Pan F Plus shot at wrong speed

[akcatl]

I'm a goober and forgot to slip a snippet of the box I just shot into the back of my camera. I assumed I was shooting HP5+, but I found out after I took it out that it was Pan F Plus. So, I shot about half the roll at box speed, and the other half at 400. I'm assuming I'm mostly out of luck here since my metering would have been miles off, but am still coming for advice. I process at home with hc-110 -- does anyone have recommendations about what dilution/time I should use to get as much as I can out of what I shot at 400?

 

[pentaxuser]

If you have half the frames at the correct exposure but the other half at 3 stops underexposed, the key question that only you can answer is, are you prepared to accept all the frames being a compromise and possibly a seriously adverse compromise.

Final question: are you a skilled scanner rather than a darkroom printer? If you are then maybe the compromised frames can be saved by scanning but I have no knowledge of scanning so cannot comment on that

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm a goober and forgot to slip a snippet of the box I just shot into the back of my camera. I assumed I was shooting HP5+, but I found out after I took it out that it was Pan F Plus. So, I shot about half the roll at box speed, and the other half at 400. I'm assuming I'm mostly out of luck here since my metering would have been miles off, but am still coming for advice. I process at home with hc-110 -- does anyone have recommendations about what dilution/time I should use to get as much as I can out of what I shot at 400?

one cannot recover a lack of exposure with extended development but You can recover some. Try a 20% overdelopment and hope for the best. Be prepared o print with a harder grade of paper to recover some print qualitywhen printing. File the whole experience under 'learning curve' and don't give up.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Are all the shots important? If the box speed shots have more important images, I'd develop for box speed. If the shots are spread out over the entire roll, then you are in a bit of a pickle...

 

[otto.f]

HC110 dil.E (1+47) 5’:30”. I don’t think HC110 is a good solution for PanF+, which is not so easy find a good match of a developer for. Probably even Rodinal gives less grain than HC110 with this film. And forget the 400 exposed shots

 

[mrosenlof]

unless the underexposed half roll has stuff you really want/need, I would write off that part and develop normally for PanF.

Pushing PanF to 400 is not likely to be successful. The datasheet for the film lists e.i. 64 (1/3 stop push) as its fasted recommended film speed. You could (in total darkness of course) cut the film in half (approximately) and try to push the underexposed half. You would probably get some frames in the wrong half, but maybe could save more of the underexposed half. Maybe.

 

[akcatl]

unless the underexposed half roll has stuff you really want/need, I would write off that part and develop normally for PanF.

Pushing PanF to 400 is not likely to be successful. The datasheet for the film lists e.i. 64 (1/3 stop push) as its fasted recommended film speed. You could (in total darkness of course) cut the film in half (approximately) and try to push the underexposed half. You would probably get some frames in the wrong half, but maybe could save more of the underexposed half. Maybe.

Oh wow, this is a great idea, hadn't even considered trying to split the roll. It had 36 frames on it so it's worth a shot. Thanks for the advice!

 

[akcatl]

If you have half the frames at the correct exposure but the other half at 3 stops underexposed, the key question that only you can answer is, are you prepared to accept all the frames being a compromise and possibly a seriously adverse compromise.

Final question: are you a skilled scanner rather than a darkroom printer? If you are then maybe the compromised frames can be saved by scanning but I have no knowledge of scanning so cannot comment on that

pentaxuser

I scan and print darkroom, but I figure scanning would give me my best shot at recovering anything. Thanks!

 

[akcatl]

HC110 dil.E (1+47) 5’:30”. I don’t think HC110 is a good solution for PanF+, which is not so easy find a good match of a developer for. Probably even Rodinal gives less grain than HC110 with this film. And forget the 400 exposed shots

Hmmm, I do have some Ilfotec DDX -- do you think that would do a better job?

 

[MattKing]

This response is entirely tongue in cheek.
With Pan F's poor latent image retention characteristics, you could:
1) cut the roll in two and develop the half that was properly exposed;
2) roll the other half of the roll back into the cassette;
3) leave that half roll unused for a year or so, to give time for the very light latent image on it to fade;
4) after the year, take the roll back out and expose the same shots as the ones that you under-exposed, but this time give them the correct exposure;
5) develop accordingly .

 

[albada]

This response is entirely tongue in cheek.
With Pan F's poor latent image retention characteristics, you could:

How quickly does the latent image fade?
Last night, I developed a roll of PanF shot two days earlier, and it was fine. But the edge markings ("rebate") were faint. The roll had been stored frozen for a few years, so I'm not surprised at the faint rebate. But I'm wondering whether the image-loss would be noticeable over, say, one month.

Mark Overton

 

[MattKing]

How quickly does the latent image fade?

Much more quickly than most other films.
Harman actually warn you of that.
But I've never seen a scientific analysis of how quickly. Three stop under-exposed negatives probably fade more quickly than properly exposed ones.

 

[mshchem]

I would just add 20% to the normal development time and get it over with Life is too short.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F is especially unforgiving of underexposure as well as overexposure. Consider the frames shot at 400 as worthless. You might be able to retrieve a bit of highlight value. It's always a good idea to have a trashcan around for these situations. I rate this particular film at 25 myself. As per latent image failure, I wouldn't be worried about a month passing by before development, but four or six months might be a real problem.

 

[Don_ih]

I totally agree with @DREW WILEY.

You could probably straighforwardly reshoot the first half of your film and have almost no trace of the original exposures.

 

[pentaxuser]

I totally agree with @DREW WILEY.

You could probably straighforwardly reshoot the first half of your film and have almost no trace of the original exposures.

The problem is the uncertainty of the fade rate. I expect to see a post now that says: "I took a whole roll of Pan F exposures in 1950 and only discovered the roll in a drawer yesterday. I developed it last night and guess what? They are all perfect !

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

Cut the film approximately where you think you made the change, which is not really hard to estimate, and develop as two films. You will lose one single frame by having cut thru it, and you will lose a few by not developing them correctly, but you will have saved at least 75% of the roll.

 

[gone]

I would just add 20% to the normal development time and get it over with

This. Develop it and move on, they might not be so bad, film is amazingly hardy.

I'd once been shooting outdoors in sunny New Mexico when we stepped into a coffeehouse, saw their cool coffee grinder, and I took a picture w/o resetting my aperture. That particular negative looked almost clear w/ only a dim image, but I was able to pull it out from somewhere in PS. It was amazing, because by just looking at the neg, well, there just wasn't much there to see. That was underexposure of course, but I still think at 20%-30% over yours might look OK.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser : The current PanF emulsion dates back to 1992, so didn't even exist in 1950. What began in 1948 was the earlier version. So your experience with that old roll does not realistically factor into the present question. But Don wasn't even referring to the latent image stability, but to the severe underexposure issue in this case.

Pan F plus has the shortest straight line and most prominent S-curve of any current film I can think of. There's little latitude for exposure error. It was engineered to accept the same luminance range as color slide film. If one thinks about it in that manner, and shoots with that limited range in mind, and meters just as carefully as with slide film, they'll get the most out of it. Beyond that, there are certain developer tweaks which can improve highlight reproduction; but nothing is going to turn Pan F into FP4 performance or any other typical black and white film. It's different. I never use it for any kind of high contrast situation. Wrong film. Out in misty rain or enveloping beach fog, or falling snow, it can work wonders producing silvery prints.

 

[Down Under]

I feel for you. Pan F is one of the most difficult (and often as not frustrating) black-and-white films ever made, to work with. Its exposure latitude is quite poor, highlights blow out, careless developing produces results best described as Soot And Whitewash. And what's even worse, your exposed images start to deteriorate almost immediately after you make them, so you have to process asap or lose quality.

For all that, I use a fair lot of it. Over the years I've worked out the exposing and processing techniques that best suits me, not an easy task given the harsh Australian light I often shoot in. This is entirely too difficult to explain in one thread, but suffices to say that the best you can do with your 'mixed' ISO rated film is simple - decide which of the two lots of images are most important to you, develop accordingly, and sacrifice the rest. This is the KISS technique, and also the easiest. Sad about the images you lost, but, well, how much of your work can't be retaken anyway?? If you shot landscapes at one ISO and personal images (family, pets, home etcetera) at the other ISO, then for me the solution to this is easy - process for the personal images and go back and reshoot the pretty scenery.

As for processing - too much development give you dark grey negatives. Too little give you light greys, which surprisingly scan very well. Hitting the middle mark is difficult. Given the choice, I would go for the light greys.

Consider using a faster film in future - Ilford FP4 is ideal for almost everything, and HP5 performs best on overcast days.

I use Pan F because I have so much of it (several bulk rolls in fact, all about 15 years old) resting quietly in my film fridge. When my stocks of this film are all used up, it will be bye bye to a film I won't use again and certainly won't miss.

Whatever your decision, best of luck to you - but don't delay too long in souping your film.

 

[akcatl]

Thanks so much, all! I ended up using the split method and processing one of the roll half at box speed, and the other with 20% overdevelopment. At least that was the plan. In true goober form, I accidentally swapped the film in the changing bag so that the normally exposed photos ended up being overdeveloped. As expected, many of the photos were unrecoverable, but there was still a little something there! The negatives look very weird, almost like a positive when held up to the light. I made one test print with the highest possible contrast filter on my enlarger, and the results were passable. I think I'll get more out of them from scanning, but I'm happy I got anything at all. Lesson learned!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks so much, all! I ended up using the split method and processing one of the roll half at box speed, and the other with 20% overdevelopment. At least that was the plan. In true goober form, I accidentally swapped the film in the changing bag so that the normally exposed photos ended up being overdeveloped. As expected, many of the photos were unrecoverable, but there was still a little something there! The negatives look very weird, almost like a positive when held up to the light. I made one test print with the highest possible contrast filter on my enlarger, and the results were passable. I think I'll get more out of them from scanning, but I'm happy I got anything at all. Lesson learned!

One learns by doing and occasionally making mistakes, like the classic switching the order of developer and fixer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Welcome to the club. Learning the hard way is often the best, since we remember it better. I've sure got my own long list of mistakes! A few of them turned up happy accidents, most didn't. Life goes on.

 

[pbromaghin]

A screw-up compounded! Congratulations, you're going to fit right in.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If one does not make mistakes, then he/she is not pushing oneself enough to learn.