Ilford Pan F - not available in sheet sizes? :(

[eumenius]

Hello friends,
I just wanted to ask you - why Ilford doesn't make PanF+ in, say, 4x5'' sheets, only perfed and 120? That's an excellent film, and I doubt that its low speed is a limit for LFers... just remember ISO 64 slide films, available in piles. I really miss this Dmax and brilliance of PanF in sheet BW slides I make through reversal processing

Zhenya

 

[reellis67]

My understanding is that since grain is not such a problem with larger films as it is in miniature (35mm) sizes, Pan F+ is not made due to presumed low demand. I would also like to have it in 4x5, but if you are really jonesin' for a slow sheet film, J and C has EFKE 25 and 50 in sheet sizes...

- Randy

 

[fschifano]

I think that reciprocity failure is probably one of the biggest reasons that Ilford does not offer PanF+ in sheet film sizes. Large format photographers tend to work at very small apertures and reciprocity failure starts to become an issue with PanF+ with exposures as short as 1/2 second. It would not be at all uncommon to need shutter speeds this slow or slower with a film of this speed. Once reciprocity failure start to rear it's ugly head, you need to start thinking about N-1 development to keep contrast under control. Under normal conditions taming contrast with this film can sometimes be a challenge. N-1 development will cost you some film speed requiring further adjustments to exposure times which will require more adjustments to development, and so it goes. It doesn't take much to see that you can wind up chasing your own tail with this one.

 

[Papa Tango]

Ahhh, but if every day was sunny and the shadows well defined with a...

I love to shoot with my Super Graphic handheld, but over half the time lighting is such that a tripod is required even shooting 80-100 speed. Efke films are the closest to the old Kodak Panatomic (which I cut my teeth on back in the stone age) that I have found. I shoot a lot of PanF in 135 and 120, and find that it pays to have a tripod even for those. Shooting with the Toyo C is a completely different world. The Efke's (my favorite is kb25) require long exposure, and a ton of contrast control calculations is not my cup of tea. These films do well and will give you the "look" you are after with the Pan.

 

[Troy Hamon]

According to similar questions put to Ilford representatives on the Cafe Ilfopro forum a couple years back, the base used for PanF+ isn't compatible with sheet film manufacture, and they didn't feel it was worth trying to transfer to a new base, with the extensive testing that would require, for a small market segment. That's my recollection of the 'official' answer...hopefully not too far off.

 

[Simon R Galley]

PAN F + Sheet Film / ILFORD Reply

Dear All,

Troy is correct, the coating would need to be on sheet film base, minimum coating regimes would not make the product viable as waste would be astronomic and the required stock produced would take too long to sell and would consequently go out of date.

Simon@ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[fschifano]

Thanks for clearing that up for us Simon.

 

[eumenius]

Hm, now I see... every Ilford film seems to be using its own kind of base, that's why PanF+ is not made in sheet format. As far as the reciprocity error is discussed - well, Delta 100 also requires compensation for Schwarzschild beginning from 1/2 second. Thank you, Simon - again, it's so great to have you here! Good luck.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

I'm comfortable with ISO 100 emulsions in sheets, but just think of Weston, Adams and others worked with Kodachrome in 8x10 when it came out ... around ASA 12!

 

[Curt]

A small film size with a 2x3 camera on a tripod, cable release, each sheet developed differently if wanted, just begs for a fine grain film like Ilford 50 or Efke/Adox 25.

I would like to see at least one choice too and not the 100 or 400 speed. It's funny, or not that funny, to see it listed in with the ULF Ilford on the JandC site. Is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 film a lost format or is it being burned by the film manufacturers?

Just how many people are using 2x3, 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 6x9 cameras like the Busch and Graphic, not to mention the view cameras and field cameras or any camera that takes 2x3 sheet film holders.

Does anyone think that the larger the film size the better the photograph? How many sheets of 2x3 are in a sheet of 20x24 film? Is it better to keep getting bigger and bigger? Is this the way to keep photography alive or only one way to do photography? If medium format sheet film is cut off then the only other way is roll film. What if someone without the resources wants to use a 2x3 camera to start learning view camera adjustments and single sheet development or wants to take one on a trip without the weight but wants a negative that can stand enlargements of quality.

I am thinking of Brett Weston and his Rollei 66 with Agfa 25. OK, you can't get an expensive Rollei but you found a Graphic with a couple of holders and a lense and you can develope the sheets in individually; what a great start.