More Thin Pan F

[Roger Cole]

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

Oops you're right - I scrolled back and saw reference to "the stock" being mixed and missed that.


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

 

[StoneNYC]

I can't help you there, I only soup it in Rodinal

 

[NB23]

I've shot 10 year expired pan-F with a VERY contrasty imprint, which is a sign that "image latency" regarding this film is a myth. Otherwise, why would it be so clear?
Yes, there is some pan-f out there with very weak imprint, but so are the last 60 tmax rolls i've developed, as well as my last 50 tolls of plus-x. And as far as I've seen, there's no image latency problem with tmax or plus-x fims reported on the net.

I've also had pan-f problems in the past. Thin negative, as everyone reports. But my personal explanation is simpler then image latency. It's a shitty film, that's it. Altough I love it, it's hit & miss, and I develop all my films within a few days of its exposure.

Who are we to know exactly, but one can ask the question: does Ilford sell expired film with a "fresh date" stamped on? Could well be. Let's not be fools. It's been done all over the world. A serious company doesn't bin a few master rolls (hundred thousands of dollars) just because it expired.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've shot 10 year expired pan-F with a VERY contrasty imprint, which is a sign that "image latency" regarding this film is a myth. Otherwise, why would it be so clear?
Yes, there is some pan-f out there with very weak imprint, but so are the last 60 tmax rolls i've developed, as well as my last 50 tolls of plus-x. And as far as I've seen, there's no image latency problem with tmax or plus-x fims reported on the net.

I've also had pan-f problems in the past. Thin negative, as everyone reports. But my personal explanation is simpler then image latency. It's a shitty film, that's it. Altough I love it, it's hit & miss, and I develop all my films within a few days of its exposure.

Who are we to know exactly, but one can ask the question: does Ilford sell expired film with a "fresh date" stamped on? Could well be. Let's not be fools. It's been done all over the world. A serious company doesn't bin a few master rolls (hundred thousands of dollars) just because it expired.

And I've shot in-date Pan F+ with imprint that was barely legible or illegible. The images I shot, though, when promptly developed, were fine. So that doesnt' fit with the film being bad.

 

[Simon R Galley]

NB23 for some reason dislikes ILFORD which his absolute right.

Of course whatever he says is therefore somewhat questionable, as to his latest contribution, not even worth the reply, so I won't.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've always preferred it rated at 25; but it's not really the best film for high contrast situations in any case. When the lighting ratio is a bit
subdued, then Pan F can really sing. It is somewhat different, which can be a liability if you don't understand it. But the same unique
quality is why many people love the look of this film in the first place. I have never personally gotten a bad batch of it - it's been totally predictable, though there are some rumors out there about processing it within a reasonable period of time, which I always do anyway, so can't comment about that. 76 works fine, though I prefer pyro.

 

[Hatchetman]

Somebody here gave me the heads up to shoot at 25, develop DD-X 9 minutes. Excellent results! I was having trouble with too much contrast with D76 & TMax developers.

 

[StoneNYC]

Takes a lot to get Simon to say anything like that, good job NB23... Wow...

Also, just to inform you, latent image loss has to do with an image that is already imprinted and then it's loss as time goes on, expired film when shot properly will not simply have latent image loss automatically, the image loss happens after the image is exposed...

I may not know much but obviously you don't even understand the simple concepts of photography and perhaps that's why you have so many problems shooting this (and probably other) films.

The thin numbers/rebate of the film IS because of latent image loss.

Also, KODAK as an example, produced a film that they then stored in a massive bulk roll in a cold freezer, they then forgot about it for something like 10 years, then found it, thawed it out, and sold it as new fresh film with a fresh date stamp on it.... That film? .... Technical Pan....

Just a little reality check.

 

[railwayman3]

Who are we to know exactly, but one can ask the question: does Ilford sell expired film with a "fresh date" stamped on? Could well be. Let's not be fools. It's been done all over the world. A serious company doesn't bin a few master rolls (hundred thousands of dollars) just because it expired.

Not sure what company you work for, but IMH experience any serious company, like Ilford, doesn't prejudice its reputation by knowingly releasing faulty products. (It's called "Quality Control", or "QC".)

PanF isn't a snapshot film, it needs a methodical and careful user to get the best from it. But so do most photographic and artists products.

 

[MattKing]

"Best Before" dates are not the same as "Manufactured On" dates. Film isn't really the same as bread and milk.

Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and a few others who aren't around any more are and were quite capable of evaluating large rolls of stored film and determining, at that time, what the likely usable life span of that film is. With something like Tech Pan, Kodak would have had a large amount of experience to base their determination on.

Given the criteria that the major manufacturers use when determining "Best Before" dates, the only people who would be likely to be affected by later cutting of stored master rolls of slow or mid-speed black and white film are people who shoot long "expired" film.

And I could be wrong, but I expect that the edge printing would be added as part of the final cutting and packaging process, not at the time of initial manufacture.

Colour film probably cannot be treated the same way.

 

[georg16nik]

...It's a shitty film, that's it...

care to elaborate?
Today I saw someone on RFF wrote

Pan F Plus isn’t worth the cardboard box it’s packaged in

I replied there that I've never had problems with Pan F+, and now that i think more about it, never had problems when it was Pan F, without + either.
So what's up?

 

[Rick A]

KABOOM..........

 

[StoneNYC]

KABOOM..........

 

[hoffy]

KABOOM..........

{I knew I shouldn't have mentioned the war}

 

[NB23]

Oh Simon,

I've had my fair share of bad Ilford films dating back to 1993 where all my Ilford bulk films had this scratch/line across the whole 100' length. It was never acknowledged by Ilford but it has been widely spread on the internet afterwards. And it was never acknowledged by Ilford. Of course.

I've also experienced Pan-F's very inconsistent behavior. From using a 10 years expired batch that was very (very!) fine to using a fresh batch with very weak images on it. Since I cannot fault my work ethic, and there was no "latent image" to speak of, my conclusion is that the inconsistent batches are Ilford's doing. And yes, a valid theory, one of the many possible theories, is that some master rolls are old/not well stored/defect and instead of getting destroyed, they are being sold as fresh. Of course, it's only a theory, but that would be an old business trick as old as the paleolithic era where the folks would trade a Dinosaur's leg for a Dinosaur's tail. It's also called Business as usual.

I'm sure MichaelR1974 has heard of the Maple Leaf company selling Salmonella infected meats to a whole Nation, and got away with it with a laugh and a tap on their back by Canada's prime Minister himself.

And what can we say about the Powder milk producers from China that have killed more then 1000 babies with their revolutionary melamine additive? Killing Babies, why is it such a big deal?

If a Meat or a Dairy Products company is perfectly willing to kill a population and is expecting to easily get away with it, I don't see what's the problem if a FILM company does it with such a BANAL product, after all. The simplest way to get away with it would be that a PR guy comes in the forum and says "please be assured that our QC department is analyzing the question. But in the mean time, buy our products".

 

[NB23]

That's great. Accuse a venerable first-tier manufacturer of putting fresh dates on expired film - without any reasonable basis whatsoever for the assertion. I think it is much more likely your working methods, rather than Pan F, is "hit & miss".

It is hit and miss.

Please explain why Fresh pan-F comes out flat with a very weak imprunt while a 10 years expired 100' roll came out very well exposed and with a very contrasty imprint?

We can forget about the silly "latent image" right there.

And then add all the weird, WORLDWIDE, redundant and CONSTANT reports about this film which always revolve around the same issue: Inconsistent, Flat results. A smart man such as you are cannot possibly accuse so many scattered people around the globe to be doing something, I mean the SAME THING wrong. Can you?

Let's get real. It boils down to two things: It's either a bad product or it's plagued by a manufacturing/marketing errors. I'm seriously considering number Two. So many people around the globe cannot be doing it all wrong while be doing it perfectly right with, let's say FP4 and HP5. That would be silly. User error would have to be spread across all films, not concentrated to one film in particular to the point that the said film gets stigmatized as it is right now (and for some time now) across the web, and for quite some years.

As I said: Let's get real.

 

[Trond]

Please explain why Fresh pan-F comes out flat with a very weak imprunt while a 10 years expired 100' roll came out very well exposed and with a very contrasty imprint?

Can you please expose and develop a fresh film and some from your expired roll and post here on APUG? Take care to expose and develop in exactly the same way, and make a contact print of the two films side by side.

It isn't very useful to refer to unsubstantiated internet rumours, or what you claim is your personal experience, without showing us some hard evidence.

Trond

 

[StoneNYC]

It is hit and miss.

Please explain why Fresh pan-F comes out flat with a very weak imprunt while a 10 years expired 100' roll came out very well exposed and with a very contrasty imprint?

We can forget about the silly "latent image" right there.

And then add all the weird, WORLDWIDE, redundant and CONSTANT reports about this film which always revolve around the same issue: Inconsistent, Flat results. A smart man such as you are cannot possibly accuse so many scattered people around the globe to be doing something, I mean the SAME THING wrong. Can you?

Let's get real. It boils down to two things: It's either a bad product or it's plagued by a manufacturing/marketing errors. I'm seriously considering number Two. So many people around the globe cannot be doing it all wrong while be doing it perfectly right with, let's say FP4 and HP5. That would be silly. User error would have to be spread across all films, not concentrated to one film in particular to the point that the said film gets stigmatized as it is right now (and for some time now) across the web, and for quite some years.

As I said: Let's get real.

Again latent image is when you expose an image and then it fades, not "old film" that is exposed and developed.

Your talking two separate films and two separately shot rolls right? Same camera or different camera? Same spools of film or different spools? Same dev tank development session? Same scene shot at the same time in the same camera?

User error comes into play if there isn't control in your work.

I'm guessing you err'd somewhere.

I was shooting PanF+ and then shot Acros100 in the same scene and ended up with under exposed PanF+ but then realized later I forgot to change the dial on the camera for the change in film speed, so it was my fault.

If there was a scratch, did you send them a sample to analyze and get your money back? They would analyze it and then accept a change out, just send them the film.

"Well documented" where???

 

[StoneNYC]

Can you please expose and develop a fresh film and some from your expired roll and post here on APUG? Take care to expose and develop in exactly the same way, and make a contact print of the two films side by side.

It isn't very useful to refer to unsubstantiated internet rumours, or what you claim is your personal experience, without showing us some hard evidence.

Trond

You posted while I was typing the same thing. +1

 

[Roger Cole]

Again latent image is when you expose an image and then it fades, not "old film" that is exposed and developed.

Your talking two separate films and two separately shot rolls right? Same camera or different camera? Same spools of film or different spools? Same dev tank development session? Same scene shot at the same time in the same camera?

User error comes into play if there isn't control in your work.

I'm guessing you err'd somewhere.

I was shooting PanF+ and then shot Acros100 in the same scene and ended up with under exposed PanF+ but then realized later I forgot to change the dial on the camera for the change in film speed, so it was my fault.

If there was a scratch, did you send them a sample to analyze and get your money back? They would analyze it and then accept a change out, just send them the film.

"Well documented" where???

Well he's talking about the latent image of the edge imprint left in manufacturing.

I also personally think he's nuts. I've used probably thousands (and certainly many hundreds) of rolls of Ilford film for something like 35 years now and never once had a bad film. Oh *I* have certainly screwed them up, but Ilford has been top notch (as have Kodak and Fuji.)

This guy should get some old Efke film and use it for a while then report back.

 

[railwayman3]

Can you please expose and develop a fresh film and some from your expired roll and post here on APUG? Take care to expose and develop in exactly the same way, and make a contact print of the two films side by side.

It isn't very useful to refer to unsubstantiated internet rumours, or what you claim is your personal experience, without showing us some hard evidence.

Trond

Yes indeed, pictures or it didn't happen !

 

[Xmas]

This guy should get some old Efke film and use it for a while then report back.

Now you are doing what NB does as I never had any problems with Efke, apart from wondering why they were so cheap. And whailing when I discovered they had folded.

There is no point in responding to trolls...

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear NB23,

As always, you are completely entitled to your opinion and I totally respect that and your right to share it, and I will never shrink from balanced and measured debate.

PAN F and PAN F+ have been continually in production since 1948, its a great 'traditional' film and could be turned idiosyncratic. I think its a fine film, worthy of its place in our catalog and where it will always remain.

What I must and will defend ( to my last breath ) is our QC policy and the way we treat our customers and those who experience any QC with any of our products. We have a process, it works, we value all our customers and we ALWAYS give a reply and we always tell the customer our findings, on the rare occasion it is a QC fault the product is replaced ALWAYS. The reason....it is so rare, as every process and person in our company is quality driven.

Again, the proof of that is the reputation of our brand and our products, the end user photographer / printer always has the ultimate sanction, they can buy other products.

Finally the 'Oh Simon' is patronizing, you very welcome to call me worse than a Robber's Dog.. but please do not patronize!, I am a trained professional photographer and printer, I am also not a PR man... ( although nothing wrong with that ) I am one of the six owners and director's of HARMAN technology Limited.

Regards Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited, proud manufacturers of PAN F +.

 

[georg16nik]

OK, let's get real, for real.

I mean no disrespect but most film shooters store their materials before processing in less than ideal storage conditions.
How many photographers go by the ISO 18928 specs? In reality, 99.9% are clueless photo snappers - nothing wrong with that, until we hear the cry baby.

Blaming the manufacturer for silver halide's demanding nature won't bring any good to any of us.

It is hit and miss.

Please explain why Fresh pan-F comes out flat with a very weak imprunt while a 10 years expired 100' roll came out very well exposed and with a very contrasty imprint?

We can forget about the silly "latent image" right there.

And then add all the weird, WORLDWIDE, redundant and CONSTANT reports about this film which always revolve around the same issue: Inconsistent, Flat results. A smart man such as you are cannot possibly accuse so many scattered people around the globe to be doing something, I mean the SAME THING wrong. Can you?

Let's get real. It boils down to two things: It's either a bad product or it's plagued by a manufacturing/marketing errors. I'm seriously considering number Two. So many people around the globe cannot be doing it all wrong while be doing it perfectly right with, let's say FP4 and HP5. That would be silly. User error would have to be spread across all films, not concentrated to one film in particular to the point that the said film gets stigmatized as it is right now (and for some time now) across the web, and for quite some years.

As I said: Let's get real.

 

[pentaxuser]

There must be very few here who doubt Ilford's QC policy and certainly none who have ever been on an Ilford tour. I may have some U.S. v U.K. price queries on some Ilford products but I have no queries or worries about its QC policy whatsoever and neither do I doubt its desire and sincerity when it comes to investigating customer queries on its products.

pentaxuser