Pan F+ and Xtol

[braxus]

Im going out on a shoot possibly this month and the weather may be overcast (as its been lately here). Ilford Pan F+ has a lot of contrast, so Im looking to tame that a little in developing. I want to still shoot it at 50 ISO, so for developing in Xtol, what do you recommend? I was thinking 1:1, but not sure if that would have much of an effect. What do others do? Also does shooting at a different ISO have any effect on producing more midtones with this film? I find the midtones are this film's weakness.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi braxus,
PanF doesn't have too much contrast for overcast: it's just perfect.
But under direct sunlight yes, it's necessary to tame its contrast, and that's usually done with a short development after exposing it at 16-20-25.
In general it's a film for tripod.
Xtol is very solvent, so different dilutions with it won't change things too much.
PanF is legendary in D-76 1+3, if you want to do a search.

 

[braxus]

Yeah. I'll have to feel out the weather for that day. Maybe shoot 50 in overcast or 25 in some sun. Go from there.

 

[AZD]

I haven’t used it in Xtol, just D76 at dilutions of 1:1 and 1:3. Exposed at 25 and developed accordingly. Plenty of middle tones with that combination, even on a very bright day. For overcast I agree 50 is preferable. I fully intend to fine tune PanF because I like its unique look and fine grain. There aren’t many slow films left.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I prefer this film in D-23 1+3. Lovely combination. With Xtol, I'd also dilute 1+3. EI 25 10:30. EI 50 11:30. Planning on doing a D-23/Xtol comparison test this week. Looks like Wednesday will be the only day with sun...

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I've done several rolls of it recently in XTOL stock. Exposed at iso 50. Developed for 7:30 with agitation of 10 seconds every minute. Lovely negatives with that snap everyone wants but no loss of detail anywhere along the curve. Some of the images were shot on a late summer day. Others in early fall.

 

[Auer]

I use the Legacy Eco Pro "version" of Xtol, stock and replenished.
I like it a lot with Pan F Plus. I shoot at box speed, mostly in Pre WW2 120 folders.

Voigtländer Bessa 6x9 | Voigtar 105mm ƒ/7.7 | Ilford Pan F Plus | Eco Pro Stock R | CS F96



City Frame-350 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, just shoot box speed, ISO 50, and develop for 15% longer.

 

[gorbas]

I prefer this film in D-23 1+3.

Hi Andrew,
How much stock of D-23 and Xtol are you using pre roll of film for 1+3?
According to recent discussion here it should be ~250ml for D-23 and 150ml for Xtol.
Thank you in advance!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hi Andrew,
How much stock of D-23 and Xtol are you using pre roll of film for 1+3?
According to recent discussion here it should be ~250ml for D-23 and 150ml for Xtol.
Thank you in advance!

125ml for both. It's more than enough.

 

[gorbas]

Thank you Andrew!

 

[Sirius Glass]

125ml for both. It's more than enough.

It also depends on the shape of the tank, it could be more.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It also depends on the shape of the tank, it could be more.

And that is why I am using 125ml of stock. With 1+1, I would have to double the amount of stock. When I develop one sheet of 4x5 film in a BTZS tube, I only use 20ml of stock when using a 1+2, 1+3 dilutions.

 

[shuddered]

OP
be advised. pan f has limited latent image retention, the internet reports that after a period of time it magically vanishes. the internet also suggests xtol is a low contrast developer so with low contrast film it might be low low contrast negatives.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't really consider Pan F a low contrast film. To control the contrast I expose at EI 25, and develop it in D-23 at 1+3. Xtol stock, can give it some real oomph! I just conducted a test of this film in Xtol 1+1, and D-23 1+3, on an overcast day. The negatives look decent. I will be proofing them tomorrow, and will have the video up hopefully by Sunday. @braxus, I will probably be shooting LF on Monday...X-ray, and conventional film. Hopefully there will be some sun!

 

[braxus]

Funny. I'm currently making a video on Pan F myself, and Mondays pics will add to that. I'm bringing my digital to do video of that day.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Funny. I'm currently making a video on Pan F myself, and Mondays pics will add to that. I'm bringing my digital to do video of that day.

That's funny... I'll be filming a comparison between Xray and conventional films. But I'll probably be done by the time you and Matt get there, then I can just fart around being a nuisance....

 

[K-G]

OP
be advised. pan f has limited latent image retention, the internet reports that after a period of time it magically vanishes. the internet also suggests xtol is a low contrast developer so with low contrast film it might be low low contrast negatives.

Yes, it is true that PAN F+ has had very poor latent image stability. I used to recommend no more than one month between first exposure and development. I don't think that is so any longer.
Just before Christmas I developed two rolls of PAN F+ in 120 size. They were just about to be too old according to the markings on the boxes, but the edge markings were absolutely fine.
Faint edge markings used to be a typical sign of the poor stability before. I have a feeling that Ilford may have improved the emulsion in some way without advertising this. At least I have not seen anything about it, so I am going to file this result under "Rare positive surprises". I hope others can make the same experience.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[pentaxuser]

That's funny... I'll be filming a comparison between Xray and conventional films. But I'll probably be done by the time you and Matt get there, then I can just fart around being a nuisance....

Possibly a serious nuisance depending on what you have eaten previously

pentaxuser

 

[shuddered]

Yes, it is true that PAN F+ has had very poor latent image stability. I used to recommend no more than one month between first exposure and development. I don't think that is so any longer.
Just before Christmas I developed two rolls of PAN F+ in 120 size. They were just about to be too old according to the markings on the boxes, but the edge markings were absolutely fine.
Faint edge markings used to be a typical sign of the poor stability before. I have a feeling that Ilford may have improved the emulsion in some way without advertising this. At least I have not seen anything about it, so I am going to file this result under "Rare positive surprises". I hope others can make the same experience.

Karl-Gustaf

im glad they fixed it! it is not fun finding a roll to develop that is more than 30 days old and its blank

 

[MattKing]

im glad they fixed it! it is not fun finding a roll to develop that is more than 30 days old and its blank

While Pan F has more problems with latent image stability than most films, I've never seen or heard of images disappearing after just 30 days.
Even the edge printing exposed at the time of manufacture will still be visible months and years after exposure, albeit with less density than with other films.

 

[K-G]

While Pan F has more problems with latent image stability than most films, I've never seen or heard of images disappearing after just 30 days.
Even the edge printing exposed at the time of manufacture will still be visible months and years after exposure, albeit with less density than with other films.

No, images did not disappear after 30 days, but after longer time than that I could se a loss of density and contrast. Some images that were made 8 - 10 months before development were almost gone. Edge markings were in all cases of older PAN F+ very faint, almost not visible.
The difference to the films I developed in December was substantial. The expiry date for these two films was set to November 2021 .

Karl-Gustaf

 

[dynachrome]

I still have some Pan F motion picture stock. It's way outdated. It originally had 200 feet of stock in the box. The last time I used it I rated the film at 25 and doubled the developing time. The results were good. I have experienced latent image problems with Pan F+. The best latent image keeping for a fast film I used was with the old Agfapan 400. I had a roll in a Konica Auto S1.6 for years and had forgotten about it. I added a little time when I developed the film and the results were perfect. This week I ran a test roll though a new (old) camera. In this case it was CVS 200 speed color film. I rated the film at 160. The results were fine. It had been in my freezer for a long time. How long? It expired in July of 2011. This particular CVS film was made by Fuji.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I just completed a "quick" comparison of D-23 1+3 (my normal concoction with Pan F), and Xtol 1+1. The former is my go to developer with this film. The latter surprised me. I'll stick the video up on Sunday.

 

[NB23]

I use my Pan-f @ iso 25 and develop in Ilfosol-3 1:14