Ilford 'PanF plus' reaction to flash light

[Quinten]

Does PanF+ need a special treatment when used with flash?

With constant light conditions I get nice looking PanF negatives in rodinal 1+25, deep/rich blacks for the highlights and plenty of detail in the transparent parts of the negative.

With the same treatment, only now with flashed exposures the negatives seem a little to transparant with little contrast in them. At first glance the negs looked underdeveloped, but looking at the prints I am reluctant to go for longer development times since the contrast actually feels a bit higher than expected. (I went to a paper with less contrast and the darkroom exposure times are about 25%/30% shorter with the flashed pictures.) I also suspect I am loosing highlight detail.

Since I don't have this problem with other films (the late Kodak125PX, or FP4) I ask the, usually wiser than me, men of APUG if PanF+ needs a special treatment with the super short light bursts of a flash light?

 

[BMbikerider]

Bear in mind flash is a far more contrast source of light than natural sunlight (In most cases) which is where a problem may lie. However it looks by your description that your flash source may be a little optimistic about the level of light output. Was your flash controlled by the camera, by the flashgun or by using a meter? Any of these could be giving a wrong estimation of the requirements for the film. You could try rating the Pan F Film at 25 ISO and see what the results are like then.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

PanF needs prompt development, any chance you've waited a bit to run this roll?

 

[BMbikerider]

I may have missed something here. Where does it say that Pan F has to be developed promptly? I don't recall seeing any direct specialist instructions issued by Ilford to the effect that is must be developed sooner than other films.

It says that on most film packs to develop promptly but that is an open argument with no time element, but to be quite honest I have never bothered with it in the 50 odd years I have been involved with photography. Being a slow emulsion, Ilford Pan F is probably more stable than say Tri X or HP5. Less susceptible to ambient temperiture fluctuations and any exterior radiation that may affect all film after a while.

I have often used Pan F both the old and the newer Pan F plus and not been able to develop them for several days if not weeks when I am away. I personally feel that this develop 'promptly issue is largely an urban myth.

 

[pentaxuser]

So we have a film that needs development very promptly after exposure and gives a problem with flash. Ditch this film's production is what I say Simon Galley

Seriously as per the loss of latent image problem I have never heard of problems peculiar to flash either.

I don't know what the cause of the OP's problem is but I very much doubt an inherent flash issue with Pan F compared to other films

I think the OP needs to be steered towards other likely causes

pentaxuser

 

[Dave in Kansas]

I can say from experience that I have developed Pan F 6 months after the images were taken and got superb results. On the other hand, last month I found a roll of exposed Pan F that contained pictures made over a period of time from 14 months prior to 6 months prior. That roll had serious problems. This didn't make sense to me since some of the images were only 6 months old and I had previously been successful at developing Pan F that old. What I don't know is how fresh that roll of film was when the pictures were taken. It's possible that it was near or past the use date on the box.

Dave

 

[Matthew Wagg]

Gotta admit, I had a similar problem with my negs when I used Pan f as well with flash.

My case I used Bowens 500's in softboxes and metered for the flash as I have a thousand times before. But devving it they came out just like the OP. When I've devved using with natural light, its one of my favourite films. I gotta admit after using the 3 rolls I did at the shoot in the studio I've been turned off using Pan F in a studio setting.

I should add that I shot digital alongside the Pan F and that was perfectly exposed, I used that method as I wanted to be sure my settings were right and not just blindly following the meter.

 

[kevs]

It sounds like underexposure to me - do the edge numbers look properly developed in comparison with the well-exposed negs? Are you using filters and forgetting to compensate? You could open up the aperture by half a stop to one stop when using flash, and check that your flash meter is giving accurate readings before blaming the film.

 

[Quinten]

It sounds like underexposure to me - do the edge numbers look properly developed in comparison with the well-exposed negs? Are you using filters and forgetting to compensate? You could open up the aperture by half a stop to one stop when using flash, and check that your flash meter is giving accurate readings before blaming the film.

It is not blaming the film per se, more a question of how to use it with flash. Opening the aperture half or one stop, you mean it works better at 25? I've used some APX100 and 125PX (both exposed at 100) during the same shoot, they are spot one. The panf 50 (exposed at 50) just doesn't give the same results that's why I presume I am doing something wrong in the development stage. And yes the numbers could be a bit darker, but compared to the other films I mention the panf numbers seem a little slim so they may look less dark anyway...

Puzzled:confused:

But it's great film otherwise so I am not giving up on it!

 

[Quinten]

Bear in mind flash is a far more contrast source of light than natural sunlight (In most cases) which is where a problem may lie. However it looks by your description that your flash source may be a little optimistic about the level of light output. Was your flash controlled by the camera, by the flashgun or by using a meter? Any of these could be giving a wrong estimation of the requirements for the film. You could try rating the Pan F Film at 25 ISO and see what the results are like then.

I agree, reading your post and the other posts I'll try rating it at 25 for flash. (I am aware of the contrast from the light sources, I shot the same light with other film too, I really ment the contrast in the film, if I say that correctly )

PS I used a combination of bowens 750W and a 1000W profoto head, a sekonic l-508 lightmeter, no issue with other films, (films I am very much used to)

 

[Quinten]

Is PanF a higher contrast film by nature? For instance if Kodak 125PX has 7 zones, does PanF have 6 a bit sooner. Maybe only in Rodinal? Than I might indeed under develop and need to shoot for less contrast. It might be a small diference, I've used the 125PX so much that it is hard to properly judge a film that is very different.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

I may have missed something here. Where does it say that Pan F has to be developed promptly? I don't recall seeing any direct specialist instructions issued by Ilford to the effect that is must be developed sooner than other films.

One of the members on LFPF ran into this issue. His Pan-F rolls had almost no images on them, even with a 20 minute development time. I think that he waited a year or more to develop his film, as he exposed the film and then moved. (Personally, I've only used the film when I've developed it promptly, like less than a week later, so I never had that issue.)

 

[Quinten]

One of the members on LFPF ran into this issue. His Pan-F rolls had almost no images on them, even with a 20 minute development time. I think that he waited a year or more to develop his film, as he exposed the film and then moved. (Personally, I've only used the film when I've developed it promptly, like less than a week later, so I never had that issue.)

You seem to have a healthy curiosity, how can he wait for a year to see his pictures?! I developed them between 10 and 20 hours after exposure. (They expire June 2014)

 

[StoneNYC]

A rep another forum post that was FROMilford says there is a latent image loss issue with Pan F and it should be developed within 3 months of exposure.

The two "nude" shots I have in my gallery were shot on pan f+ with studio (Profoto) strobes and soft boxes.

The earlier (butt shot) was developed, immediately, the latter shot was developed roughly 3 months later, however I DID keep the rolls in the fridge in between.

In contrast the PXP I shot with at EI 100 were slightly under exposed and I wasn't happy with the flat contrast.

Both developed in Ilfsol 3 in the same time. (Except the first test roll (butt shot).

So hope that's some helpful info.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Also OP unless I'm blind, I can't find any examples, can you show what you mean?

Or direct us to an image like I have?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian C. Miller]

You seem to have a healthy curiosity, how can he wait for a year to see his pictures?! I developed them between 10 and 20 hours after exposure. (They expire June 2014)

The fellow said that he moved, and thus wasn't able to get to them immediately. I think it was from Taiwan to Illinois, but I'm not sure. He didn't know about the latent image problem with Pan-F. IIRC, the problem is unique to Pan-F, and the other Ilford films don't have that problem.

 

[Quinten]

@StoneNYC I've attached the example. It's hard to show the negatives as they are in a digital image, so I hope it is of any value

Is PanF a higher contrast film by nature? For instance if Kodak 125PX has 7 zones, does PanF have 6 a bit sooner. Maybe only in Rodinal? Than I might indeed under develop and need to shoot for less contrast. It might be a small diference, I've used the 125PX so much that it is hard to properly judge a film that is very different.

Is it true that Rodinal in high concentrations (1+25) creates higher contrast negatives even if they are slightly underdeveloped? I'll put it to the test but maybe someone has experience with this.
I a very nice pm I was told ASA 50 films might have a slightly higher contrast anyway.

So the solutions seems rating PanF at ASA 25 to get a denser negative and develop as I did. (If developing a bit longer in rodinal 1+50 does the trick, I'll let you know)

 

[Quinten]

Also OP unless I'm blind, I can't find any examples, can you show what you mean?

Or direct us to an image like I have?

~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

In the attached image above you can see the lack of detail in the highlights, this was no problem with Kodak 125PX. But you guys already gave me some things I should try that might get it right next time, thanks!

 

[pentaxuser]

OP you must do whatever you feel is appropriate if the neg and subsequent print(NB this is the real test of the neg) isn't what you want it to be but the scan if it's a true representation of the neg does show highlight detail in my opinion. I am basing this on the white dress where except for direct sunlight there appears to be all the highlight detail I'd expect in the light conditions. The two area where there is no detail is the hip area and the forehead but both areas have direct sun on them and become close to specular highlights.

The shadow detail in such contrasty light appears pretty good to me as well

pentaxuser

 

[StoneNYC]

@StoneNYC I've attached the example. It's hard to show the negatives as they are in a digital image, so I hope it is of any value



Is it true that Rodinal in high concentrations (1+25) creates higher contrast negatives even if they are slightly underdeveloped? I'll put it to the test but maybe someone has experience with this.
I a very nice pm I was told ASA 50 films might have a slightly higher contrast anyway.

So the solutions seems rating PanF at ASA 25 to get a denser negative and develop as I did. (If developing a bit longer in rodinal 1+50 does the trick, I'll let you know)

I would like to see an example on a different film.

To me it just looks like you don't have enough light in the right spots but I wouldn't blame the film, I would say you should have given a SLIGHT diffusion, that the light is hitting her face "too fast" or the lamp is too close. I've never had an issue like that one, I see what you mean but I would blame the lighting first, it's not terrible but I feel like her skin is super dark and doesn't match what her complexion should be. This happens to me a a combination of if the light source is too close to the subject and the WS is too high. What brand of head/pack do you use? And what reflector did you have on?


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RalphLambrecht]

there is reciprocity failure due tolow intensity exposure and long exposure times but also due to high light intensity and short exposures. both create a similar problem, under exposure. since you can't extend the flash exposure times,only opening the aperture can battle this problem. try opening by a stopand tick to your development regime for now. adjust from there.
goodluck

 

[StoneNYC]

there is reciprocity failure due tolow intensity exposure and long exposure times but also due to high light intensity and short exposures. both create a similar problem, under exposure. since you can't extend the flash exposure times,only opening the aperture can battle this problem. try opening by a stopand tick to your development regime for now. adjust from there.
goodluck

I beg to differ about one point. As you increase the strobes power you decrease the flash duration, as you lower the power output you increase the flash duration ... So you do have some control over the flash duration (exposure time).


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LiamG]

I beg to differ about one point. As you increase the strobes power you decrease the flash duration, as you lower the power output you increase the flash duration ... So you do have some control over the flash duration (exposure time).


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't this backwards- I thought with electronic flash, power was mostly controlled by shortening the burst; thus decreasing power results in shorter duration, and thus why specialized high speed flash equipment uses multiple flash tubes to get decent output.

 

[StoneNYC]

Isn't this backwards- I thought with electronic flash, power was mostly controlled by shortening the burst; thus decreasing power results in shorter duration, and thus why specialized high speed flash equipment uses multiple flash tubes to get decent output.

Yea, I was driving and I think I typed it backward, I stand corrected.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MattKing]

Yea, I was driving and I think I typed it backward, I stand corrected.


~Stone

You know what Oprah says about driving and "texting" ......oliceman: