Pan F in Diafine failed.

Misko78 · Feb 2, 2016

I used in one tank Pan F and Tri-X with Diafine. Tri-X turned out great but Pan F was total disaster. Edge markings are barely visible. I thought that using different films in same tank together in Diafine is OK. Any ideas?

wildbill · Feb 2, 2016

Your developer doesn't care how many types of film you have in the tank.
Tank was full?
pan f doesn't have a very long shelf life. Was it expired?

zanxion72 · Feb 2, 2016

I guess that the Pan F was atop the TriX and that the total volume of developer in the solution was not enough for both films. The makers of developers issue details on the minimum volume of developer in a solution to fully develop one roll of 36exp 135 or one roll of 120 film.
With a bit more agitation the results could had been better, but my bet is on the developer being less than optimal in the solution.

bvy · Feb 2, 2016

zanxion72 said:
I guess that the Pan F was atop the TriX and that the total volume of developer in the solution was not enough for both films. The makers of developers issue details on the minimum volume of developer in a solution to fully develop one roll of 36exp 135 or one roll of 120 film.
With a bit more agitation the results could had been better, but my bet is on the developer being less than optimal in the solution.

Diafine isn't going to poop out after two rolls. You can put dozens of rolls through the amount of solution that one package makes.

Pan F, on the other hand, will poop out after two minutes.

miha · Feb 2, 2016

Misko78 said:
I used in one tank Pan F and Tri-X with Diafine. Tri-X turned out great but Pan F was total disaster. Edge markings are barely visible. I thought that using different films in same tank together in Diafine is OK. Any ideas?

When was the PAN F exposed, many moons ago? It is known for less than excellent latent stability.

Misko78 · Feb 2, 2016

wildbill said:
Your developer doesn't care how many types of film you have in the tank.
Tank was full?
pan f doesn't have a very long shelf life. Was it expired?

Yeah tank was full, there are few images that are printable/scanable (overexposed maybe?), yes it was expired, but my buddy kept it in a fridge.

zanxion72 said:
I guess that the Pan F was atop the TriX and that the total volume of developer in the solution was not enough for both films. The makers of developers issue details on the minimum volume of developer in a solution to fully develop one roll of 36exp 135 or one roll of 120 film.
With a bit more agitation the results could had been better, but my bet is on the developer being less than optimal in the solution.

I guess you never used Diafine? This solution is not exhausted (18 rolls) and i had 3 films developed after this Pan F, one ORWO NP22 exipred in '80s, one fresh Tri-X and one fresh ORWO N74+

miha said:
When was the PAN F exposed, many moons ago? It is known for less than excellent latent stability.

Just few weeks ago.

@all
So I suppose that film was already dead before it was used.

Roger Cole · Feb 2, 2016

I develop Pan F in Diafine and it has always worked great for me. Edge markings do don't times fade with age on Pan F but this doesn't affect the images if you process promptly after exposure. There is some debate about this but Pan F is widely thought to have poor latent image keeping qualities (which could also be the cause of light edge markings.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Xmas · Feb 3, 2016

Roger Cole said:
I develop Pan F in Diafine and it has always worked great for me. Edge markings do don't times fade with age on Pan F but this doesn't affect the images if you process promptly after exposure. There is some debate about this but Pan F is widely thought to have poor latent image keeping qualities (which could also be the cause of light edge markings.)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

My Panf bulk role has 2004 best before date and I've had one cassette in a camera for 12months + with no bad effects, yes the rebate printing is a bit faint but that is the only 'problem' it has.

It is passably 50 ISO in microphen per ilfords time and temperature.

Roger Cole · Feb 3, 2016

I have not experienced the poor latent image keeping myself, but then I've always processed it within a couple of weeks or so, in part because I've read the experience of others.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it keeps poorly unexposed. Like most films that slow it should cold store well and be good well past the expiration date, especially cold stored (I certainly hope so as I have some like that, though much newer than yours, that I haven't had a chance to use while being distracted by personal issues for a while.)

It does fine at 50 or 64 in Diafine too. Don't believe the 80 printed on the Diafine box though. 64 is ok the way I meter, to favor shadows anyway, but that's as far as I would go. It does pick up a bit of useful speed compared to D76, at least if D76 is used to develop it only to the relatively modest contrast that it gives in Diafine. That's why I like this combo so much for a slow film.

Xmas · Feb 3, 2016

Roger Cole said:
I have not experienced the poor latent image keeping myself, but then I've always processed it within a couple of weeks or so, in part because I've read the experience of others.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it keeps poorly unexposed. Like most films that slow it should cold store well and be good well past the expiration date, especially cold stored (I certainly hope so as I have some like that, though much newer than yours, that I haven't had a chance to use while being distracted by personal issues for a while.)

It does fine at 50 or 64 in Diafine too. Don't believe the 80 printed on the Diafine box though. 64 is ok the way I meter, to favor shadows anyway, but that's as far as I would go. It does pick up a bit of useful speed compared to D76, at least if D76 is used to develop it only to the relatively modest contrast that it gives in Diafine. That's why I like this combo so much for a slow film.

Mine has been in a bulk loader in den since 2001 but we don't see hot or cold here.
Yours will be ok for a while longer I'd hazard.

tokam · Feb 4, 2016

Bear in mind that the edge markings were imprinted, (exposed), when the film was packaged.

If the poor latent image keeping characteristic of Pan-F is true then it's not unreasonable that the edge markings are faint on the developed negs. This would even be true for unexpired films. So long as the film is processed promptly after YOU expose it then you should be fine. This, of course, is in the absence of any any other factors that could affect the unexposed film - poor storage etc.

I have a bulk roll of Pan-F which expires at the end of this year. I have loaded half of it to reloadable cassettes and it is all in the fridge at the moment. I'll probably shoot a roll in the next few weeks and I'll report back on the results, particularly the density of the edge markings.

Pan F in Diafine failed.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency