to Fomapan 100?

Tom

 

[Aron]

Tom,

I have very limited experience with Pan 400. I tried Fomapan 100 and I liked its tonality when developed in Rodinal 1:50. I found it to have a long tonal scale, although it does require careful handling (unlike HP5+ for example) during processing.

Right now I'm using Foma (T)200 and I like it, but it probably will not become my favourite film (we'll see...). I gain little compared to Foma 100 with it (EI 100 vs EI 80). It's good, it can have nice tonality at EI 100 in either Rodinal 1:50, or ID-11 1:1.
Pushing it to 400 is OK, but it doesn't have the latitude of the classic legends, like HP5+ or Tri-X. But that wouldn't be a fair comparison.
Grain is apparent, but I don't find it unappealing, however, this is subjective. For general use, with moderate cropping for 8x10" prints it's OK for me.
It builds up contrast quickly so one needs to be careful with exposure and developing.

These are only my observations, others would probably have different experience with this film.

As I mentioned somewhere else, according to my own measurments the 110 lp/mm resolution for Fomapan 200 is correct.

So many different films (luckily), so little time.:rolleyes:

 

[PhotoJim]

I'm really hoping someone will compare Ilford Pan 100 and 400 to Kentmere 100 and 400.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like Ilford film, especially Pan F, I would like to have more info on Pan 100 and 400!

Jeff