Ilford PanF+ souped in Pyrocat-HD or MC..............Actual film speed????

[John Wiegerink]

I've been using Xtol-R for just about everything lately and loving every minute of it. I decided to take a fork in the road and break out my stash of Pyrocat-MC for some PanF+ I just purchased in 35mm bulk roll. I had been thinking of dumping all my 35mm gear and sticking to medium format and larger. Then I decided to give 35mm one more try. I figured PanF+ along with my Contax G1's lenses should get me close to medium format as far as wet printed picture quality. Since it's winter in Michigan's "Winter-water-wonderland" at the moment I thought Pyrocat-MC would be a big help with contrast when it comes to the PanF+. I did my EI film speed test and developing time test and all was fine except I'm only getting just over ISO25 for my personal EI. Is this normal with Pyrocat-HD/MC? Other films I soup in Pyrocat come out much closer to the box speed. When I use PanF+ in Xtol-replenished I'm getting just a smidge under ISO50 and could get by just fine rating it at box speed. I love Pyrocat for ease of printing these winter scenes, but I might just want to work a little harder at getting PanF+ to like Xtol-R a little more. I guess my real question is if others out there can only get ISO25 with Pyrocat-HD/MC when using PanF+?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I suspect the short toe nature of Pan-F isn't helping in what (I'm assuming) are high SBR scenes. Compensating for this in order to get good shadow detail will be driving down your effective film speed.

It should also be borne in mind however that in conventional developers, Phenidone can give 2/3 stop more speed in real terms than Metol - though specialist high acutance Metol based developers are reported to potentially exceed 'box' speed (FX-1 etc).

All things considered, I'd suggest Delta 100/ TMX-100, but trying to squeeze what are perceived to be MF qualities out of 35mm is a pointlessly frustrating endeavour.

What other films are you using?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I suspect the short toe nature of Pan-F isn't helping in what (I'm assuming) are high SBR scenes. Compensating for this in order to get good shadow detail will be driving down your effective film speed.

It should also be borne in mind however that in conventional developers, Phenidone can give 2/3 stop more speed in real terms than Metol - though specialist high acutance Metol based developers are reported to potentially exceed 'box' speed (FX-1 etc).

All things considered, I'd suggest Delta 100/ TMX-100, but trying to squeeze what are perceived to be MF qualities out of 35mm is a pointlessly frustrating endeavour.

What other films are you using?

Yes, I know I'll never achieve my goal of equaling medium format, but 11X14's of very good quality might be achievable. I just finished an old, old bulk roll of Delta 100 and other than a slightly elevated base fog it was really nice film. My very favorite bulk 35mm film was Fuji Acros and I'd be using it right now it I could get it in bulk. I suppose I could just buy Fuji Acros in 36exp. cassettes, but I'd rather go bulk. Actually, for the amount of 35mm I shoot I think I might just go the 36exp route. I've been staying away from Kodak due to the ungodly cost difference, but it is good stuff just the same. One nice thing about Fuji Acros is that it likes to swim in just about any soup you throw it in and is a very, very easy film to work with. God, I think I'm talking myself out of this PanF+ trial-n-error thing and into Acros, a nice film I know pretty well from a few years back.

 

[StephenT]

I get about ISO 80 with PanF+ by souping in Diafine.

I shoot more large and medium format than I do 35mm, but sometimes you just can't beat 35mm for convenience. Keep experimenting with the PanF+ - it's a great film, just a bit slow, so keep your tripods handy!

 

[pgomena]

I tested PanF+ and several other films in Pyrocat HD last summmer. I found that with an incident meter my film speed worked out to between EI 32 and 40.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I tested PanF+ and several other films in Pyrocat HD last summmer. I found that with an incident meter my film speed worked out to between EI 32 and 40.

I was using the "onboard" meter in the Contax G1 off my Kodak gray card. I'll compare the reading tomorrow against my Cossen Luna-Star F and see what it says. I used the Contax built-in meter out of convenience. When I use PanF+ in some of my older folders I just rate it at EI32 and it works just fine, but I'm using the Luna Star F meter with those cameras.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes, I know I'll never achieve my goal of equaling medium format, but 11X14's of very good quality might be achievable. I just finished an old, old bulk roll of Delta 100 and other than a slightly elevated base fog it was really nice film. My very favorite bulk 35mm film was Fuji Acros and I'd be using it right now it I could get it in bulk. I suppose I could just buy Fuji Acros in 36exp. cassettes, but I'd rather go bulk. Actually, for the amount of 35mm I shoot I think I might just go the 36exp route. I've been staying away from Kodak due to the ungodly cost difference, but it is good stuff just the same. One nice thing about Fuji Acros is that it likes to swim in just about any soup you throw it in and is a very, very easy film to work with. God, I think I'm talking myself out of this PanF+ trial-n-error thing and into Acros, a nice film I know pretty well from a few years back.

It's worth taking a look (there was a url link here which no longer exists) at the results from Henning Serger - Acros equals Pan-F, with Delta 100 & TMX exceeding it resolution wise - I've tended to use Delta 100 when I've needed to retain the best possible detail in situations with strong highlights - very straightforward to work with. It'll happily make a nice crisp 9x & up print without complaint, if the rest of your imaging chain is up to scratch. I'd argue that unless you need the specific behaviour that Pan-F offers, there are better, equally high resolving films on the market today.

I recall too that Simon Galley pointed out a number of years ago that bulk rolls are generally more expensive to manufacture than individual rolls today, owing to increasingly automated systems geared towards finishing into individual rolls, whereas bulk rolls required operator interventions in packaging, raising costs.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Lachlan,
Thanks for the link and it was just a little eye opening to read. I'll be making a trip into the big city this week and plan on stopping by the only camera shop left. They have Fuji Acros, Kodak TMX/TMY2 and all the Ilford films in stock. I'm going to buy several rolls of Delta 100 and Acros to test in my Contax G1. Plus, I might even buy a couple of rolls of Delta 400 and stick one in the spare G1 body. Like I said earlier, I'm mainly a medium format shooter, but 35mm is certainly handy to have for some occasions. I remember reading in Barry Thornton's book "Edge of Darkness" about higher speed-coarser grained films actually looking sharper than a film with very fine grain. He actually had examples of this in the book and to the eye, at least to mine anyway, he was right. I'm sure the degree of enlargement would come into play on this if one were making 16X20 prints from 35mm, but for smaller prints fine grain might not give the illusion of sharpness? I know people who Poo-Poo Barry Thornton's writings and tests, but I truly believe he was not far off on most of his experiments and theories.
As to bulk vs. cassette 35mm? Yes, I believe you are right since if you look at Kodak's pricing scale you see bulk at a much higher price per-sq. inch compared to 35mm cassette pricing. Being winter time here in Michigan it gives me plenty of time to play around and see what actually will work/look the best. All that said, I do like the looks of PanF+ when everything goes right.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan,
Thanks for the link and it was just a little eye opening to read. I'll be making a trip into the big city this week and plan on stopping by the only camera shop left. They have Fuji Acros, Kodak TMX/TMY2 and all the Ilford films in stock. I'm going to buy several rolls of Delta 100 and Acros to test in my Contax G1. Plus, I might even buy a couple of rolls of Delta 400 and stick one in the spare G1 body. Like I said earlier, I'm mainly a medium format shooter, but 35mm is certainly handy to have for some occasions. I remember reading in Barry Thornton's book "Edge of Darkness" about higher speed-coarser grained films actually looking sharper than a film with very fine grain. He actually had examples of this in the book and to the eye, at least to mine anyway, he was right. I'm sure the degree of enlargement would come into play on this if one were making 16X20 prints from 35mm, but for smaller prints fine grain might not give the illusion of sharpness? I know people who Poo-Poo Barry Thornton's writings and tests, but I truly believe he was not far off on most of his experiments and theories.
As to bulk vs. cassette 35mm? Yes, I believe you are right since if you look at Kodak's pricing scale you see bulk at a much higher price per-sq. inch compared to 35mm cassette pricing. Being winter time here in Michigan it gives me plenty of time to play around and see what actually will work/look the best. All that said, I do like the looks of PanF+ when everything goes right.

Having just checked my copy on pages 76-78, he suggests that in some ways a coarser grain film can offer greater perceived sharpness, however from what he says, & my own experience, I'd suggest this works up to about 6-8x, depending on situation. However, in chapter 8 he says that 35mm Delta 100 etc in DiXactol can be enlarged "up to 12 inches or more image size" along with MF HP5 & TX to the same 12" without becoming excessively grainy.

It's definitely one of the better written technical texts out there, though like Ctein's 'Post Exposure' it has its problems.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Having just checked my copy on pages 76-78, he suggests that in some ways a coarser grain film can offer greater perceived sharpness, however from what he says, & my own experience, I'd suggest this works up to about 6-8x, depending on situation. However, in chapter 8 he says that 35mm Delta 100 etc in DiXactol can be enlarged "up to 12 inches or more image size" along with MF HP5 & TX to the same 12" without becoming excessively grainy.

It's definitely one of the better written technical texts out there, though like Ctein's 'Post Exposure' it has its problems.

Yes, that was my understanding also when it came to enlargement size. I think there is a point where the grain structure of the faster film would start to interfere with that perceived sharpness thing. At what size enlargement that is I don't know. Yes, I enjoyed reading Barry's style of writing and while there might be some questionable things in the book I got many good things out of it. Actually some things I would have never figured out on my own. So, it was worth the reading for this old goat.