More Thin Pan F

[Neal]

I like PanF+

I only shoot 3 or 4 rolls of it in a year, but I can honestly say I've never had an issue with PanF+ that wasn't my own fault. I shoot it at box speed and use Xtol 1+1 in a Jobo rotary following the Xtol data sheet.

Neal Wydra

 

[bvy]

Well, I'm sorry I started this sh|tstorm. My opening remark about Pan F being a thorn in my side had more to do with me than the film itself. I seem unable to learn the lesson that this isn't snapshot film. I did have one bad experience in the past that seemed to go beyond anything I did wrong, and Simon and the folks at Ilford went above and beyond to investigate and make good. Maybe Pan F isn't as "durable" as Tri-X, but under the right conditions, I think it's more than capable and has a look all its own. I'm sorry the discussion devolved into this.

All I really wanted out of this thread was suggestions for processing the second roll. I got more than a few good ideas. Diafine is on its way to me...

 

[railwayman3]

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.

I can assure you that, over the years, my "user error" has been spread across just about most makes and types of film (and several makes of camera, exposure meter, darkroom gear, paper and chemicals) !

Difference is that I try to find out where "I" went wrong before I start blaming everyone else.

The old saying that "a bad workman blames his tools" comes to mind ?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

This. I have consistently been surprised with how Pan-F+ needs a LOT of time in the developer to give good negatives. Not at all consistent with most records online.

As with all films, do a film speed test with a camera where you CAN control the exposure. Be careful with exposure and light metering. Be careful about temperature control, time, and developer dilution. You have exactly two controls:
1. Bracket exposures until you find an exposure index that gives satisfying shadow detail.
2. Alter developing time until you have negatives with contrast that works for your work flow.

It is ALL up to how you treat the film what the results are going to be. Don't blame the materials until you have established a baseline that is proven.
My own developing time for Ilford Pan-F+ is some 40% longer than what Ilford recommends. And I do over-expose it a little bit already for good shadow detail.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Well said Michael R.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[StoneNYC]

Well, I'm sorry I started this sh|tstorm. My opening remark about Pan F being a thorn in my side had more to do with me than the film itself. I seem unable to learn the lesson that this isn't snapshot film. I did have one bad experience in the past that seemed to go beyond anything I did wrong, and Simon and the folks at Ilford went above and beyond to investigate and make good. Maybe Pan F isn't as "durable" as Tri-X, but under the right conditions, I think it's more than capable and has a look all its own. I'm sorry the discussion devolved into this.

All I really wanted out of this thread was suggestions for processing the second roll. I got more than a few good ideas. Diafine is on its way to me...

I suggest that you sacrifice half of one of your images on that role, and do a test clipping of enough of the film to capture the first frame and cut it off, test development on that piece of film and if you're satisfied with the timing develop the rest of the role, at least this way you will be guaranteed that all but one image will be exposed/developed more properly.

 

[Rick A]

bvy, why don't you just do a personal iso test and be done with it. No need to tweak your processing routine, tweak the exposure to suit. I would only tweak development if tests show that's what is needed. If your camera won't allow for resetting iso, then clip tests of exposed film for developing times is necessary.

 

[DF]

I also shoot Pan F + and develop in D-76 1:1, but, for 11 minutes, not 9.
I also shoot it a couple of stops over exposed. If my meter reads "30th" second at such & such aperature, I'll go ahead and shoot at 8th, then a 4th. Just for safekeeping, I might shoot a 15th.
It's how I've always done it. Works most of the time....

 

[Roger Cole]

I suggest that you sacrifice half of one of your images on that role, and do a test clipping of enough of the film to capture the first frame and cut it off, test development on that piece of film and if you're satisfied with the timing develop the rest of the role, at least this way you will be guaranteed that all but one image will be exposed/developed more properly.

Buy a fresh roll to sacrifice. Shoot at box speed and cut into multiple sections in the dark and develop for various times, maybe two minute increments. Looking over all these will give you a good idea of the best development time for that speed AND looking at the shadow detail in that segment a good idea of whether and how far off box speed is from your personal exposure index. Old hat for those of us who dial in sheet film but given the costs of a roll versus sheets it's actually cheaper to do it with a roll. A second such test roll at different EIs and you should be dialed in close enough to make excellent negatives for less than 20 bucks at most (counting chemicals) and an afternoon's work.

I won't get into doing zone system testing without a densitometer using contact prints and "minimum time for maximum black" as suggested by Picker and probably others, but that works too in a "plenty close enough in the practical world" manner and is also fairly easy if you want to go that far but since you are shooting roll film it's unnecessary really.

 

[StoneNYC]

Buy a fresh roll to sacrifice. Shoot at box speed and cut into multiple sections in the dark and develop for various times, maybe two minute increments. Looking over all these will give you a good idea of the best development time for that speed AND looking at the shadow detail in that segment a good idea of whether and how far off box speed is from your personal exposure index. Old hat for those of us who dial in sheet film but given the costs of a roll versus sheets it's actually cheaper to do it with a roll. A second such test roll at different EIs and you should be dialed in close enough to make excellent negatives for less than 20 bucks at most (counting chemicals) and an afternoon's work.

I won't get into doing zone system testing without a densitometer using contact prints and "minimum time for maximum black" as suggested by Picker and probably others, but that works too in a "plenty close enough in the practical world" manner and is also fairly easy if you want to go that far but since you are shooting roll film it's unnecessary really.

I would agree with this but I'm guessing the film wasn't exposed properly to begin with which is why it's coming out poorly, so exposing on a different day, might be done right/different light.

That said, this is still a good practice for the future.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I wouldn't presume anything about the film from results with a p&s camera. It has a maximum shutter speed of 1 sec, max aperture of f: 3.5. So it wouldn't be hard to end up in underexposure territory with a slow film indoors. The flash is pretty small, so if you use it, it doesn't have much reach. Rating the film as ISO 25 or thereabouts isn't an option, because this camera can't read DX codes lower than 50 or in increments of less than a whole stop for that matter, or it defaults to ISO 100.

 

[bvy]

Thanks. Truly, I don't plan to use the T5 for any more Pan F. For compact 35mm shooting, my XA does not DX and dials down to 25. I think it might be a better choice.

 

[cliveh]

I also shoot Pan F + and develop in D-76 1:1, but, for 11 minutes, not 9.
I also shoot it a couple of stops over exposed. If my meter reads "30th" second at such & such aperature, I'll go ahead and shoot at 8th, then a 4th. Just for safekeeping, I might shoot a 15th.
It's how I've always done it. Works most of the time....

This would probably fall in line with my exposure at box speed and development for 14 minutes.

 

[Tony-S]

Here's why I typically shoot Pan F+ at ISO 25 and process for 11 min at 72F with Perceptol 1+2.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'd like to add some info to the thread that may help explain the thin negatives.

I recently traveled to Wisconsin and I shot a ton of film. Some Pan-F+, which I exposed generously at EI 25. In order to get good contrast in the negatives that print easily and with full contrast I had to process in Harvey's Panthermic 777 developer at 75*F for 15 minutes, agitating every 30 seconds.
In comparison, the Ilford HP5+ I shot on the same trip, exposed at EI 250, I process 11 minutes at 75*F in the same developer.

There is a HUGE difference in how I have to treat Pan-F+ with just about any developer, in order to get enough contrast to print the way I want them. Tri-X, HP5+, TMax 400, FP4+ all fall around the 10-11 minute mark. Pan-F+ is the only film I have to process that long.

Moral of the story: Do your testing by figuring out how much exposure you must give the film to get the shadow detail you desire. After you do that, you figure out how long you need to develop it in order to get the negative contrast you need for your process. Just do the work and thank yourself later.


(Attached picture is a straight scan with zero manipulation. Hasselblad 500C / 50mm Distagon / 10 second exposure)

 

[erikg]

I think Pan-F is a great film, I've shot hundreds of feet of it (if not more) since the 1980's. Any problems I've had I've always traced back to something I did. It does require careful exposure. I don't think edge markings tell very much but I do know that Ilford has changed the machinery that generates the edge markings so comparing some old stock from the 90's to fresh film is probably useless.

 

[NB23]

Well, now it's become a fact that Pan-F is a low contrast film?

Pan-F is a high contrast film. And it's not supposed to lose latent image after a few days or weeks. Not in a drastic way that's become accepted around here.

I fully blame 2 things: bad manufacturing or bad handling from the manufacturer.

I really like that film. Used it enough to gave a solid opinion on it. And yes, I've had bad pan-F come my way. It was in no way a user error.

Now about the getting real for real part, I suggest you guyss to read this. If you can't understand it, I'm sure MichaelR will be delighted to translate it.
It's basically about the food industry selling bad meat to people and changing freshness dates and not caring about making people severely sick.
http://m.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2014/11/26/005-epiceries-trichent-date-emballage-viande-poisson-volaille.shtml

If the food industry does it as a standard practice, you bet film companies do not hesitate doing it as well. There are so many variables at play that a very bad film wlil always has its face saved versus the hundreds of user-errors possibilities.

I'm sticking to this and anyone that wants to argue against this is in severe delusiion.

 

[pentaxuser]

NB23 This is almost uncanny. I have used an analogy on another forum involving Jake Lamotta and Sugar Ray less than a minute ago and what do I then find here - the start of another 15 rounds at Madison Square Garden.

Can anyone get me a Speed Graphic, a ringside seat and the illusive film and developer combo to reproduce that 1940s look

Mind you, based on your assertions it may be more "The Set-Up" than"Raging Bull" as far as you are concerned.

May that bad Pan-F you said you got be the last.

pentaxuser

 

[destroya]

Well, now it's become a fact that Pan-F is a low contrast film?

Pan-F is a high contrast film. And it's not supposed to lose latent image after a few days or weeks. Not in a drastic way that's become accepted around here.

I fully blame 2 things: bad manufacturing or bad handling from the manufacturer.

I really like that film. Used it enough to gave a solid opinion on it. And yes, I've had bad pan-F come my way. It was in no way a user error.

Now about the getting real for real part, I suggest you guyss to read this. If you can't understand it, I'm sure MichaelR will be delighted to translate it.
It's basically about the food industry selling bad meat to people and changing freshness dates and not caring about making people severely sick.
http://m.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/...-date-emballage-viande-poisson-volaille.shtml

If the food industry does it as a standard practice, you bet film companies do not hesitate doing it as well. There are so many variables at play that a very bad film wlil always has its face saved versus the hundreds of user-errors possibilities.

I'm sticking to this and anyone that wants to argue against this is in severe delusiion.

we are all delusioned? go back and take another hit of your crack pipe!

 

[StoneNYC]

Now now, let's not call names...

But I want to correct NB23...

The latent image doesn't begin to fade for at least 3 months, not "days or weeks" please don't spread false information.

Thanks.

 

[Dinesh]

.....please don't spread false information.

Classic!

 

[StoneNYC]

Classic!

I've done it, by accident, he/she's doing it on purpose.

We've all made mistakes. I admit to that for sure!

 

[Xmas]

Well, now it's become a fact that Pan-F is a low contrast film?

Pan-F is a high contrast film. And it's not supposed to lose latent image after a few days or weeks. Not in a drastic way that's become accepted around here.

I fully blame 2 things: bad manufacturing or bad handling from the manufacturer.

I really like that film. Used it enough to gave a solid opinion on it. And yes, I've had bad pan-F come my way. It was in no way a user error.

Now about the getting real for real part, I suggest you guyss to read this. If you can't understand it, I'm sure MichaelR will be delighted to translate it.
It's basically about the food industry selling bad meat to people and changing freshness dates and not caring about making people severely sick.
http://m.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2014/11/26/005-epiceries-trichent-date-emballage-viande-poisson-volaille.shtml

If the food industry does it as a standard practice, you bet film companies do not hesitate doing it as well. There are so many variables at play that a very bad film wlil always has its face saved versus the hundreds of user-errors possibilities.

I'm sticking to this and anyone that wants to argue against this is in severe delusiion.

That has a logic flaw it is exactly like saying that cause some politicians lie all politicians lie.
Robin Cooke and Sayeeda Warsi resigned rather than support lies.

 

[flavio81]

Well, now it's become a fact that Pan-F is a low contrast film?

Pan-F is a high contrast film.

I more or less agree with you here.

I disagree with you on the rest.

Ilford has over 80 years of doing business and having happy customers the world over.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm in the camp that Pan-F+ CAN yield high contrast.

But as with anything, what exactly is 'a high contrast film'? If you decrease developing time, you lower the contrast. If you slow down agitation to every 5 minutes from every 30 seconds, you will change the slope of the tone curve.

So, in essence, Pan-F+ is only high contrast if you develop it long enough to actually display high contrast. I could never understand why so much quality is ascribed to any film, when how we treat it when we expose and process it makes a much bigger difference than the built-in qualities.

I reiterate that to get the same overall contrast from Pan-F+ as I get from Tri-X or FP4+ I have to develop Pan-F+ 35% longer all other things equal. Isn't that the sign of a perfectly normal contrast film?