• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford Pan F: using it to best advantage

Svenedin

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
1,189
Location
Surrey, United Kingdom
Format
Med. Format RF
I have never had very good results with Pan F or at least I have never had results that I found pleasing. I first shot Pan F about 30 years ago, decided I didn't like it and didn't shoot any again for a very long time. About a year ago I shot some more both in 35mm and MF but again I wasn't happy. The problem for me is that my photos look dreary and there is poor tone separation. I used Agfa APX 25 many years ago and I liked it so it isn't an inability to use slow films successfully. I have read various suggestions as to how to get the best from Pan F including that it is fussy about exposure. I am able to accurately gauge correct exposure so I am at a loss as to my poor (in my eyes) results.

Maybe I am doing something wrong or maybe it is a film that I will never like but I have some rolls at home and I would like to try once and for all to give it my best attempts. I would be using it for landscapes. Does anyone have any tips?
 
overcast days, rather than contrasty light..
 
Agfa 25 had high contrast compared to, say, Panatomic-X. Perhaps if you just develop the Pan-F to a higher contrast you'd like it more? Greater contrast would give you greater tonal separation.
 
voceumana said:
Agfa 25 had high contrast compared to, say, Panatomic-X. Perhaps if you just develop the Pan-F to a higher contrast you'd like it more? Greater contrast would give you greater tonal separation.
Click to expand...
Won't help. Pan-F is a contrasty film already; overdeveloping will blow out highlights. The problem is poor midtone separation. Rodinal works well for it.



 
chriscrawfordphoto said:
Won't help. Pan-F is a contrasty film already; overdeveloping will blow out highlights. The problem is poor midtone separation. Rodinal works well for it.



Click to expand...

That is exactly my problem. Mid to lower tones all ending up in shades so black I can't separate them. I have some Rodinal. Will try it!
 
This is probably not a problem, but avoid any lengthy times between exposing the film and developing it. The latent image on Pan F has a tendency to fade away over time.
 
I have a similar problem. I love what I see other people get with Pan F but I've never liked what I've gotten with it.

I suspect it's particular to certain developers. I've only used it with D-76, and found it to be too contrasty, again without the tone separation I was looking for.

Chris: I'm assuming those examples were done with Rodinal?
 
Examples of "dreary" images? I've found PanF to be more like a slide film due to the added contrast, makes light look brighter/harder than it actually is.
 
Pan F+ 50 favours exposure in flat, diffuse light to spread tonality. Exposure in in bright point light achives nothing but vey high jarring contrast.
It is one of few B&W films that are usually exposed along similar lines to E6 films eg, Velvia 50, 100, especially (diffuse light).
 
Svenedin said:
That is exactly my problem. Mid to lower tones all ending up in shades so black I can't separate them. I have some Rodinal. Will try it!
Click to expand...

I doubt that changing developer will solve your problem. Chances are that either/both metering and development are at fault.

There is another problem with Pan F and that is the stability of the latent image. Do not leave the exposed film laying around for weeks but do develop it promptly. This should help with the lower zones.
 
It is not the issue of latent image stability. I have developed films within hours of exposure. I have tried inbuilt metering OM4-Ti), various other meters, Sekonic, Weston, Gossen. Different developers. I cannot post a picture now; on mobile telephone thing
 
Vaughn said:
This is probably not a problem, but avoid any lengthy times between exposing the film and developing it. The latent image on Pan F has a tendency to fade away over time.
Click to expand...
that is what i have heard too !
 
I'm not sure if it is film or OP don't like it. I like it once I started to expose it as ISO 50 film and develop shortly after exposure.

 
Ahh....APX25....brings back happy memories.

Pan-F is no replacement, but at EI25 and in Rodinal 1+25 it does a passable imitation.

Mike
 
Thanks for the tips. All of the posted photos are much better than anything I have managed with Pan F. I will see if I have any dreary images of mine to post. That last image Ko.Fe is exactly what I would hope for.
 
Images as requested. Agfa APX 25 for comparison (the only one I could easily find and a pity my dog's nose is out of focus but it is very slow film so there's very little DoF). Looking at these images again maybe there's nothing terribly wrong with them. I was ill when I took the photos and recovering from surgery. Going for walks in the local area to take photos was part of my rehab. I just wanted to get it right with the Pan F I have remaining.

The camera is a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta IV 6x6 This has a built in meter but I didn't trust it for Pan F and used a Sekonic. Developing was Ilfotech DD-X. The APX 25 is 35mm and was developed in ID11 (about 25 years ago).

Tower: Pan F
Park benches: Pan F
Alsatian bitch "Penta": Agfa APX 25
 

Attachments

  • Photo493 small.jpg
    500.7 KB · Views: 406
  • Photo490 small.jpg
    484.9 KB · Views: 413
  • penta copy small.jpeg
    264.6 KB · Views: 415
Last edited:
voceumana said:
Agfa 25 had high contrast compared to, say, Panatomic-X. Perhaps if you just develop the Pan-F to a higher contrast you'd like it more? Greater contrast would give you greater tonal separation.
Click to expand...

I used a lot of Agfapan AP25 and later APX25 and it wasn't a contrasty film, I used them in a roll film back alongside 5x4 AP/APX100.

With Pan F which has more inherent contrast you achieve a lower contrast by increasing exposure to EI25 and reducing development, that gives you increased tonality - the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Ian
 

They dont look far out at all to me. Bit more contrast in printing or development maybe. Its been horrible flat dreary light on my corner of england for weeks now so those look about right!
 
Craig75 said:
They dont look far out at all to me. Bit more contrast in printing or development maybe. Its been horrible flat dreary light on my corner of england for weeks now so those look about right!
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes, I know what it's like! I dread the Winter. I hate the dark, dreary days. Had to light the fire just now. Cold!
 
Well, Svenedin, the dog pic on APX25 has the most "snap" in my view While the park benches might be a little light in the foreground and in a sense the opposite of what I always think of as a contrasty print, I don't think I'd have made any comments at all, had I seen all three as separate pics in the gallery other than to the effect that all three are OK pics.

Other than high summer and high noon by the sand and sea on the few contrasty shadow days we have in the U.K. I wonder if Pan F's contrasty nature is a problem at latitude 53N On the other hand I can appreciate that 33N is another story.

pentaxuser .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register