Pan F+ at 25iso in Tmax dev, times?

[Analog Light]

I've searched the web looking for dev times for this film/dev combo but cannot find it. I usually shoot the film at stock 50iso and dev in tmax @ 4 minutes. How do I figure out how long to dev the film at 25iso?

 

[bdial]

Ilford's data sheet; http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20114271219521241.pdf
shows times for 25 ISO for many developers, though not for Tmax. Their ISO 50 Tmax time is only 4 minutes, and most of the other developers show 1 - 2 minutes less for 25 vs 50 ISO. I expect that they consider anything less than 4 minutes not long enough to get good even developing.
You may want to consider a different developer, or else process at 4 minutes and expect slightly dense negatives.
Another possibility might be to dilute the developer some, but that will require some experimentation.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've not used the combination of Pan F Plus and T-max developer but would suggest diluting 1+9 rather than 1+4.

Tom

 

[StoneNYC]

As others said, even less than 5 minutes is too short, DD-X which gives a similar look (fine grained etc) as Tmax but with a time of 7 minutes is a good choice.

 

[Hatchetman]

I would suggest an alternate developer. Do you have anything else?

 

[Analog Light]

I have some d76 1:1

 

[Analog Light]

Okay, I just developed a roll in D76 1:1 @ 7 min. The negatives look good. I'll post the results after I scan them.

 

[markbarendt]

I have some d76 1:1

see link in post 2

D76 can also be used 1+3

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F has such a short straight-line section that it really needs to be used in either soft lighting or you need to be very careful how you expose and develop it. I rate it at 25 and develop it in PMK pyro. Having a staining developer greatly helps to prevent blowing out the highlights, which
shoulder off very quickly. It's a nice film for rainy or foggy days, or when the lighting ratio is similar to what you'd want when shooting chromes. But in harsh lighting, something will not hold. I tend to use it on the beach, but not in harsh high altitudes in the desert of mtns, unless it is misty or snowing, in which case it can be positively lovely. I gave up on 76 with it long ago.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Drew,

I still have a few packs of Pan F Plus from Ilford Imaging production before Harman, tend to use either T-Max or Delta films as they seem to suite my needs better, although I should revisit the film.

Tom

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F has the most pronounced S-curve of any conventional film I can think of, which can either work for you or against you, depending on the
specific subject and lighting conditions. So it does need to be exposed and developed with this characteristic in mind. Any ordinary developer will work, but it takes some experience to master this film, which can indeed be highly rewarding once you understand it. Lots of people use it simply for its excellent detail and edge effect, which is OK. But to make it really sing takes some extra effort. Even more than most films, this
one will benefit from learning the advantages of staining development.

 

[StoneNYC]

Pan F has the most pronounced S-curve of any conventional film I can think of, which can either work for you or against you, depending on the
specific subject and lighting conditions. So it does need to be exposed and developed with this characteristic in mind. Any ordinary developer will work, but it takes some experience to master this film, which can indeed be highly rewarding once you understand it. Lots of people use it simply for its excellent detail and edge effect, which is OK. But to make it really sing takes some extra effort. Even more than most films, this
one will benefit from learning the advantages of staining development.

So maybe this is why I love PanF+ and dislike TMY-2? Lol

 

[Analog Light]

The film was actually shot at 32iso so that's why I developed at 7min instead of 6min like the chart says for 25.
Anyway, here are the results, shot at 32iso and developed in D76 1:1 for 7min



Now here are a few shot at 50iso and developed in Legacy Pro LMax Dev (TMax Clone) at 4min



This is all on 120 film btw. Shot on a Pentax 645.

I got this Pan F+ expired for pretty cheap on ebay just to test out. I'll probably end up going back to TMax and TriX though.

 

[StoneNYC]

The film was actually shot at 32iso so that's why I developed at 7min instead of 6min like the chart says for 25.
Anyway, here are the results, shot at 32iso and developed in D76 1:1 for 7min

View attachment 79850 View attachment 79851 View attachment 79852

Now here are a few shot at 50iso and developed in Legacy Pro LMax Dev (TMax Clone) at 4min

View attachment 79853 View attachment 79854 View attachment 79855

This is all on 120 film btw. Shot on a Pentax 645.

I got this Pan F+ expired for pretty cheap on ebay just to test out. I'll probably end up going back to TMax and TriX though.

Great exposure on the first model, good balance of tones between her skin, clothing, and background. It's really hard to balance white on a dark skinned model, but you also did fairly well on the second girl as well.

I'm sad you didn't appreciate the PanF+ though, it's one of my favorites for models.

 

[markbarendt]

It's really hard to balance white on a dark skinned model,

Really?

(Don't dig yourself a hole here.)

 

[Analog Light]

Great exposure on the first model, good balance of tones between her skin, clothing, and background. It's really hard to balance white on a dark skinned model, but you also did fairly well on the second girl as well.

I'm sad you didn't appreciate the PanF+ though, it's one of my favorites for models.

i have several rolls of Pan F+ left so I may decide differently. It's a great film, just kinda contrasty and it has to be the right light. If I do keep using it I'll probably keep shooting between 25-32 iso and dev in D76 1:1. I really liked the results from that. I find that delta 100 or tmax 100 is just as sharp, if not sharper and is not as hard to expose properly. I do want to try pan F+ in 35mm though.

 

[StoneNYC]

Really?

(Don't dig yourself a hole here.)

Umm, I'm not being racist I'm being objective of tonality, if you shoot a black object (any object) you have to raise your values or it will lose shadow detail... If you shoot a pale object you have to lower values or you'll have highlight blowout spots and loose information because of over exposure, so when you're shooting an object that's in both zone I (skin of the girl) and in zone X (white shirt) and you have to expose both properly, it's more difficult than exposing an object where as in the first shot, the girl is maybe zone III and the other objects are in zone V...

(I'm not a zone system user so if I'm off on which zone things should be in, forgive me, but it was the easiest way to describe what to most should be the obvious...)

 

[StoneNYC]

i have several rolls of Pan F+ left so I may decide differently. It's a great film, just kinda contrasty and it has to be the right light. If I do keep using it I'll probably keep shooting between 25-32 iso and dev in D76 1:1. I really liked the results from that. I find that delta 100 or tmax 100 is just as sharp, if not sharper and is not as hard to expose properly. I do want to try pan F+ in 35mm though.

I agree with that, both films are wonderful, PanF+ is kinda like Kodachrome, it's not as easy to expose but has a unique look that some fine very appealing.

And I agree I tend to expose at 50 but then I push the film a stop. But then I like contrast so... Hah!

Still great exposures.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well yes, Stone. I just drymounted a few lovely images printed from med format PanF analogous to what you did - not models, but combinations
of bright logs and rocks adjacent to dark foliage, under soft lighting, where the slight shouldering off of the upper midtones gave a wonderful buoyancy to all that upper gradation. It's one of my favorite MF films under certain circumstances, though I would never classify it as the
most versatile film in my kit. And you do need to meter for it just as carefully as a chrome.

 

[GarageBoy]

What types of scenes does Pan F+ really shine in?
I always wanted to try Pan F+ and Rodinol

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've already addressed the "scene" topic. Pan tends to muddy up shadow detail in high contrast scenes due to the long toe on the S-curve and very short straight line, which you can't push things up on very far without shouldering off. So I you happen to subscribe to Zone System technique, it's dynamic range is basically Zone III to VII, or with the help of pyro development, realistically III thru VIII, with very little forgiveness outside those parameters. So natural "softbox" lighting conditions in fog or rain or otherwise do well, even shade, or anything where the contrast range might be amenable to slide film, for example. Pan F has a unique "wire sharpness" or pronounced edge effect which gives it
an appearance of high acutance rather than edge softness, and this also plays into the definition and texture of appropriate subjects. Once
you master the basics of developing this film, then it just takes a little practice shooting and printing it to learn what it really excels at.

 

[StoneNYC]

I've already addressed the "scene" topic. Pan tends to muddy up shadow detail in high contrast scenes due to the long toe on the S-curve and very short straight line, which you can't push things up on very far without shouldering off. So I you happen to subscribe to Zone System technique, it's dynamic range is basically Zone III to VII, or with the help of pyro development, realistically III thru VIII, with very little forgiveness outside those parameters. So natural "softbox" lighting conditions in fog or rain or otherwise do well, even shade, or anything where the contrast range might be amenable to slide film, for example. Pan F has a unique "wire sharpness" or pronounced edge effect which gives it
an appearance of high acutance rather than edge softness, and this also plays into the definition and texture of appropriate subjects. Once
you master the basics of developing this film, then it just takes a little practice shooting and printing it to learn what it really excels at.

From my experience, it can handle shadows and highlights better than FP4+ both developed in Rodinal. (As in PanF+ had better shadow detail and better highlight detail than FP4+ did.

I can't comment on the curves, just what my eye see's.

I don't know how FP4+ compares to other films either, in terms of those specifics, just saying I've had great experience using it.

 

[StoneNYC]

What types of scenes does Pan F+ really shine in?
I always wanted to try Pan F+ and Rodinol

I personally like it best with models, people, etc, it does well for mountain landscapes etc, but for me it will always shine with models in Rodinal

PS Please don't dip your models in Rodinal, that's not cool...

 

[DREW WILEY]

... not to be any ruder than I usually am with you, Stone... but maybe sensitometry isn't your strong point yet. If you're visually getting what you want, that's all fine and well for you personally; but it might not constitute the best advice for someone else needing more objective information. Anyone who can read a characteristic curve will be able to decipher the dramatic difference between PanF and FP4, and why
FP4 is in fact a much longer scale film. Which happens to be "better" is a subjective topic. I personally happen to like both, but for different
reasons.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

... not to be any ruder than I usually am with you, Stone... but maybe sensitometry isn't your strong point yet. If you're visually getting what you want, that's all fine and well for you personally; but it might not constitute the best advice for someone else needing more objective information. Anyone who can read a characteristic curve will be able to decipher the dramatic difference between PanF and FP4, and why
FP4 is in fact a much longer scale film. Which happens to be "better" is a subjective topic. I personally happen to like both, but for different
reasons.

I tend to agree with Drew here. FP4+ is a marvel of flexibility, able to record a very long scale of tones, primarily thanks to its long straight line. It also expands and contracts very well.

Pan-F+ is about the opposite of FP4+, and may expand quite well in low contrast situations, but will not contract very well. Limited range can be used to advantage here, and make beautiful pictures of low contrast scenes, as Drew so well described.

Stone, I think what you see is your general liking of very high contrast in your pictures, where Pan-F+ fits like hand in glove, while FP4+ would have to be underexposed and over-developed to obtain a similar contrast characteristic.