ILFORD Pan-F or Delta100

[DanielOB]

I have to restock my 35 mm film supply soon. For lower speed I am around Pan-F or Delta100. Have to choose one of that two. Films will be developed in Rodinal only.

what I expect from that film is?
(I do not point my 35 mm lens to the forest or the whole city form the top of the heel.)

1. Small number of details (say close-up)
2. Fine rendering
3. minimal loss of nuances in shade
4. prints size 5x7" up to 11x14"
5. no grain important, but if get, prefer traditional grain rather than Delta
Any recomendation

Thanks
Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

 

[donbga]

Any recomendation

Dead Link Removed

Kodak TMAX 100.

 

[Barry S]

I agree with the TMX recommendation. I don't know of any other film that does as good a job separating shadows. It's also very nearly grainless and incredibly sharp. I'm not a big fan of the tonality of Delta 100 and it seems to have more grain and less sharpness than TMX. You do need to control your process with TMAX films--otherwise a conventional film is more forgiving.

 

[Lee L]

Order a few rolls of each and try them for yourself.

I've used Pan-F with Rodinal 1:100 occasionally over the last 30 years with excellent results. Haven't used Delta 100 with Rodinal, so can't give an informed opinion.

Lee

 

[ooze]

Well, it's down to personal taste as usual
Delta100 is the only film which has never ever disappointed me. I've always developed it in either ID-11, XTOL or ILFOSOL S3, but not Rodinal.
I've tried PanF in the past and couldn't get along with it very well. Delta100 looked better to my eyes so I just stayed with it.

TMAX100 on the other hand has mostly disappointed me, the only exception being when developed in Rodinal, in which the results were fantastic. So, since you are a Rodinal user I also suggest you give TMAX100 a try. Rate it at around ISO50 though.

Good luck

 

[Ian Grant]

Recently I've switched to Delta 100 from Tmax 100 which I'd used since it's release, the Delta 100 negatives and prints are excellent. The best 100 ISO film I've used is Agfa APX100 and I only stopped using it when Agfa ceased making the sheet film version, I prefer to use the same film in 35mm/120 & LF.

Pan F is an excellent film but it's not particularly forgiving and needs very accurate exposures and development, I preferred Agfa's APX 25. It's really about knowing your film and how it'll behave in different lighting conditions. I'd suggest you try both Delta 100 and Pan F and see what suits you best.

Ian

 

[2F/2F]

Both of these films are a bit more difficult to nail down than most, but either one will be amazing once nailed. I would say that if shadow contrast and detail is a major desire, go for the Delta. If you want deeper blacks, more contrast, and an over all darker mood, go for the Pan F. The way it renders the midtones is really beautiful and unique with certain subjects. Grain won't be an issue with either of them, though I can say that I personally prefer the grain of Pan F to that of Delta 100. I haven't used T-Max 100 in several years, so can't comment on it.

P.S. If you want to use the zone system with Pan F, you will end up using a significantly lower EI than 50. For me, Delta 100's zone I EI is way closer to box speed than Pan F's (EI 80 vs EI 16).

 

[DanielOB]

Ian Martin
The best 100 ISO film I've used is Agfa APX100..."

He he he Ian. Density-Exposure curve for this film is so straight like made with ruller, far from -2.7 tone (zone 2.3) up to +3 tone (zone 8). Grain just what I will ever wish. I still have around 30 films (36 exp) of these. In my taste, it is the best B&W film ever made. Unfortunately it was around so short, but enough long to record at least one moment in our history in such wonderful way. It is carved in my memory.
Now lets back to the best company, Ilford.

2F/2F
If you want to use the zone system with Pan F, you will end up using a significantly lower EI than 50. For me, Delta 100's zone I EI is way closer to box speed than Pan F's (EI 80 vs EI 16).

I think it depends of the specific exposure meter (the one you use when test the batch) and batch itself a lot. I had pan-F with 80 iso too, but with some other meters it is 50 iso.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

 

[jim appleyard]

Each film will have its merits and drawbacks. Try some of each, although it may take several rolls to nail down your dev times, agitation, metering technique, etc.

 

[Matt5791]

Pan F is an excellent film but it's not particularly forgiving and needs very accurate exposures and development....
Ian

That's interesting about PanF, Ian - I have been using this a lot recently and have discovered this the hard way......

 

[nsouto]

I've used Pan-F with Rodinal 1:100 occasionally over the last 30 years with excellent results.

Nowhere near 30 years for me, but I'm still shaking after my last trial of that combo!
Definitely in-line for many encores!

 

[Doug Webb]

I love Pan F. My favorite low speed film. It will work well in Rodinal. Not the best film for high contrast lighting situations. I have used this film in 35mm and 120 with PMK, DDX, XTOL, D76, ID11, HC110, etc. and was never disappointed. Never had a problem with grain. I like Delta 100 but never saw an advantage over Pan F, so I haven't used as much of it. If you give Pan F a reasonable trial in situations that it can handle, I don't think you will be disappointed.
Good luck,
Doug Webb

 

[Colin Corneau]

Any particular fave recipes for Pan-F in Rodinal, either 1:50 or 1:100.

I've been using this film more and more, and liking it more and more and have also just started playing around with Rodinal.

 

[Palantiri7]

Wow. I'm deciding on which of these films to use too. I love FP4+ in 8x10, but as I'm using medium format more now I find the grain a bit too much with 6x6 FP4+. I just ordered some Delta 100 after seeing pictures by this couple:

http://home.arcor.de/lichtemomente/

I know, not wise to choose film based on someone else's pictures, but yeah I did it. I also heard some anecdotal stuff about Pan F exposures fading if the film is not developed soon after exposure. If this is true then that definitely is a problem. Of course Acros is nice but some of the pictures I've seen look almost like, uh, sorta digital-like.

 

[2F/2F]

Wow. I'm deciding on which of these films to use too. I love FP4+ in 8x10, but as I'm using medium format more now I find the grain a bit too much with 6x6 FP4+. I just ordered some Delta 100 after seeing pictures by this couple:

http://home.arcor.de/lichtemomente/

I know, not wise to choose film based on someone else's pictures, but yeah I did it. I also heard some anecdotal stuff about Pan F exposures fading if the film is not developed soon after exposure. If this is true then that definitely is a problem. Of course Acros is nice but some of the pictures I've seen look almost like, uh, sorta digital-like.

This is so strange. You are the second person I have seen here on APUG mentioning that FP4 is too grainy at times. Must be something in the water, as I don't see grain on this film unless enlarging about 10x or more.

 

[Palantiri7]

You may be quite right 2F/2F, as I don't use distilled water: we've got hard water down here. Also, I'm trying to back off of my over-enthusiastic agitation with HC-110. We'll see on my next roll.