Ilford Pan F and Rodinal

[kq6up]

I just developed my first roll of Pan F in Rodinal. I don't really like the result. Tones are not smooth, and it is vary grainy for a Iso 50 speed film. Also the top of the density curve seems to be sloping up as well, and it makes the tonal scale rather funky on some of the shots. I souped it for 11.5m at 1:50 concentration per the massive developing chart. Agitation was the usual 3 inversions per minute. I used a small metal tank in a bath at 68F. I am wondering if I should use a larger tank since this is such a dilute developer. Also, I have read that many films should be rated slower than the box ISO for Rodinal. This is my first go with it as a developer.

What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Chris Maness

 

[jmcd]

I'm not sure but I think you might have over developed, with possibly too much time, your thermometer reads relatively low, etc. I know I have cooked some Pan F before in Rodinal and the results were gloppy.

But, the combination does work very well with smooth tones and good, sharp grain.

I shoot at ei 20 in contrasty light, and develop in Rodinal 1:50 for 8 minutes with two inversions every 30 seconds. In softer light I shoot it at ei 40 and develop for 10 minutes with the same inversion pattern.

The inversions should be gentle, but I leave some air space in the can so the fluid can move. I think you have plenty of developer in the small can—that's what I use.

Inverting every 30 seconds with this developer gives me tones I like better for my own work.

 

[kq6up]

@jmcd. Thanks. That is what I was reading about Rodinal is that it does not give you the box speed. You have to rate it slower to get good results. I souped some Ancient FP4 and souped it in Rodinal. The box speed is 125, and I shot it at 125. WAY too fast. The leader was JET black (density off the charts), and the images were very thin. Much better at reducing the base fog on the old film though. If I had any more I would rate it at Iso50, and try again.

I will try your suggestions for exposure and processing.

Chris

 

[kq6up]

Another point. I think your suggestion to leave air is a good one. I have a large graduated cylinder marked of in 25ml denominations. So I just shoot for 250ml and add 5ml of the syrup. It is easy to mix this way, so I probably should decant off about 10ml and dump 240ml in the tank. That should leave a larger air pocket for agitation.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[jmcd]

With regard to speed, I do get full speed with HP5+ and Rodinal. And negatives do have a blacker, darker quality to them than negatives that print similarly which were developed in, say, F76+, Xtol, D-76.

Also, with Pan F, what lies on the side of underexposure will be lost to history. With a film like FP4+ or HP5+, you are much more likely to be able to reach into the shadows at printing time.

But when you get it right, prints from Pan F do look great, if no uniquely so.

 

[marco.taje]

3 inversions per minute? I'm no expert, but that sounds a bit on the high side. Furthermore, my small experience is already telling me to stay far from the massive dev chart, if possible. Sticking with the Agfa sheet is giving me much better results, to start from.

 

[kq6up]

The MDC has been dead on for all of my D-76 ventures. I really like that developer. I have always been able to get very consistent results, but I felt like it was time to take off the training wheels and start trying different developers. I purchased some HC-110, and Rodinal (equivalent). I used the Rodinal on Pan F, and Very Old FP4. I should have rated both of them slower. The FP4 MUCH slower. I tried the HC-110 on some ancient Tri-x yesterday. It worked pretty well for such old film. I will try the HC-110 on some fresh Delta 400. Looking at the pool from that search it looks like a good combo.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Pan-F is a somewhat difficult film, it builds contrast very rapidly making it easy to get contrasty negatives. Development times are approximate as each person's equipment, method are different. Try again with a shorter time.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Yes, i did develop PanF with Ilfosol 3, got a contrasty result and i like it, but i think it is not a good thing maybe, will try again later with D-76.

 

[kq6up]

@Tareq Yea, I am trying to move away from D-76. I no longer have a darkroom supply store within a quick drive, and I would like to be able to mix from a syrup as I need instead of by the gallon.

@Gerald. I am trying to find an extremely fine grain B&W (high resolution) film for landscape work. I have heard that TMAX 400 is the finest grain film for B&W since the demise of APX-25. However, TMAX has too technical of a look to me -- a very straight hard contrast curve. It also seems strange that a 400 speed film has more resolution than a 50 speed film, but I guess tab grains are just that much better. I do really like Delta 400 -- very arty film for a tab grain.

I tour on a motorcycle quite a bit, so I have not been able to take my 4x5". I have shot some slide films that have crazy resolution. I can make large prints from 35mm. I am looking for replacement of APX-25 basically. I have seen some examples on flicker (medium format) of Pan F that look nice, but the grain on this film has a harsh salt and pepper look to it, and on 35mm it is UGLY. I have to try another roll and adjust my time.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I've been using Ilford's DDX (one-shot liquid) on higher speed films (HP5+ @ ISO400). Rodinal certainly seems to blow the grain up if you over develop even slightly, but lately I've switched to Prescysol EF with very good results. I buy mine from Peter Hogan in UK but I think that the Photographers Formulary supply it in the USA.

 

[kq6up]

What would the best developer for this film be? It does look like Rodinal can work with it looking at some scans on flickr. However, if there is a large file size available, I can still see that ugly grain in it. It just the sheer size of the MF negative tends to cover that ugly grain up.

However, Ilfosol, DDX, D-76, Diafine scans look MUCH better. Diafine seems to be the best. What do you guys think about these combos with Pan F. The Diafine example seems to have VERY good resolution and beautiful tone.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/luketrash/124077194/#comment72157626006187834

Thanks,
Chris

 

[jmcd]

"I can still see that ugly grain in it."

Maybe you should try another film.

 

[kq6up]

"I can still see that ugly grain in it."

Maybe you should try another film.

Why use another film if it is just a film/dev combo that I don't like. I just need to find that right combo that suites my personal taste and is best suited for my genre of photography.

Regards,
Chris Maness

 

[fschifano]

Well, the best I've done with PanF+ is to develop it in D-76 1+3 as per the instructions given by Ilford. Done that way it is very nice indeed, if a bit more contrasty than many other general purpose B&W films. I get box speed, or very close to it, with that developer agitating for 5 seconds each 30 seconds. Really, it works like a charm. It works equally well with XTOL 1+3, using the same times and agitation schedule. But if you're still seeing ugly grain (I can't see how) then perhaps you should give TMax 100 or ACROS 100 a go.

 

[jmcd]

"Why use another film if it is just a film/dev combo that I don't like. I just need to find that right combo that suites my personal taste and is best suited for my genre of photography."

Sure. Maybe Xtol?

 

[jmcd]

Or for liquid, as you mentioned convenience, perhaps F76+ diluted 1+14.

 

[Bertil]

kq6up: try Fuji Acros 100 (and Rodinal).
/Bertil

 

[polyglot]

I agree that Pan-F is great in D-76 (EI25, 1+3, 12:00). That much dilution means you don't get much solvent effect and it looks just as sharp as it does with Rodinal but the grain is a little less apparent.

It can also be excellent in Rodinal (EI25, 1+50, 9:00) but you need to make sure that there is at least 6mL (preferably 10mL) of concentrate per roll, which means using about 500mL at 1+50. It is very sensitive to over-development and while I have some fantastic Pan-F negatives from Rodinal, I also have some that were unprintable due to stupidly high contrast.

I disagree that TMY2 (amazing film that it is for its speed; I love it for night urbex purposes) is finer than Pan-F. Acros (probably TMX and Delta-100 too) are about as fine as Pan-F. TMY2 in a solvent-heavy developer will look very smooth and grain-free, but it will not have the same resolution as Pan-F. Compare Pan-F and TMY2 in Rodinal and you will see a massive difference both in size and amplitude of grain... Kodak claim that it is the finest ISO400 film ever and I'm pretty sure they're right, but there are plenty of slower films that are finer still.

 

[fschifano]

Agreed that TMY2 is fantastic stuff, but I was referring to TMX, which is a whole different ball game. You almost can't find any grain in that film at enlargements of 10x or more, and once you get to that degree of enlargement, a host of other image degrading come more apparently into play.

 

[Colin Corneau]

This is one of my favorite (if not THE favorite) combinations. Anytime you ask this kind of question you'll get 100 different opinions.

In fact, some of my favorite negatives to print come from these 2 items. I never had any odd grain, and recently made 16x16 prints from some 120 I souped in 1:50 Rodinal.

My time is 13 for a 2 reel metal tank. You can only read so much into this, since we all have our unique variables like agitation, precise temp, etc. But there you go -- for me, it works beautifully. For you, barring any further tests, not so much.

I'd try Acros100 in Rodinal or PanF+ in another developer, since you have to find what works for you.

 

[kq6up]

Thanks a ton guys. I will definitely give these suggestions a go. I will just have to be VERY careful not to over do it in the Rodinal. What are some good indications that I over cooked it? Would that be the salt and pepper grain instead of the smooth ultra fine grain in the example I posted. If there is somewhat of a consensus that Rodinal is the best for Pan F, then I will definitely have to give it another go.

Regards,
Chris

 

[jmcd]

"What are some good indications that I over cooked it?"

I proof to black all my film on Grade 3—always the same enlarger head height, f-stop, and time, along with fresh print developer (such that the borders of the film have just made it to maximum black and match the black of the main body of the paper where there is no film.) For me, the proof images and overall sheet should look good and inviting and a little flat with nothing major blown out. Then the negs should print nicely on Grade 2 or Grade 3. Grade 1 is to save your bacon, and fully blown out is the verdict if you are looking for Grade 0.

If you over cooked it your proper proof will look contrasty, or worse, fully blown out with white and contrast.

 

[hpulley]

PanF+ in DD-X 1+4 is wonderful! No grain I can see in an 11x14" print from 35mm! I love the contrast and shadows still retain good detail. Great stuff!

 

[TareqPhoto]

Here are the entire shots i did with only one PanF+ roll, i didn't shoot PanF+ again but i am really looking to use it again and again and sure i will do soon, but this only one roll show me nice results i like, maybe you don't like the results its ok, i understand, and i had a big hard time focusing with my Hasselblad, Fuji and Mamiya way easier for focusing.

http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/1189/img074.jpg
http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/9054/img076n.jpg
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/264/img077.jpg
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/3096/img078c.jpg
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/6454/img079g.jpg
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/9281/img080v.jpg
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4559/img081nu.jpg
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9305/img082a.jpg
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/2514/img075w.jpg
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/7922/img083pf.jpg
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7097/img084nk.jpg
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/8218/img085b.jpg