Ilford Pan F Plus for copy work?

[M Carter]

I need to shoot some old B&W prints that have lost their negs. 11x14's. Mission of mercy.

I've got some 120 Pan F Plus, which seems like a good film for this. I also have HC-110 and Rodinal. Rodinal instructions are in the box, no HC110.

Never shot the Pan F - anyone have some rough starting times, sage advice from hard-earned experience, etc? I don't mind shooting and souping some tests (probably a necessity for dialing in the right contrast), but a starting point would be nice - thanks for any help!

(My first "real" job as a teen was running a stat camera in a graphics shop, so I have the lighting and setup covered).

 

[Bill Burk]

Normal developing is designed for scenes that encompass 7 stops (expect a photograph from nature to include some parts in shade).

Roughly speaking, copywork has about 5 stops, so you want a little more than normal development.

I would include a grayscale outside the frame, didn't your old boss call you a pinhead every time you forgot the grayscale? Mine did.

 

[M Carter]

My boss chain-smoked Chesterfield non-filters - all he ever said was "go get me a pack of Chesties!!!"

For these, I think the blacks are a little weak on the originals, may try to actually bump up the contrast a bit… Probably shoot 3 brackets and an empty frame, cut the film in half, try 2 different dev times, etc…

Curious if I should go Rodinal for more perceived sharpness (acutance)? I've only used Rodinal with HP5+ and 3200, but moved to HC-110 for the Delta… trying to avoid shooting 5 rolls and spending a day developing… because, y'know, I'll do that...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F would seem to be a poor choice because of its pronounced S-curve and very limited straight line. I'd prefer TMX or FP4, but am currently using ACROS for this purpose because I'm doing copy work with 120 film and want fine grain. If I was shooting sheet film, I'd probably use FP4 instead. You want to SLIGHTY overexpose and underdevelop the neg so everything in the original will be easily printable.
If you do test shoot a gray scale, you'll discover that Pan F tends to block up the extreme steps. Ideally, you want all these step just about equally differentiated. That requires a film with a longer scale. This is especially important if you need to cross-polarize the shot to prevent
reflections, since this tends to increase the contrast of the original.

 

[ic-racer]

I'd use some film and development you are already familiar with

 

[mmerig]

Ic-racer's advice is very practical, but if you really want to play around with some other films, Ilford Ortho Plus could be a good choice, except that it is only available in sheet film. For pictorial contrast, it's toe is a little longer than FP4's, but the Ortho's shoulder and mid-zones are a little straighter. Pan-F's published curve looks like Ortho's pictorial-- I would not call it s-shaped, but I suppose it could be with some combinations of exposure and processing.

I use FP4 (but not for copying), and it has great latitude, especially for the highlights. I also use Ortho for some landscape scenes, and it is quite forgiving of exposure too.

 

[M Carter]

Thanks guys - very interesting.

I may want to give the a contrast kick, they're intended to print on fixed-grade liquid emulsion… so I'll want a range of contrast levels to test.

Ortho film - I've been experimenting with Freestyle's Ortho film for duping some B&W slides into negs; doing 35mm in my enlarger, projecting up to 6x7. Getting good continuous tone with dilute HC-110, but the negs seem pretty thin. Still playing with dev times, stronger ratio gives me very smeary uneven development. Haven't run any contact sheets yet.

I can always put sheet film in my view camera and frame it for 6x7, even do brackets 2-up that way, if I end up using 4x5 (I don't have a 4x5 enlarger). The 4x5 would let me really ensure the dupes are square, too.

I'll probably do a test with the Pan-F for starters and play with exposure & dev times.

 

[markbarendt]

I think Bill is probably very close.

I see no reason to fear using Pan F, just follow the directions.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20131021134532242.pdf

 

[Bill Burk]

4x5 is probably the way to go... keep in mind... every shot is a keeper when you are doing copy work. So film is not going to get wasted.

It's not like camera shooting where you take 24 shots hoping one or two will be worth printing. Once you get the setup right, every shot will be printed.

I like the idea of cropping in the 4x5 to fit your enlarger.

 

[Athiril]

If you're after maximum fine grain then I'd go with Retro 80S, far finer than TMX, this will work in your favor when copying with medium and small formats.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear M Carter,

PAN F + should work OK and be less expensive than ORTHO + ( Sheet ) depends on final reprint size, one word of caution, do a test first, when I used to do copying ( a long time ago ) you always build a little contrast anyway.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[M Carter]

Thanks Simon - & yep, I'll be bracketing & testing dev times for this.

 

[DREW WILEY]

You've got to think of the PRINTABILITY of the copy neg. There was once a time when special films were made for exactly this purpose. Even
though they're not around any longer, it is still worthwhile to study the old graphics arts guides and lab books to see what characteristics were
desirable for this kind of work. You don't necessarily need an ortho film; but in this respect, don't confuse ortho and ortho-litho.

 

[MartinP]

Thirty years ago this formed a large proportion of my daily work. I always used Plus-X (only because we had a supply-contract with Kodak), over exposed and pulled development to some degree, depending on the contrast of the original and the use of the copy-neg. Now you could use FP4, or TMax100 (with more testing). The format was 4x5, for small originals, or 8x10 for larger - again depending on the final use of the copy-neg. In any case, starting from zero, you will want to go through a good series of experiments to match what you are starting with, with what you want at the end.

I'd suggest that PanF is probably less 'adjustable' in exposure and development than is FP4. As you want to build contrast a little, have you considered contact-printing the original to a paper inter-negative, then using that for a final contact-print on the home-made materials? Of course, that depends on the surface of the original and the size of the final print, but it is at least worth a thought.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F is like being in a straightjacket compared to FP4. Very little wiggle room at all.

 

[M Carter]

Thanks guys - I've never shot Pan F. And yes, this needs to be an enlarger neg. And I'll be stuck on fixed grade emulsion for the final, so I'll need a range of contrast levels in the negs for testing. And yep, I know this sort of copy work will potentially compress my tonal scale and that's something I'll need to watch for.

I do have a couple rolls of Pan-F in 120, but I think I'll go through this entire thread and ID at least one more film to test side-by-side.

I'm thinking that longer-term, I'd like to take some of my 11x14 bromoils, make copy negs, and enlarge onto 20x24 emulsion & canvas…. so all of this will be time well spent. (I don't think my wrist would survive a 24" bromoil session…