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

DREW WILEY said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

We are always just a bit fun together aren't we Drew?

Please don't start being one of those Leica people who post charts but wouldn't know how to shoot a good picture if you held their hand. Charts a are BS and don't tell you a darn thing except what a film will do with the perfect light in the perfect condition with the perfect chosen developer. But everyone does their development differently, and shoots differently etc etc, my advice is keep shooting and testing, and whatever works for you is the BEST film.

There is a bit of difference between decades of film development experience, and even decades of hands-on curve plotting, and someone who
doesn't even develop their own film yet, Stone. Or maybe you've started in the past few weeks?

DREW WILEY said:

There is a bit of difference between decades of film development experience, and even decades of hands-on curve plotting, and someone who
doesn't even develop their own film yet, Stone. Or maybe you've started in the past few weeks?

Click to expand...

Been developing film since 2011, haven't printed yet is what you thinking of, I do scan things. That is a product of situation, I do want to print, just cannot right now, I even have a D2...

Well that's good news. You can't go wrong with a sturdy ole D2, but will obviously have to use something other than PanF for your 4x5 use.
Maybe your XX order will go thru, but will be dramatically different than PanF in curve characteristics. But paper has its own set of curve
characteristics, and you'll quickly discover the difference in deep shadow separation between radically different films. Some people stick to
one favorite film and paper year after year, as long as nothing changes, while others like to experiment across the field. Somehow I think you're
going to be an experimenter, Stone. It's a lot of fun, but a little tougher on the budget than sticking with just one thing.

DREW WILEY said:

Well that's good news. You can't go wrong with a sturdy ole D2, but will obviously have to use something other than PanF for your 4x5 use.
Maybe your XX order will go thru, but will be dramatically different than PanF in curve characteristics. But paper has its own set of curve
characteristics, and you'll quickly discover the difference in deep shadow separation between radically different films. Some people stick to
one favorite film and paper year after year, as long as nothing changes, while others like to experiment across the field. Somehow I think you're
going to be an experimenter, Stone. It's a lot of fun, but a little tougher on the budget than sticking with just one thing.

Click to expand...

You've missed a lot of my posts obviously, I'm mostly done with my expedients, from successfully shooting and developing film that expired in 1947, to getting 70mm double perf made in HP5+ fresh and new, to hopefully getting Eastman Double-X made in sheet. And for my final trick, getting Ilford to make "PanF2" in sheet film...

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Everyone told me Eastman Double-X 4x5 couldn't be done, and then kodak said yes...

Simon didn't think there would be enough interest for 70mm double perf and the machining for the perforator would make the price too high, but then we made our numbers and it's part of my stock.

I may not know everything, but I'm telling you, I've done my homework and due diligence.

FP4+ in Rodinal 4x5 sheet



PanF+ in Rodinal 6x12 pano back (same camera and lens and exposure [minus adjustment for different ASA])

Throwing spitwads at a blackboard is not homework. Of course, you don't have to study formal sensitometry to get good results, but some
acquaintance with the topic does help in the sense it's the one universal language between manufacturer and user. I like your ambition to experiment, Stone, but some of us have been down these kinds of roads long before, and some of these roads are washed out or having missing
bridges by now. Just because you've sucessfully wrestled an alley cat or two doesn't quite make you a lion tamer yet.

Pan F is a fine grain emulsion that doesn't shine in any particular application, it is just fine grain.

When Pantomic X disappeared, a lot of great images were made on Pan F. It has not just fine grain, but good acutance due to the edge effect.
Other hypothetical contenders, like Tech Pan in low-contrast developer, might have been even much finer, but really didn't look particularly
sharp in the print, and had their own idiosyncrasies. And it does still have a unique look today, even as numerous other contenders have arisen
in the fine-grained, slow-speed category. Sometimes it's nice to hunt quail with birdshot rather than buckshot, even though buckshot will kill
more things.

DREW WILEY said:

When Pantomic X disappeared, a lot of great images were made on Pan F. It has not just fine grain, but good acutance due to the edge effect.
Other hypothetical contenders, like Tech Pan in low-contrast developer, might have been even much finer, but really didn't look particularly
sharp in the print, and had their own idiosyncrasies. And it does still have a unique look today, even as numerous other contenders have arisen
in the fine-grained, slow-speed category. Sometimes it's nice to hunt quail with birdshot rather than buckshot, even though buckshot will kill
more things.

Click to expand...

Drew, I think for once, we agree on something...