More Thin Pan F

bvy · Nov 16, 2014

Pan F is a thorn in my side. So I have two rolls that I shot over the past couple months at box speed of 50 (I know, I know) in my Yashica T5. I developed the first (less critical) roll today in D76 1+1 at 68F for nine minutes. (The stock D76 was mixed last week.) The results are on the thin side -- not unusable, but still thin. For the second roll, should I use the same combination and increase the developing time by, say, 20%? I've read in a few place that Pan F shouldn't be pushed in D76. The only film developers currently at my disposal are D76 and Perceptol. But Perceptol costs some speed at any dilution. Thoughts?

Roger Cole · Nov 16, 2014

Well, how's the detail in the shadows? If there's good shadow detail but the negs are flat, you can just increase development. But if shadow detail is lacking you need to expose more. (Such negatives will ALSO usually be flat if there's more than a small bit of underexposure, which is mostly why pushing film works to some extent, it lets you print the midtones and above decently.)

I get around this with Pan F+ by developing in Diafine. Great combo. But the Diafine box says EI 80. I give 64 for good results but they are a bit on the "delicate" side - good shadow detail, print well, but they aren't dense by any means. 50 would give denser negatives but probably not better prints. The two bath compensation with Diafine always tends to yield flat-ish negatives that print well on grade 3 or even 3.5.

hoffy · Nov 16, 2014

Shall I mention the Elephant in the corner......
.
.
.
.
.
.
Image latency. There, I said it! My issues with PanF have always been saved with prompt processing.

karl · Nov 16, 2014

Yes, you must process it as soon as possible. I love Pan F+ but the latent image degradation issue is real problem. I now try to process exposed rolls within 1 week.

Xmas · Nov 16, 2014

try 25 ISO or Microphen at 32...
I normally develop after a month never have shadow density problems
Id use it exclusively if I had the daylight
today is typical heavy overcast with low laying mist rear fog lamp on auto...
humidity 90% or more

snapguy · Nov 16, 2014

Aaaargh

I have a roll of Pan F (120 size) in my new 60-year-old Rolleiflex and I have had it in there for a month, waiting to take a special photo with the 12th frame. I want to do a time exposure at night to see if the shutter is accurate at a long setting. Now I am wondering if I should give it extra time in the soup when I do dip-and-dunk it. There is a song where the dude bleats about the absence of Kodachrome. Ditto for me for Kodak's Panatomic-X. I am telling you here and now I don't think I can cotton to much more "progress."

StoneNYC · Nov 16, 2014

snapguy said:
I have a roll of Pan F (120 size) in my new 60-year-old Rolleiflex and I have had it in there for a month, waiting to take a special photo with the 12th frame. I want to do a time exposure at night to see if the shutter is accurate at a long setting. Now I am wondering if I should give it extra time in the soup when I do dip-and-dunk it. There is a song where the dude bleats about the absence of Kodachrome. Ditto for me for Kodak's Panatomic-X. I am telling you here and now I don't think I can cotton to much more "progress."

Panatomic-X was amazing.

That said, PanF+'s grain is WAY finer and less clumpy.

Completely different looks.

As long as your home isn't 90 degrees, you're fine.

Ilford states it's fine for 3 months, longer than 3 months and the latent image loss could start to appear.

I've shot PanF+ and gone 6 months before processing with no issues but I kept it in a sealed container in the fridge.

One month, you're fine.

jim appleyard · Nov 16, 2014

At first guess it sounds like an exposure problem. D-76 1+1 for nine min. sounds about right. I think youo need to bracket you exposures. Shoot on frame at EI 50, then 40, 32, & 25. One of those should give you a properly exposed neg. Use that EI from now on.

bvy · Nov 16, 2014

Well, my camera is auto everything, so it picked up the DX code off the cassette and exposed accordingly. I don't think I'll be putting more Pan F in this particular camera. I could hack the cassette, I suppose, or try a camera that allows me to shoot it at 25. And I'm very familiar with the image latency problem. The last frames on the roll I just developed were shot four weeks ago, which doesn't strike me as excessive. The film's expiration is 11/2016.

It might have something to do with the on-camera flash, which I used in the dark, and as fill in some outdoor situations. The shadows are very thin, which I'm okay with in some cases (the dark backgrounds of the flash shots) but the density in the highlights isn't particularly... well, dense. If I increase development, I might boost the highlights at the expense of a more contrasty negative. Of course, the better frames have a lot of contrast already.

Anyway, I'm less interested at this point in diagnosing what went wrong than I am in figuring out the best development strategy for the second roll.

Rick A · Nov 16, 2014

bvy said:
Pan F is a thorn in my side. So I have two rolls that I shot over the past couple months at box speed of 50 (I know, I know) in my Yashica T5. I developed the first (less critical) roll today in D76 1+1 at 68F for nine minutes. (The stock D76 was mixed last week.) The results are on the thin side -- not unusable, but still thin. For the second roll, should I use the same combination and increase the developing time by, say, 20%? I've read in a few place that Pan F shouldn't be pushed in D76. The only film developers currently at my disposal are D76 and Perceptol. But Perceptol costs some speed at any dilution. Thoughts?

Is your thermometer accurate? I experienced a faulty thermometer a few years back, everything came out under developed until I checked the instrument against a known accurate one, voile, bad thermometer.

bvy · Nov 16, 2014

Yep. I have a probe thermometer that I use in the developer, and an infrared that I use on rinses and baths and to make sure nothing is wildly off.

Jim Noel · Nov 16, 2014

"Auto everything" cameras are probably responsible for more under-exposed film than any other one item. When I was teaching I was able to buy stickers to change the DX code to more appropriate ones for students who owned such cameras. Sadly the store where I bought them is gone. My suggestion is to change to Diafine which gives more effective film speed and thus rescues many images from such cameras.

kreeger · Nov 16, 2014

I am lucky enough to have the time and equipment to doing some extensive exposure and development testing of all the films I would ever use, measured with a MacBeth TD504 densitometer, Beckman PH meters of the developers and calibrated thermometers to ensure tight QC on the results.

My 120 Pan-F, rated at ISO 25, after the tests.

I love the resolution of Pan-F when there is enough light to shoot with it hand held. When I have a tripod or a Bogen super clamp to steady the camera, it works. half the box speed, as tested with my Hasselblad 500 C/M.

I used to use Agfapan 25 and Pan-F with my Pentax 6x7 years ago. I have some really great negatives made with tripod and the mirror up with those films.

With Hasselblads today, I use Neopan Acros at ISO 64, and it's got everything (including reciprocity handling) I need for my work.

cliveh · Nov 16, 2014

bvy said:
Pan F is a thorn in my side. So I have two rolls that I shot over the past couple months at box speed of 50 (I know, I know) in my Yashica T5. I developed the first (less critical) roll today in D76 1+1 at 68F for nine minutes. (The stock D76 was mixed last week.) The results are on the thin side -- not unusable, but still thin. For the second roll, should I use the same combination and increase the developing time by, say, 20%? I've read in a few place that Pan F shouldn't be pushed in D76. The only film developers currently at my disposal are D76 and Perceptol. But Perceptol costs some speed at any dilution. Thoughts?

Well when I use my Hasselblad for B&W, I shoot Pan F at box speed and like you develop it in D76 1:1 at 68F, but I develop for 14 minutes and get beautiful negs.

bsdunek · Nov 16, 2014

I always expose Pan-F generously, maybe 1/2 stop over, and develop generously in Microphen. Otherwise my negatives are kind of thin. I like nice rich negatives - just so the highlights aren't blocked up, and that's how I do it.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Nov 16, 2014

bvy said:
Well, my camera is auto everything, so it picked up the DX code off the cassette and exposed accordingly.

I would think an ISO 50 film is not the best choice for an automatic camera. Maybe try some Ilford XP2. If you really want to stick with the camera/film combo, I'd +1 the Diafine suggestion.

pentaxuser · Nov 16, 2014

I checked the Pan F+ times and cliveh's time is way over what the makers' of D76 and PanF+ recommend. That doesn't mean it is wrong and clearly isn't for him but it is worrying that the maker's time is so far out( cliveh uses nearly 65% extra)compared to the range that I have seen most others report for times they use for most film and developer combinations.

I tried to do a search on PanF+ and D76 but didn't turn up much. Should I ever decide to try this combo of D76 and PanF can other users of this combination(D76 1+1 and Pan F+) say what their times are?

It is always slightly worrying to someone trying a combo for the first time if there is only one user who needs a much longer time that the maker recommends

It might be a film where the maker's time is just too short for decent negs but information from as many other users as possible is always helpful

Thanks

pentaxuser

Roger Cole · Nov 16, 2014

Most "auto everything" cameras allow at least SOME exposure override. Even my Stylus Zoom does. Just over ride for +1 or whatever. If it doesn't allow at least that - get another camera or otherwise, I agree, XP2 is a great choice.

NB23 · Nov 16, 2014

Image latency on pan-F is a myth, IMO.

I've run on the same problem as anyone else but I'd say kt's a bad profuction batch more then anything.

Look at the film's imprint. Is it still there? Yes?
So there you have it.

cliveh · Nov 16, 2014

pentaxuser said:
I checked the Pan F+ times and cliveh's time is way over what the makers' of D76 and PanF+ recommend. That doesn't mean it is wrong and clearly isn't for him but it is worrying that the maker's time is so far out( cliveh uses nearly 65% extra)compared to the range that I have seen most others report for times they use for most film and developer combinations.

I tried to do a search on PanF+ and D76 but didn't turn up much. Should I ever decide to try this combo of D76 and PanF can other users of this combination(D76 1+1 and Pan F+) say what their times are?

It is always slightly worrying to someone trying a combo for the first time if there is only one user who needs a much longer time that the maker recommends

It might be a film where the maker's time is just too short for decent negs but information from as many other users as possible is always helpful

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't care what charts recommend, as I want what works for me. I should also add I'm printing these negs on a diffuser De vere and not a condenser.

Roger Cole · Nov 16, 2014

The imprint in all my Pan F+ negs is MUCH thinner than on any other film I use, sometimes basically not even there.

And I think the OP was using D76 full strength. I think ties for both stock and 1+1 have been thrown around in this thread, perhaps with some confusion.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

cliveh · Nov 16, 2014

Roger Cole said:
The imprint in all my Pan F+ negs is MUCH thinner than on any other film I use, sometimes basically not even there.

And I think the OP was using D76 full strength. I think ties for both stock and 1+1 have been thrown around in this thread, perhaps with some confusion.

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

No, the OP clearly states D76 at 1:1.

Xmas · Nov 16, 2014

bvy said:
Well, my camera is auto everything, so it picked up the DX code off the cassette and exposed accordingly. I don't think I'll be putting more Pan F in this particular camera. I could hack the cassette, I suppose, or try a camera that allows me to shoot it at 25. And I'm very familiar with the image latency problem. The last frames on the roll I just developed were shot four weeks ago, which doesn't strike me as excessive. The film's expiration is 11/2016.

It might have something to do with the on-camera flash, which I used in the dark, and as fill in some outdoor situations. The shadows are very thin, which I'm okay with in some cases (the dark backgrounds of the flash shots) but the density in the highlights isn't particularly... well, dense. If I increase development, I might boost the highlights at the expense of a more contrasty negative. Of course, the better frames have a lot of contrast already.

Anyway, I'm less interested at this point in diagnosing what went wrong than I am in figuring out the best development strategy for the second roll.

On camera flash negatives will be flat. If the better frames ie non flash are contrasty enough already the development is ok.
If the shadows don't have enough silver in them then even a speed increasing developer won't help much. Whatever the soup people say...
Discard camera if it has no manual override, or exposure hold capability.
My best negs come from panf...

bvy · Nov 16, 2014

The T5 has a Carl Zeiss lens that has given me some beautiful images. So I won't be discarding it. I just need to be selective about the film I put through it. And I can always manipulate the DX code to trick the camera into exposing it at 25. I've done this with other film before. Regardless, the on camera flash was a bad choice for this film.

Meantime, I'm ordering Diafine to process the second roll. It will be my first experience with it. Thanks for that recommendation.

pentaxuser · Nov 16, 2014

cliveh said:
I don't care what charts recommend, as I want what works for me. I should also add I'm printing these negs on a diffuser De vere and not a condenser.

I appreciate what you have said in your first sentence and I had thought that my second sentence in my post covers that. I am simply seeking as many views as possible from other users of Pan F+ and D76 at 1+1. As I said I have seen few posts on film and developer combinations where the deviation from the maker's time is as much as 65% so others' experience could be useful.

I'd hazard a guess that the maker's time for Pan F+ and D76 at 1+1 may well be a little conservative but I am trying to see how much extra might be a good starting point

pentaxuser

More Thin Pan F

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency