Ilford Pan F: using it to best advantage

[hacked - sepiareverb]

DD-X at 1:4 is my go to developer for PanF+. I shoot it at 40.

 

[twelvetone12]

Inspired by this thread, I went out to the mountains in a nice sunny day and exposed a roll at 25iso. Developed in Rodinal 1+50, 8 min, 20c, I just love the results. The negatives are very scanner-friendly, which does not necessarily mean it is a good thing, I will see in the darkroom how it performs.

 

[trendland]

shoot at iso 25, DD-x 9 minutes. works great.

Shoot at ISO 25, perceptol stock is also a great choice from my point of view.
A bit simular as with DD-x 9.
with regards

 

[trendland]

Inspired by this thread, I went out to the mountains in a nice sunny day and exposed a roll at 25iso. Developed in Rodinal 1+50, 8 min, 20c, I just love the results. The negatives are very scanner-friendly, which does not necessarily mean it is a good thing, I will see in the darkroom how it performs.

I would agree with you (may be quite scanner friendly)
But also may be a bit grainy ?

with regards

 

[Svenedin]

Well I also used some Pan-F today but not in a camera. I used it to make a series of 120 interpositives that I am then going to enlarge to make an 8x10 negative for a cyanotype or maybe an argyrotype. The interpositives look promising (and I have never actually done this before). It was the slowest film I had on hand.

 

[twelvetone12]

I would agree with you (may be quite scanner friendly)
But also may be a bit grainy ?

with regards

Very grainy, but I'm sure it is a scanner artifact as I always get exploding grain in scans. Today I finally can head to the darkroom and make proper proofs and prints, can't wait!

 

[zanxion72]

Just a note, Pan F is different to Pan F+ and APX 25. Plain Pan F is the low cost slow B/W emulsion that Ilford makes today available. The Pan F+ and APX 25 boast higher resolution and finer grain.

 

[twelvetone12]

Wait, Ilford still makes Pan F (without the plus?). I'm pretty sure I used the + version, the box had a big "PLUS" written on it, but I'm a bit confused.

 

[zanxion72]

Wait, Ilford still makes Pan F (without the plus?). I'm pretty sure I used the + version, the box had a big "PLUS" written on it, but I'm a bit confused.

No, it has been stupid me mixing things in my mind. Ignore my comment. Messed up with Pan 100!

 

[BAC1967]

I'm confused, the only Ilford Pan-F film I can find on their web site is Pan-F 50 plus. What film are we talking about here?

 

[trendland]

Very grainy, but I'm sure it is a scanner artifact as I always get exploding grain in scans. Today I finally can head to the darkroom and make proper proofs and prints, can't wait!
View attachment 187279

Just remember the time with some experience to enlargements. Agfapan 25,PanF,Fp4 - my first bw films.
The Durst enlarger wasn't able to enlarge more than 40 x 50 cm.It was in concern to it's max hight in darkroom.
Then I noticed to change position of the
enlarger head was also possible (enlargements on the ground of darkroom - not on the table).
The max. was more than 1 m x 1m 40cm.
To that time I had'nt my first roll
1,40 x10m Ilford Rc deluxe paper - I got it first one year later.
AND I noticed the Durst enlarger head was in addition able to make a projektion to the wall of the darkroom.
GREAT ! Unlimited enlargements (more than 2,40m x 3,90m)
But just in therory.
My very first workflow was in concern to compare just the difference in grain from my films due to different developers AND E.I.
This I had to make with "wall projection"
on 10x15 cm paper (cheap method) on different parts of the original size
of more than 2m x 3m.
Yeah - here I noticed "real grain" of all of my films and total clear difference to some developers.
As one result I can state PanF is one of the films with smalest grain ever - if you choice the right developing method.
But it is also only in concert of lower E.I.

Todays "new improved" versions (PanF+) are not so different from grain.
I could imagine the tonal range is from the different improvements over the years a little better but I am not so very sure about this.
The less grain characteristics of PanF has not noticable changed from my point
of view.
So this emulsion is nearly the same as versions of PanF from the 70th. (by regarding only the grain characteristics)
But a quite smaler grain is indeed possible with modern type developers.
But this is obviously a little relative.
For example in comparision with Kodak X-tol and old type methol based developers.
Some times "old stuff" is not possible to top........
So as a conclusion : Everything is possible with PanF also "big grain" -
therefore the most effect with bw films
is caused from developement.
(sure you have to account also correct exposure,lighting,E.I.)

with regards

 

[trendland]

I'm confused, the only Ilford Pan-F film I can find on their web site is Pan-F 50 plus. What film are we talking about here?

We are talking about PanF don't care about different types (there is only one type avaiable - the "new version"
This is stated with exeptions.So I bought a big roll "PolipanF" some say it is nearly a difference to PanF.
But look at this here :

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I have never had very good results with Pan F or at least I have never had results that I found pleasing.

I think that's fine. You don't have to like every film. It's what works for you. I tried for a long time to like Ilford XP-1. One reason it can be shot from ASA 50-400 and there's no silver in the negative. A real advantage since hightlights are less likely to block up. But I just don't like the look. I'm too old school and I prefer the look of silver grains on my prints.

 

[trendland]

It is also made from Ilford, it has same developing times as PanF, it has ISO 50.

But don't mix it with Ilford Pan 100.
This is a film wich has nothing to with PanF. (the Ilford Pan 100)

with regards

 

[Frank53]

View attachment 187282

It is also made from Ilford, it has same developing times as PanF, it has ISO 50.

But don't mix it with Ilford Pan 100.
This is a film wich has nothing to with PanF. (the Ilford Pan 100)

with regards

Are you sure this film is made by Ilford?
Regards,
Frank

 

[trendland]

Are you sure this film is made by Ilford?
Regards,
Frank

Yes indeed it is definitively produced by Ilford.
The at least question is the comparision to PanF - so I paid $ 69 to the equivalent of
5 rolls 30,5m 135 film. ($60,50 to the film 152m - $8,50 for shipping).

with regards

PanF is now priced : $89,50 122ft

with regards

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Polypan is a ripoff . It is not made by Ilford nor does it have ant resemblance to Pan F Plus. The manufacturer/distributer hopes that people will confuse it with an Ilford product. Polypan is a surveillance film on a polyester stock which can cause damage to cameras if they should jam. It also lacks an anti halation layer. Since it on polyester stock it is subject to light piping. But my main objection is with companies that try to trick the unwary.

I am surprised that no one catches the fact that part of the packaging is in German. Not something that Ilford would do.

 

[warden]

View media item 47784
I've tried PanF only once when I wanted a slow film for an especially bright day, white on white in the snow.I over exposed and under developed the roll and was happy with the results and very pleased with the grain on a 6x6 negative. I haven't used it since, but then there's little logic to my film choices anyway. ;-)

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes indeed it is definitively produced by Ilford.

with regards

Well Pan F definitely was( past tense) made by Ilford. It was first produced in 1948 and was succeeded in 1991 by Pan F+ The film that has exercised the content of recent posts and to which I think you are referring to is Polypan F. If you were referring to Pan F in the quote above then it should be in the past tense but if your word "is" refers to the present and to Polypan F then what is your evidence that it is produced by Ilford?

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If one takes the trouble to read the can in post #64 the manufacturer/distributer is Polysstar and the film appears to be made in Germany.

 

[Fraxinus]

Seeing this thread, I thought I'd share this image, made today.
It's from a roll of Pan F Plus that expired in July 2005, processed in Neofin Doku, a developer that's similarly ancient and no longer available. I used to use it with Kodak Technical Pan, also long gone, but it works particularly nicely with Pan F, controlling the inherent high contrast of this film beautifully, with indiscernible grain.
Considering the age of both film and developer I was doubtful that it would work, but it did.
Fuji GW690iii, 1/8th f22, Pan F+ rated at 50 ISO, natural light. 6 minutes development at 20°C, agitation 5s every 30s.
This is a scan of the negative, but I expect it to print on Grade 2, maybe even Grade 3.

 

[trendland]

Polypan is a ripoff . It is not made by Ilford nor does it have ant resemblance to Pan F Plus. The manufacturer/distributer hopes that people will confuse it with an Ilford product. Polypan is a surveillance film on a polyester stock which can cause damage to cameras if they should jam. It also lacks an anti halation layer. Since it on polyester stock it is subject to light piping. But my main objection is with companies that try to trick the unwary.

I am surprised that no one catches the fact that part of the packaging is in German. Not something that Ilford would do.

Well - Gerald I am quite happy with my PolipanF and I realy like the results this special emulsion will give me (in some cases I have to state).
In general I would like to say : This is indeed no highly efficient emulsion - so if
you can't expect some characteristics as you would have with Ilford Delta100.
But this is very relative in comparison to the price.
The origin of this film is indeed a profound mystery. But only from a first view.
This film has a true box speed of ISO50
and the absolut same developing times
compared with Ilford PanF.
I am realy sure of : This emulsion CAN'T
be identical with PanF and of cause this CAN'T be original PanF + to a very cheap price. You mentioned some remarkable differences.
But I also would like to state : This film should have seen it's production by ILFORD ....and thats the fact I realy like.
Why? First the very near of PanF characteristics with exeptions you mentioned.
Perhaps we should ask first : Who possible produced this stuff outside Ilford ? Kodak, Foma,Agfa ?
You will direct come back to Ilford immediately !
At what period have it been produced
obviously?
To the time when you had a demand to
bw print film ( cinema copyfilm ).
Do you remember a cinema film in bw the last years?
The one I remember : Schindler's List
1993 !
I also can imagine some short movies !
But the demand to this stuff comes to an end since years.
So I would like to refer to pio58 (Apug member).
This emulsion is possible a left over from
a production of Ilford Copy Films original made from Ilford in 1990 - 2006 ...
And (very important to me ) on the emulsion basis of PanF to That time (before 1995 ?) We can also imagine that it could be an ex emulsion of PanF to the time the demand was still there in the past.
The motto to this may
have been :
"New improved emulsions to sell - old
stuff special in regard to assemble copyfilm".
Yes I can imagine some will say now :
"Allways just speculations"
But indeed the best speculations up to now. We all can't say for sure.
But to me this PolipanF is in the very very near of Ilford PanF 1990 ...... (without anti halation)

And please don't be afraid of missing
original Ilford markings on this stuff.
Ilford would not stay that it is from Ilford! Because of some quality issues
(long time storage) But the most importance - the price from reselling.
It is most contraproductive for some to hear about in concern to official PanF+
ILFORD pricing.


PS :
- or lets better say with a part of halation effect (somtimes - not allways)

with special greetings to you

 

[trendland]

Seeing this thread, I thought I'd share this image, made today.
It's from a roll of Pan F Plus that expired in July 2005, processed in Neofin Doku, a developer that's similarly ancient and no longer available. I used to use it with Kodak Technical Pan, also long gone, but it works particularly nicely with Pan F, controlling the inherent high contrast of this film beautifully, with indiscernible grain.
Considering the age of both film and developer I was doubtful that it would work, but it did.
Fuji GW690iii, 1/8th f22, Pan F+ rated at 50 ISO, natural light. 6 minutes development at 20°C, agitation 5s every 30s.
This is a scan of the negative, but I expect it to print on Grade 2, maybe even Grade 3.
View attachment 187293

Nice to hear about - but let me ask : "your Neofin Doku was in addition a little expired too ?"
I tryed to by Neofin Doko 2007? 2008?
as I can remember correct it was still discontinued to that time.
So I own indeed today only the package of an original Neofin Doku bought 1979 - lovely nice stuff.
(Yes I know there are a lot of formuations
to come in the very near of Neofin Doku )

with regards

 

[trendland]

If one takes the trouble to read the can in post #64 the manufacturer/distributer is Polysstar and the film appears to be made in Germany.

Yes that makes it Not more clear - you are total right.
This emoulsion was offered from a couple of resellers. As you may know a product can be marked as "produced in the UK" also if the full production line was in China. You just need to assemble a part ( mostly the packaging ) in the UK
and soon you will proudly present a product "Made in the U.K."
So as if is here - I don't realy care about
Polistar because the may have made the
packaging. But the emulsion sure don't come from them.
In some cases companies like "Polistar"
still not exist ...then we may have it to do with "brand marks".
I realy don't intent to annoy you Gerald
and sorry in advance if you may not like to hear this - but (just in theory) it is possible from my point of you that
Ilford listed a "brand" with the name
POLISTAR (better not in the UK but indeed in an other EU) AND sell their stuff under a mysterious Trade Name :
MADE BY POLISTAR .....

Why should they do this ??????

What would you do Gerald if you are Ilford ? Once a day an employer of your company informed you :
"Sorry Sir I have to interupt you, we just
find a couple of 300ft rolls old movie print film - what should we do with this stuff Sir?"
What would be your possible answer to this Gerald?
May be :" About what amound we are talking about and what is the condition of this film?"
The answer ? Nowbody can say but we see this Polipan50 since some years.
Imagine just following answer Gerald :
"Ähmm ......sorry Sir we count 389 rolls
with 300ft but there are still others remaining in some different lenghts t hey all are in frezing condition - nowbody knows how this could happen"
I speculate a bit, I know Gerald, but this group of business man who lead Ilford
Harmann today would sell this stuff!
BUT BEWARE OFF : NEVER UNDER THE NAME ILFORD.....
So it comes to Resellers let me say the real bandit of this resellers is FPP.....
THE pricing of FPP is in the near of brand new Ilford Films.
And there might be some problems from interims storage noticable I also hear from.
But my Polipan is from good condition.
Sorry to hear about you noticed bad results.


with regards

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes that makes it Not more clear - you are total right.
This emoulsion was offered from a couple of resellers. As you may know a product can be marked as "produced in the UK" also if the full production line was in China. You just need to assemble a part ( mostly the packaging ) in the UK
and soon you will proudly present a product "Made in the U.K."
So as if is here - I don't realy care about
Polistar because the may have made the
packaging. But the emulsion sure don't come from them.
In some cases companies like "Polistar"
still not exist ...then we may have it to do with "brand marks".
I realy don't intent to annoy you Gerald
and sorry in advance if you may not like to hear this - but (just in theory) it is possible from my point of you that
Ilford listed a "brand" with the name
POLISTAR (better not in the UK but indeed in an other EU) AND sell their stuff under a mysterious Trade Name :
MADE BY POLISTAR .....

Why should they do this ??????

What would you do Gerald if you are Ilford ? Once a day an employer of your company informed you :
"Sorry Sir I have to interupt you, we just
find a couple of 300ft rolls old movie print film - what should we do with this stuff Sir?"
What would be your possible answer to this Gerald?
May be :" About what amound we are talking about and what is the condition of this film?"
The answer ? Nowbody can say but we see this Polipan50 since some years.
Imagine just following answer Gerald :
"Ähmm ......sorry Sir we count 389 rolls
with 300ft but there are still others remaining in some different lenghts t hey all are in frezing condition - nowbody knows how this could happen"
I speculate a bit, I know Gerald, but this group of business man who lead Ilford
Harmann today would sell this stuff!
BUT BEWARE OFF : NEVER UNDER THE NAME ILFORD.....
So it comes to Resellers let me say the real bandit of this resellers is FPP.....
THE pricing of FPP is in the near of brand new Ilford Films.
And there might be some problems from interims storage noticable I also hear from.
But my Polipan is from good condition.
Sorry to hear about you noticed bad results.


with regards

Pretty much everyone has found it to be quite different to Pan-F, not least in terms of hardening, and a range of other aspects including grain size. Of course, most traditionally made slow films will have similar-ish basic characteristics. If it's less than 13+ years old it will definitely not be Pan-F plus - Harman have been explicit about not offering Ilford brand materials under 3rd party labels. Much more likely to be a cinema technical film possibly involving Filmotec & whoever was contract coating for them. Whoever wrote the numbers on the can was probably a native German speaker. I know you are desperate to implicate Ilford/ Harman in your interminable conspiracy theories, but the reality probably lies somewhere in central Europe.