Pan F+ is awesome!

[Kirks518]

I bought a bulk roll of Pan F+ a while back, and just finished my second roll. Nothing special or exciting, roll was a combination test of the camera (Olympus Pen FT), a couple of lenses (25mm and 38mm), a cheap old Sunpak 131 flash, and of the film itself.

Anyway, the first roll I shot, I developed in D-76 at 1+3, and that's how I had my developing times set in my tablet (I use the 'Darkroom Timer' app), so 15 mins in the D-76. This is with 5 inversions every 30 secs. Load the Paterson, grab the chems, and off to the kitchen I go to develop. At about 13 minutes, I realize I used stock D-76 instead of the 1+3 dilution. Uh-oh.......

For stock D-76, developing time is only 6.5 minutes, so I was at least at double the correct time.

To my surprise, the roll came out great! A little on the contrasty side, but I tend to like more contrast. But I guess what surprised me the most was the (almost) complete lack of grain, even after a 600dpi scan at 750%. It's half frame, so I went to 5x7" for the enlargement size, since if the grain is really bad, I can always reduce the enlargement size.

On the light box:

and an unedited scan (I believe it's OOF because of the scanning):

 

[K-G]

Yes , PAN F+ is an outstanding film in its class ( even if there aren't to many competitors ) . Just see to that you develop promptly after exposure as PAN F+ has very poor latent image stability. Don't leave an exposed film undeveloped for more than a month . Enjoy your experience.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[BradleyK]

Yes, indeed, PanF+ is awsome. The film, in 120 format, has been a mainstay of mine for over three decades (I started using the film when it was called PanF), for the bulk of my black and white landscape and "fine art" work. Impressive results with a half-frame; if you want a real revelation, however, try the film in medium format (ISO 25 in Perceptol). You will be very, very impressed.

 

[Kirks518]

I do have a couple of rolls in 120. Just haven't gotten a round to using it yet. Wanted to try it out in 35mm so I could see how I want to use it.

 

[Xmas]

Yes , PAN F+ is an outstanding film in its class ( even if there aren't to many competitors ) . Just see to that you develop promptly after exposure as PAN F+ has very poor latent image stability. Don't leave an exposed film undeveloped for more than a month . Enjoy your experience.

Karl-Gustaf

I forgot a camera was loaded for a year, then shot the last six frames
developed the next week, but can't see any real difference in last years frames and this years.

Was not what I expected. And not what I'd recommend.

Bulk with 05 expiry.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's a great film. I love it in 120 when the light permits. I develop it in Diafine and shoot at EI 64. In most developers it is more like a 25-32 film which is probably why your "overdeveloped" negatives look so good.

 

[Vaughn]

Yes , PAN F+ is an outstanding film in its class ( even if there aren't to many competitors ) . Just see to that you develop promptly after exposure as PAN F+ has very poor latent image stability. Don't leave an exposed film undeveloped for more than a month . Enjoy your experience.

Karl-Gustaf

Found that out accidently. It does not match my workflow so I do not use it.

 

[cliveh]

Yes , PAN F+ is an outstanding film in its class ( even if there aren't to many competitors ) . Just see to that you develop promptly after exposure as PAN F+ has very poor latent image stability. Don't leave an exposed film undeveloped for more than a month . Enjoy your experience.

Karl-Gustaf

I'm not sure I agree with this, as I have never noticed poor latent image stability and would suggest some people confuse this with the fact that they tend to under develop it.

 

[GarageBoy]

I started a roll, shot 4-5 frames, left it, came back to it 9 months later, developed it, and bam, first few shots were thin

 

[tony lockerbie]

I also like this film, and I don't think that it really has a competitor these days. Goes nicely with Pyrocat HD as well, and I rate it at 32 for this combination. Don't know about image stability as I process promptly, but the film I'm using now is some three years out of date and the frame numbers have all but vanished....could be a clue about the latent keeping properties.
Your pic looks good, nice outfit the Pen F....enjoy!

 

[ColColt]

I bought several 120 rolls a month back but can't get out to try it until my back gets better after trying to carry my dog down the steps...stripped some gears there somewhere and it hurts to bend. I wouldn't do well strolling around town with a 5-6 pound 6x7 around my next at this point.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...

Very nice photo - well done!

 

[piu58]

> never noticed poor latent image stability

May be it is due to the fact that the image numbers are thin. May be Ilford uses the same parameters for exposure them for all of their film, and that leads to thin numbers at Pan F+.

I never saw fading of images in some weeks. I don't let the film in the camera for months so I have no experience with such times.

 

[bvy]

We've been through this. It's easy to blame people's camera/exposure/development, etc. When it happens to you, though, then you get it. I covered every base when it happened to me a year or more ago. I had let the film sit three or four months before developing it and got next to nothing on the roll. This was when we still had an attentive Ilford representative among us. He invited me to send the film and all the relevant data to Ilford for inspection. The technician confirmed that I did nothing wrong, and said the film was occasionally subject to "latent image regression." I was compensated several rolls of film as a result. Very nice, though I was in no hurry to use the replacement Pan F that was among the film they sent.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Not wishing to appear snarky but Pan F+ makes me long for Kodak Panatomic-X. Now that was an awesome film. I find that I must down-rate Pan F to control its inherent contrast and also find that its latitude is even less than what one would expect from a slow ISO 50 film.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's different from Pan X but it is a great film. Latent image keeping is something that can be worked around by shooting and developing without long delays. A couple of weeks won't matter and that's all most of us really need.


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

 

[ColColt]

I was always too anxious to see how the negatives looked to let them sit around more than a few hours to maybe a day or two. The one time I waited longer was when we went to Canada via the east coast tour for two weeks. All those rolls of film both 120 and 35mm got developed soon as I got back home. Most of the film was 50/50 Tri-X and FP-4.

 

[Old_Dick]

Gerald, I'm with you on Panatomic-X. Does anything come close?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald, I'm with you on Panatomic-X. Does anything come close?

None that I have ever found. Pan-X seems to be unique in having a great latitude and gradation. The contrast of Pan-F can be controlled by using an EI of 32 and D-23.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've commented on it numerous times. It's poor choice for high contrast scenes, but can be wonderful under more moderate conditions. If its
the kind of lighting ratio that would suit color chrome film, Pan F is the ticket. If you want good gradation of deep shadows at high altitude or
out in the desert, nope. A bit of misty rain of snow will suddenly change into Pan F magic, however.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gerald - Pan F has one of the shortest usable straight lines of any film on the market. That fact alone should tell anyone that it has very little"latitude" at all, and utterly horrible highlight and shadow gradation at the extremes. In Zone System jargon, it's really a Zone III to VII film in terms of dynamic range. By comparison, the recently deceased Ekfe 25 would handle twelve zones of range without resorting to compensating development! But within its realistic parameters, I too am very fond of Pan F.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ooops - my apology, Gerald. I see you were referring to Pan-X versus Pan F.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald - Pan F has one of the shortest usable straight lines of any film on the market. That fact alone should tell anyone that it has very little"latitude" at all, and utterly horrible highlight and shadow gradation at the extremes. In Zone System jargon, it's really a Zone III to VII film in terms of dynamic range. By comparison, the recently deceased Ekfe 25 would handle twelve zones of range without resorting to compensating development! But within its realistic parameters, I too am very fond of Pan F.

Drew, you are of course right about the characteristic curve.

Out of curiosity I looked on the net for some example images. All the ones that I found acceptable were taken under overcast conditions. So we have a British company making a film suited to the typical British climate. There is a certain irony in that.

 

[piu58]

> Pan F has one of the shortest usable straight lines of any film on the market

That is not my experience. The curve is slightly S-like, but not short. I develop the film with Rodinal 1+50. If someone is interested I can post my measured curve for that combination.

Pan F is a good choice for sunny days, even in the summer. There are problems to solve of course, but these are the same you would have seen with other films too.

 

[Ashfaque]

Brits love to moan about the weather, but that weather is ingrained in the British culture. And the Brits are proud of it. This weather also makes it a wonderfully green country.

Uwe: I'm certainly interested in your findings. Thanks in advance.