Pan F and Rodi. This sound like a plan?

[Flotsam]

I was thinking in terms of an extreme example of developing Six rolls of 120 film in an invertable tank that requires nearly three liters of tank solution (30ml of concentrate at 1:100) or the same Six rolls in a Jobo rotary tank that requires less than 500 ml (5ml of concentrate). Will the results be the same? I know that Rodi is imbued with mystical, supernatural powers but does 5ml of concentrate have the poop to develop 480 sq. in. of film.

 

[davet]

My thinking is that a highly diluted devoper will tend to exhaust in the denser areas during the rests while the shadows continue to develop, lowering contrast in a way that just cutting back on the overall developing time wouldn't accomplish. I assume that dropping the speed of the film will also be neccessary.

The compensation idea is fine, but 1) you should be able to shoot at least full speed if not more with a proper compensating developer, 2) in principle you may get edge effects that simply shortening development time wouldn't give you (though I never looked for them with this combination, and you'd probably need greater intervals between agitation) and 3) I haven't found that Rodinal even at 1:100 is a particularly good compensation developer, so you're probably right about dropping the speed. OTOH, Pan F+ in Rodinal does look good, compensation or no. OT3H, if you want shadow detail and a speed bump, consider a different developer.

 

[Scott Edwards]

I have found that 35mm PanF does beautifully in Rodinal at 1+50 for 11 minutes, but in 120 film, this is too long. My shadow details are there in both cases, however, with the 120 film, my highlights are out of control. I find that I need to print the larger negs at contrast 1-1.5, which doesn't give me a lot of wiggle room, especially if I want to split diffuse. Flashing the paper seems to help, but I needed to rethink my method.
I have since found the ideal for my 120 negs is to shoot them at EI 40 and develop at 1+50 for 10 minutes with 15 seconds of initial inversions followed by 3 inversions every 60 seconds. I get good separation at both ends of the tonal scale and greater contrast latitude in the darkroom.

My $.02

 

[dancqu]

Must be carefull with minimums. Consider a roll of beach, snow,
or ..., and that with night clubs, deep dark forests, or ... . You've
maybe loaded down the developer with one while you've developer
to spare with the other.

I've given the matter some thought and save for tailoring the
dilution for each roll that comes along the only other way which
will give consitant results regardless of the film's exposure is
the "swamp it" approach.

I'm working with the Ansco/Beers A formula for both film and
paper. As a compensating developer for film, the temtation is
to use very little. I may up solution volume to 1 liter, that way
maintaining a surplus of agent while still being very dilute.

Perhaps that is what you have in mind. Rodinal, Beutler, FX-1,
and Ansco/Beers A as a film develper are all high active, low
sulfite, compensating developers. Dan

 

[modafoto]

I love Pan F+ in Rodinal. I haven't even tried it in other developers yet.

You don't need to
Just go on souping it in Hot Rod.

 

[david b]

I just posted an image shot over the weekend on Pan F+. I used Rodinal 1+50 to develop it.

Take a look.

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

 

[jon koss]

My thinking is that a highly diluted devoper will tend to exhaust in the denser areas during the rests while the shadows continue to develop, lowering contrast in a way that just cutting back on the overall developing time wouldn't accomplish. I assume that dropping the speed of the film will also be neccessary.

For right now it might make sense to make a big change to one variable only, and see if you get closer or farther away from your goal. In the case of poor tonal separation in the shadows, a quick halving of your film speed, with no other changes in your current exposure or development , would be telling. Even if your highlights wander off into oblivion, you can easily rein them in later. But in the meantime, you will know for sure if Pan F can ever achieve the shadow look that you desire.

Just an idea.. hope it is of some value to you.
Jon

 

[Andy K]

Hi Neal.
I notice you mention trying stand development. I have used this technique for developing some long exposure night shots (using HP5 not PAN F) and had some wonderful results with no blown highlights and great shadow detail. Admittedly this was not with PAN F but you may get an idea of the effect if you look at the three 'Night Life' shots in my gallery.

 

[Flotsam]

I haven't forgotten this thread. It has been been bright and sunny with snow on the ground so it has been hard to find an "average" contrast outdoor scene to test. I finished a roll of Pan F + , rated it at 25 and bracketed. I used Agfa Rodi mixed 1:100 with distilled water using this gimmick: (there was a url link here which no longer exists), worked great. I used the "Massive" suggested time and added 10% to compensate for the less agitation. 16.5 Minutes @ 20 degrees C, gentle inversion on the minute. Pretty good results with nice shadows and surprisingly full film speed. The highlights were hanging on by their fingernails and when they blew, Boy Howdy! they were gone. A #0 filter couldn't bring them back.

Tonight I souped another test roll, everything the same but pulling the time down to 15 min. and and cutting the agitation back to 10 secs every two minutes to try to increase the compensation effects. Wow! I am very excited. At a full EI 50 the shadows have good, defined detail with snappy separation and the delicate highlights hold right up to IX. This is on Ilford MG with a #2 filter. Sweet! I can't wait to give this a real test and run some actual pictorial stuff this way.

Of you know that this can only mean that all production of Pan F will soon end

 

[Bob F.]

I am certainthat I have seen a "minimum amount of Rodinal concentrate per roll" somewhere but I have forgotten where and what it was

From Rodinal data sheet:

Yield
One-shot developer: with 500 ml concentrate about fifty films
(135-36 or 120 roll-film) can be developed.
​

I.E. 10ml concentrate per roll. No idea how accurate that is tho - I keep to the minimum 10ml (with FP4+).

Bob.

 

[BWGirl]

Hey Neal!
I am a wee bit confused...I'd like to try your method, but can you help me out?

In your post, you said you rated the film @ 25, then you talked about "at a full EI 50"....am I confused! did you shoot the film at ISO25 or at ISO50? I get really thrown off....what is EI? The same as ISO aka ASA?? Aughhhhhhhhhgh! HELP!

 

[modafoto]

In your post, you said you rated the film @ 25, then you talked about "at a full EI 50"....am I confused! did you shoot the film at ISO25 or at ISO50? I get really thrown off....what is EI? The same as ISO aka ASA?? Aughhhhhhhhhgh! HELP!

ISO and ASA is the same. EI means "Exposure Index" and when talking about rating a film @ EI 50 it means "at ISO 50". But ISO is just one of the ways you can measure film speed. Another is DIN.

Correct me if I am way off.

 

[jim appleyard]

Jeanette,

When you shoot film at a speed other than its ISO, that speed is called an EI. For example, if I were to take Agfa APX 100 and shoot it at 100, I would be shooting it at its ISO speed, rated or box speed. If I were to shoot the same film at 80, 64, 50, etc., then those new speeds are known as an EI.

ISO and EI are two different things and should not be confused.

Hope this helps.

 

[Flotsam]

I.E. 10ml concentrate per roll. No idea how accurate that is tho - I keep to the minimum 10ml (with FP4+).
Bob.

That doesn't sound right to me. 500ml @ 1:50 would require 10ml concentrate, and is routinely used to develop two rolls of 35mm in an invertable tank. Perhaps we should turn to the church to make a pronouncement on this matter .

 

[Flotsam]

Sorry for the confusion Jeanette,

In my first test, I assumed that I would lose speed so I rated the film at 25 film speed and bracketed. After seeing the results, I found that the frames exposed at 50 Had very nice looking shadows so I used that for my second test with excellent results.
Since I was testing for a personal film speed, I was using the term EI even when it coincided with the ISO rating.

While my results were good, I may drop my dev. time down to 14 min. on my next roll. Highlights tend to block up fast with Pan F so I'd rather underdevelop a bit even if it means printing a normal neg with a 2 1/2 or 3 grade filter.

 

[modafoto]

That doesn't sound right to me. 500ml @ 1:50 would require 10ml concentrate, and is routinely used to develop two rolls of 35mm in an invertable tank. Perhaps we should turn to the church to make a pronouncement on this matter .

The church is saying that it can be perfectly acceptable to develop in less than 10 ml. pr. film. I use 6 ml. + 300 ml. of water (306 ml. 1+50) pr. film (35mm). The result is great. Others are doing 1+100 and use 3 ml. per roll of film with great results.

The Church

 

[Flotsam]

I tried a pictorial roll reducing the time to 14 min. Bad idea. The contrastiest scenes looked good in the overexposed bracket but the normal scenes were much too flat. I'm going back to 15 or maybe even 15.5 min and watching the exposed leader on my film for comparative d-max changes.

 

[NikoSperi]

I have very little experience with the combination, but what I did notice is that the Rodinal is very sensitive to the agitation. I did two rolls in a controlled lighting, both for the same time. First one had agitation every minute, second at 10 and 5 minutes. Seems if you mix it up too much, the highlights block up like crazy, everything else being equal.

 

[Flotsam]

I have very little experience with the combination, but what I did notice is that the Rodinal is very sensitive to the agitation. I did two rolls in a controlled lighting, both for the same time. First one had agitation every minute, second at 10 and 5 minutes. Seems if you mix it up too much, the highlights block up like crazy, everything else being equal.

I agree with you. I am afraid that I have traded my problems with Pan F shadows to problems with the Highlights but I have been very encouraged with my results so far. It is apparent that this will be a very critical process from exposure to dilution to process control.

 

[J. Smith]

I did a post on another forum about pan-f in microdol with combined agitation and stand development.http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009mO2