Pan F + ... and its diminishing returns: latency loss and contrast challenge

David Lyga · Aug 27, 2019

Pan F+ is the ONLY B&W film which loses its latent image in a relatively short time. My question is 'WHY'? Even its edge markings are barely readable.

I am wondering whether there is a trade-off here, whether this 'lack' somehow makes other things about this film somehow 'better'.

Another characteristic about this film is its inherent contrast. Of all the films out there (especially the slower ones), there is no other slower film which has as low a contrast. I am not certain that I like this trait. Consider APX 100 and its rather robust contrast.

Comments?

Sal Santamaura · Aug 27, 2019

Perhaps some like Pan F Plus for its true EI 50, short toe and nice shoulder when processed in XTOL 1+2:

http://fotoimport.no/images/pk/xtol-pan-f.gif

With smaller formats, once one achieves the granularity and sharpness desired, curve shape is an important factor.

Rudeofus · Aug 27, 2019

PanF+ is said to use a true version of some decades old emulsion. This is what's appreciated by its users, but obviously it comes at a cost: it ignores 50+ years of research in emulsion making.

DREW WILEY · Aug 27, 2019

It has the shortest straight line of any current common pan film, basically an exaggerated S-curve. I shoot it at ASA 25 for pyro development. In modest contrast scenes comparable to the lighting ratios ideal for color slide film, this film can work wonders. It has a superb "wire-edge" acutance and distributes the tones differently than longer-scale films. It can be gorgeous under softly-lit circumstances. I don't recommend it for high contrast scenes. I have no idea why the latent image degrades sooner than other films; but it's a non-issue if you process your film within a couple months or so.

ic-racer · Aug 27, 2019

I tried some in 1974 and did not like it. Have not used it since. Looking at the negatives (I still have them) they look under exposed and under developed.

John Galt · Aug 28, 2019

I have been using Pan F Plus for long exposure (3-10 seconds) for softly lit water scenes . . developed in d76 1+1. Lovely. Next roll will be developed in Microdol X to compare. I am visiting this same spot this weekend . . .

Tom Kershaw · Aug 28, 2019

Great results John. I've had trouble with Pan F Plus in XTOL-R, but fine in XTOL 1+1.5. As you can see I've just today put some Pan F Plus / Tetenal Ultrafin 1+29 images in the gallery here. In the past I've had mixed results with Ultrafin but Iooking back on notes, I think I was using it too strong. 1+19 - 1+29 seems a good range.

John Galt · Aug 28, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
Great results John. I've had trouble with Pan F Plus in XTOL-R, but fine in XTOL 1+1.5. As you can see I've just today put some Pan F Plus / Tetenal Ultrafin 1+29 images in the gallery here. In the past I've had mixed results with Ultrafin but Iooking back on notes, I think I was using it too strong. 1+19 - 1+29 seems a good range.

Thank you Tom, I was admiring your North West Scotland images earlier.

Tom Kershaw · Aug 28, 2019

John Galt said:
Thank you Tom, I was admiring your North West Scotland images earlier.

Thanks. I really appreciate the look with this film, although perhaps not one for all occasions. If the subject brightness range had been any larger then I'd have been tempted to use an EI of 25.

removed account4 · Aug 28, 2019

you have to over expose it like mad and develop it in instant coffee. it works fine even after the image evaporation has taken place

odell1618photography · Aug 28, 2019

I really enjoy panF. These were shot at night, off camera flash with a MagMod Magbox and Nikon 910 speedlight, EI 50 D76 1:1 11 mins @68 deg
30 seconds initial agitation, 5 inversions first 5 seconds every 30 seconds.
Mamiya RB67ProSD with 90mm lens
Silver print scanned with iphone

pentaxuser · Aug 28, 2019

David Lyga said:
Another characteristic about this film is its inherent contrast. Of all the films out there (especially the slower ones), there is no other slower film which has as low a contrast. I am not certain that I like this trait. Consider APX 100 and its rather robust contrast.

Comments?

I had always thought that one of the criticisms of Pan F was its high inherent contrast but your first sentence reads as if it has a lower contrast that other slow speed films?

pentaxuser

Vaughn · Aug 28, 2019

Well, PanF is low contrast compared to Tech Pan or Kodak Copy Film which I use both at ASA 25.

cliveh · Aug 28, 2019

Pan F is a wonderful film. You just have to expose it correctly and develop it correctly.

DREW WILEY · Aug 28, 2019

Pan F doesn't handle high contrast subjects well. This is due to it's characteristic curve with very little straight line in the middle. Don't confuse this with developed contrast. It can be easily developed to make softly-lit scenes contrasty enough on the film for sparkly rich prints. In fact, you need to be careful not to overdevelop it.

john_s · Aug 28, 2019

pentaxuser said:
I had always thought that one of the criticisms of Pan F was its high inherent contrast but your first sentence reads as if it has a lower contrast that other slow speed films?

pentaxuser

When I tried low speed film the first time in the 1960s I should have chosen PanF instead of Adox KB14 (20ASA) which when developed according to instructions was Unbelievably Contrasty. That was long before I learned what we all know now to adjust exposure and development to keep all this under control.

John51 · Aug 29, 2019

John Galt said:
I have been using Pan F Plus for long exposure (3-10 seconds) for softly lit water scenes . . developed in d76 1+1. Lovely. Next roll will be developed in Microdol X to compare. I am visiting this same spot this weekend . . .View attachment 229821

My desk is at the front window, early morning light through the red vertical blinds back lighting my laptop.

This has given colour to your photo. Very pale pastel but the colours are in the right place. The foliage is green, the water has a hint of blue and the sky a hint of pink.

Agulliver · Aug 29, 2019

"it looked like it was under exposed and under developed"

Then it probably was. I am only an occasional user but I've never had any problems with it, I just rarely want to use a film that slow. I'm far from the most accurate in terms of my timings in the dark room, more the kind of person who feels 15 seconds here or there is insignificant. Pan-F and Pan-F + have always worked for me.

removed account4 · Aug 29, 2019

cliveh said:
Pan F is a wonderful film. You just have to expose it correctly and develop it correctly.

hey cliveh !
those are famous words to be said about most all films ( even 40 year old expired ones ! ) ...

TonyB65 · Aug 29, 2019

I love Pan F+, develop it in DD-X and you can shoot it at 100 for higher contrast or at 25 for a lovely range of smooth tones, it's more versatile than people think it is, but the developer is key.

David Lyga · Aug 29, 2019

pentaxuser said:
I had always thought that one of the criticisms of Pan F was its high inherent contrast but your first sentence reads as if it has a lower contrast that other slow speed films?

pentaxuser

Yes, Ilford say that its inherent contrast is among the lowest of slow films extant. - David Lyga

NB23 · Aug 29, 2019

I’d like to correct a few myths/preconceived beliefs about pan-f.

Pan-F is a high contrast film with a UNIQUE spectral sensitivity.

It is very finicky with regards to exposure. A 1/3 error will show right away. Therefore if you have a slightly miscalibrated camera it will tell you right away. Therefore expose at iso25 and let everything fall into place.

Latent image evaporation is more a myth than reality. Sure, it might have some evaporation/degradation but not as much as we might think. First of all, one shouldn’t judge by the side markings because as we all know, bulk film always has very weak markings to begin with. For example, my tmax100 bulk markings don’t even show unless I’m looking for it with a loupe. Same for tri-x, hp5...

As a matter if fact, I have once shot 20 rolls of 10 year expired pan-f and the edge markings were so clear and contrasty. This fact alone contradicts anything that has been said about latent image, as it should have been very faint, right? How come, after 10 years of exposure, were they so loud?

3 things: expose at 25. Use fresh developer. Develop within 6 months.

If you wait more than 6 months to develop ANY FILM, please let me suggest that you are doing something wrong.

Never forget: expose at 25. Pan-f is as finicky as slide film. And enjoy the unique spectral sensitivity. Beautiful stuff.

David Lyga · Aug 29, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
Pan F doesn't handle high contrast subjects well. This is due to it's characteristic curve with very little straight line in the middle. Don't confuse this with developed contrast. It can be easily developed to make softly-lit scenes contrasty enough on the film for sparkly rich prints. In fact, you need to be careful not to overdevelop it.

I guess that this point is my primary reason for this thread. It is difficult to get used to such a short straight-line Characteristic Curve with such a slow film. But, I guess that 'deficiency' has its merits in terms of tonality for some subjects. - David Lyga

NB23 · Aug 29, 2019

David Lyga said:
Yes, Ilford say that its inherent contrast is among the lowest of slow films extant. - David Lyga

I am astounded by this. Low contrast is surely not what I experience with this film. But I didn’t mess with different developers. Ilfosol1:14 gave me such good results that I never even bothered with anything else.

I have 12 bulk rolls of this stuff sitting in the freezer. I’ll probably dedicate 2021 to shoot them.

TonyB65 · Aug 29, 2019

NB23 said:
I’d like to correct a few myths/preconceived beliefs about pan-f.

Pan-F is a high contrast film with a UNIQUE spectral sensitivity.

It is very finicky with regards to exposure. A 1/3 error will show right away. Therefore if you have a slightly miscalibrated camera it will tell you right away. Therefore expose at iso25 and let everything fall into place.

Latent image evaporation is more a myth than reality. Sure, it might have some evaporation/degradation but not as much as we might think. First of all, one shouldn’t judge by the side markings because as we all know, bulk film always has very weak markings to begin with. For example, my tmax100 bulk markings don’t even show unless I’m looking for it with a loupe. Same for tri-x, hp5...

As a matter if fact, I have once shot 20 rolls of 10 year expired pan-f and the edge markings were so clear and contrasty. This fact alone contradicts anything that has been said about latent image, as it should have been very faint, right? How come, after 10 years of exposure, were they so loud?

3 things: expose at 25. Use fresh developer. Develop within 6 months.

If you wait more than 6 months to develop ANY FILM, please let me suggest that you are doing something wrong.

Never forget: expose at 25. Pan-f is as finicky as slide film. And enjoy the unique spectral sensitivity. Beautiful stuff.

This really isn't the case if you use DD-X, in fact I've found it to be far less contrasty than other films, I always develop it quickly and I really don't have problems with too much contrast at all. I shot a roll of it using an orange filter and was even surprised at how it didn't make that much difference. That being said DD-X gives me a wider range of tones than any other developer I've used, and has a similar effect on Rollei Ortho 25.

Pan F + ... and its diminishing returns: latency loss and contrast challenge

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency