Pan F, Am I Screwed?

[Roger Thoms]

Just found a roll of Ilford Pan F that I exposed last summer. I’ve heard the that latent image retention is poor. Am I screwed? Should I adjust the development at all?

Roger

 

[NB23]

Who knows.

The best part is that you’ll be the one informing us.

 

[Ian Grant]

Possibly, however give it a try. I did something similar 2 or 3 years ago and my negatives were useless.

Ian

 

[mshchem]

I would develop normally. Now.

 

[K-G]

Take the normal development time you should have used and add 30 - 50 % . Hopefully that can save something.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Ian Grant]

Take the normal development time you should have used and add 30 - 50 % . Hopefully that can save something.

Karl-Gustaf

Actually increasing the development time doesn't help in the slightest, I tried but once the latent image breaks down there's nothing to get it back.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

Roger, if you want to come over here to Pacifica, we could develop it by inspection.

 

[1kgcoffee]

I think panf is something like ASA 25 or 12. Doesn't hurt to develop but I would expect faint results.

 

[resummerfield]

Develop by inspection is my suggestion, planning on a 30% or so increase in time. But do it soon.

 

[David Lyga]

What I would do is sacrifice the first and second frames and do a responsible clip test. I would assume (due to the interim) that the film was exposed at half box speed and develop it for one third more time. This way, you will be able to interpolate for the correct development time and, thus, save the rest of the roll. - David Lyga

 

[Ian Grant]

The problem is the break down in the latent image isn't even so if it's started happening there's nothing that can be done about it, seems to be related to contact with the backing paper as well.

Ian

 

[bvy]

I suggest Diafine for processing Pan F at such a late date.

 

[jim appleyard]

I think panf is something like ASA 25 or 12. Doesn't hurt to develop but I would expect faint results.

ISO 50, but many shoot it at other speeds.

 

[pentaxuser]

The problem is the break down in the latent image isn't even so if it's started happening there's nothing that can be done about it, seems to be related to contact with the backing paper as well.

Ian

Interesting point about the backing paper, Ian. Is the backing paper only a contributory to rather than sole cause of the breakdown of the latent image? If we cannot assume that Pan F in 35mm is either immune from the latent image problem can we at least assume that without the backing paper the 35mm film will at least last longer before the latent image problem becomes likely?

This latent image deterioration time period seems very difficult to pin down to even a range of X weeks. I suppose we'd need a lot of users to each state what was their OK period so at least we could begin to arrive at a range of weeks known to be safe and then enter periods in which the incidence of the problem grew

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Roger Thoms]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Have to go to Phoenix and won’t get back until the 18th so unfortunately the film will have to wait. Don’t think another week will make a big difference.

Bill sounds like an interesting offer. I’ll pm you.

I’ll definitely report back once I’ve processed the film.

Roger

 

[glbeas]

I got really good results with Pan F stand developing in Rodinal using data from the Massive Developing site. Got a higher EI than the film normally rates at so if theres anything at all this might get the best results.

 

[Ian Grant]

Interesting point about the backing paper, Ian. Is the backing paper only a contributory to rather than sole cause of the breakdown of the latent image? If we cannot assume that Pan F in 35mm is either immune from the latent image problem can we at least assume that without the backing paper the 35mm film will at least last longer before the latent image problem becomes likely?

This latent image deterioration time period seems very difficult to pin down to even a range of X weeks. I suppose we'd need a lot of users to each state what was their OK period so at least we could begin to arrive at a range of weeks known to be safe and then enter periods in which the incidence of the problem grew

Thanks

pentaxuser

I don't think the backing paper is a cause or contributing factor. There was just a sort of random textured pattern to what little negative image was left on my films after around 6-8 months. They weren't important images I'd actually been testing an MPP Microcord and forgotten about it

This is Ilford's comment "Important Note: Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – we recommend within 3 months". Most of us process our films within days of shooting so this isn't normally an issue. A friend Bill Spears used to use a lot of Pan F in a 6x7 camera with superb results it's a great film.

Ian

 

[craigclu]

It's a bit ironic that PanF+ is so sensitive to this behavior (I've witnessed it, too). As an emulsion, I've tested very old PanF+ against fresh and got essentially overlapping curves when exposed the same for testing, developed together in the same tank and measured on the same densitometer. Any film gurus have any idea what's at work here?

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Ian. On the basis that Ilford, I feel, is naturally conservative in its statements then 3 months may be the safe period beyond which you risk some deterioration.

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

Just found a roll of Ilford Pan F that I exposed last summer. I’ve heard the that latent image retention is poor. Am I screwed? Should I adjust the development at all?

Roger

Howdy Roger
I processed a roll of PanF that was exposed about 10 months pre-exposed and it seemed to process OK so I'm guessing it might just be the luck of the roll. I do rub a lucky rabbits foot before I develop film though, so maybe it is a little of the luck of the foot. I hope your luck is as good as mine is !

 

[bvy]

Most of us process our films within days of shooting so this isn't normally an issue.

Most of who? Most of you... ? My backlog goes back a year before I even realize it. I'm not saying that's good practice, I'm just saying that's what I do and I never have issues. That's with films that are NOT Pan F...

The F in Pan F means don't F around with it. I did experience this issue, and with frames that were only about six weeks old (fully documented here in 2013). Ilford sent me some replacement rolls which I didn't get around to shooting till last summer. I processed that film (by then very expired) within days, and it came out fine. But Pan F is kind of a niche film and not on my favorite films list anyway, so I don't bother with it for casual shooting.