Pan F Plus

JDW22 · May 30, 2016

Recently, a friend gave me a roll of Pan F Plus to try. Although I was only able to shoot a handful of frames before development, I found the results to be pleasing.

I enjoy fine grain films and wondered if there were others on APUG that have experience with Pan F Plus? I'm especially interested in your preferred developer and what type of scenes (contrast-wise) does it performs well in? The film I have the most experience with and can readily compare with Pan F Plus is Acros 100.

Any comments and/or suggestions are sincerely appreciated.

Thank you;

Jeff

KidA · May 30, 2016

I enjoy Pan F as well. When I want little to no grain, I go for this option. I don't print huge, so when I'm shooting it on MF, I find the character of the grain doesn't show as much, and I find myself heading towards either HP5 or a T-grain type film like Delta instead. The being said, I mostly do Pan F on 35mm. Subjects vary from things like landscape, to still life/'product' photography, even some interesting portraits I've done with it. Up until now I've developed in HC-110 'B' and Rodinal (1+25). I like both a lot. I prefer the Rodinal for MF due to more distinct grain.

bvy · May 30, 2016

Perceptol and Pan F shot at box speed, or better, at 25, should give pleasing fine grain results.

WARNING: Pan F doesn't keep well once exposed. I would develop it within a week of the first frame you shot.

Steve Roberts · May 31, 2016

bvy said:
WARNING: Pan F doesn't keep well once exposed. I would develop it within a week of the first frame you shot.

.... as I found to my cost! I developed a roll of Pan-F that included some shots from six months previously and there was literally nothing visible on the earlier frames!
Steve

pentaxuser · May 31, 2016

Steve Roberts said:
.... as I found to my cost! I developed a roll of Pan-F that included some shots from six months previously and there was literally nothing visible on the earlier frames!
Steve

I wonder if Ilford, having acknowledged the latent image problem with Pan F on APUG, intend to try and solve it? I think it is the only Ilford film that suffers from this problem. Other than Simon Galley's acknowledgement of the problem on APUG which not every APUGer might have read and not every Pan F user will be an APUG member, does Ilford make it clear to users in its spec details that this issue exists?

pentaxuser

DREW WILEY · May 31, 2016

It's a wonderful film if you understand its limitations. You do want to develop it within a week or two if possible. It is not a particularly good film for
high contrast scenes, but can really sing in moderate lighting. I personally expose it at 25 and develop it in a special modification of PMK pyro for
6 min at 20C (hand inversion tanks). ACROS has a longer straight line, so is more versatile in terms of lighting ratios. It is also realistically twice the
speed for me (ASA 50), but takes longer to develop (around 10 to 12 min in PMK). ACROS also differs in spectral sensitivity, being Orthopanchromatic rather than typical Panchromatic like Pan F. This affects the way reds and greens are handled. It's like using a light yellow-green
filter on Pan F due and other typical Pan films due to the reduced red sensitivity. But don't confuse this with Orthochromatic films per se, which don't see red at all.

craigclu · May 31, 2016

FWIW - Even though the latent image issue exists, this film appears to among the most stable of films in long term cool storage. I tested some very old samples (10-15 years) from my freezer and the curves fit exactly over the fresh film tested with it. I've got the plot somewhere and perhaps posted it somewhere here a while back.

bvy · May 31, 2016

pentaxuser said:
Other than Simon Galley's acknowledgement of the problem on APUG which not every APUGer might have read and not every Pan F user will be an APUG member, does Ilford make it clear to users in its spec details that this issue exists?

From the tech sheet:
Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical. Images on exposed but unprocessed film will not degrade for up to several months when stored as recommended.

The storage recommendation is a "cool, dry place" in the 50F to 68F range -- and in its original packaging, which makes it kind of ambiguous. Are they referring to exposed or unexposed film? Even so, I waited no more than "several months" to process mine and was rewarded with a nearly clear film strip. I can't guarantee that it was stored below 68F though. It probably was not.

OptiKen · May 31, 2016

I just shot a roll of Pan F+ for the first time this weekend while in AZ. Contrast is definitely something that needs to be controlled. I didn't know that and was shooting in the bright mid-day sun so I learned something. Even so, I love the look of the film both in low grain and tones. Knowing what I know now, I'd like to try some more of it. I would also try a different developer. I developed mine in Ilfosol 3 for 5 min @ 19C

Richard S. (rich815) · May 31, 2016

I find it a wonderful film and with numerous developers. Even in constrasty situations, as people often warn against for Pan F, if you exposure for the shadows you'll do fine. (Under most contrasty situations I follow a regime of rating the film about half and pull back development time about 20% or so to work for me). If you're not careful you will get bullet-proof hardcore contrasty negs which are tough to scan and tough to print, at least with a nice smooth tonality. Here's a few examples below, the first and the third taken in full blown contrasty sunlight:

Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar, Ilford Pan F developed in Perceptol 1-1:

Hasselblad 500CM, 150/4 Sonnar, Ilford Pan F developed in DD-X 1-9:

Hasselblad 500CM, 40/4 Distagon, Ilford Pan F developed in Rodinal 1-50:

pentaxuser · May 31, 2016

Thanks bvy. I just checked HP5+ and Delta 400 and each says the same as you quote for PanF. Interestingly it now gives a time for PanF which is ideally processing within 3 months but does not give a time beyond which there will definitely be a problem although the user may reasonably infer than more than 3 months will be less than ideal.

pentaxuser

bvy · May 31, 2016

pentaxuser said:
Thanks bvy. I just checked HP5+ and Delta 400 and each says the same as you quote for PanF. Interestingly it now gives a time for PanF which is ideally processing within 3 months but does not give a time beyond which there will definitely be a problem although the user may reasonably infer than more than 3 months will be less than ideal.

Back in the days of Simon, I was invited to send my errant film to Ilford. Seeing that I made no egregious processing errors, and taking my word that I processed it within a few months of exposure, they decided it was an extreme case of what they termed "latent image regression" and compensated me generously. I think they could be more upfront about it in the tech sheet, instead of issuing the blanket statement for all their films. That said, there's nothing lacking in their customer service.

DF · May 31, 2016

I use it for anything outdoors - scenic, landscapes, terrain, skies W/of course red/polarizer filters.
D-76 1:1 is fine for developing. You use a tripod of course ?
Also, it's a good idea to have the prints from a diffuser enlarger, NOT condenser.

JDW22 · Jun 1, 2016

Thanks all for the kind comments and suggestions. Getting your first-hand experiences is most helpful and shows me there are lots of options. I've been primarily an Acros 100 shooter until I got my hands on this roll of Pan F. Here is an image from that first roll.

Hasselblad 500C/M + Zeiss Planar f/3.5 100mm CF + Ilford PanF+ 50 + HC-110 (dil H)

Vaughn · Jun 1, 2016

Rhetorical and/or silly question: If I accidently greatly over-expose Pan F, can I wait long enough (but not too long) for the latent image to degrade back to the proper exposure?

pentaxuser · Jun 1, 2016

Vaughn said:
Rhetorical and/or silly question: If I accidently greatly over-expose Pan F, can I wait long enough (but not too long) for the latent image to degrade back to the proper exposure?

That sounds like a good and practical question to me.

pentaxuser

Vaughn · Jun 1, 2016

Silly me for thinking I was silly! I got a message from a forum member saying it could work, too. I guess if the latent image degrades in a non-linear fashion, then interesting tonalities might come about, and so forth!

But the first time I had the latent image disappear before I could develop the film, I thought I was having major system problems!

Vaughn · Jun 1, 2016

Silly me for thinking I was silly! I got a message from a forum member saying it could work, too. I guess if the latent image degrades in a non-linear fashion, then interesting tonalities might come about, and so forth!

But the first time I had the latent image disappear before I could develop the film, I thought I was having major system problems!

Editted to add...I was a big Kodak Pan-X fan, alas!

So letting the latent image degrade a little -- would that increase or decrease contrast (everything else being equal)?

seitil · Jun 1, 2016

I love Pan F+! Its one of my favorite slow emulsions. I have developed it in Ilfosol 3 a few times and noticed a pretty high contrast result but very good sharpness. I have also developed it in DDX which resulted in a flatter negative with more room to work with and still great sharpness. Take this with a grain of salt though as I am still rather new to all of this . Below is an image I shot two days ago with Pan F+ (developed in ddx) on my Mamiya 7II.

studiocarter · Jun 1, 2016

My roll was shot with an old folder and developed in D76

There was a cooker behind the tent that had smoke above the tent top. F16 1/50 bright sun and there is still a ton of detail under the tent. That really surprised me. I could not see anything with my eyes that day. It was really bright out.

Peter Schrager · Jun 2, 2016

nice work studiocarter
best,peter

JW PHOTO · Jun 2, 2016

studiocarter said:
My roll was shot with an old folder and developed in D76
View attachment 158218
There was a cooker behind the tent that had smoke above the tent top. F16 1/50 bright sun and there is still a ton of detail under the tent. That really surprised me. I could not see anything with my eyes that day. It was really bright out.

I remember seeing this as a positive and it did hold the scenes lighting just about perfect. I wonder if the leaf shutter on your old folder was a tad slow? The reason I say this is because it sure looks like it had generous exposure. Using "Sunny 16" your exposure EI would be ISO 50 rating and this looks more like something in the rating of ISO 25 or even less. Still, with that camera it's near perfect. I also think you hit the development/agitation time pretty much on the money. I don't remember the scan being bitingly sharp, but certainly sharp enough for an old folder since they sometimes can be iffy that way.

KidA · Jun 2, 2016

Vaughn said:
Rhetorical and/or silly question: If I accidently greatly over-expose Pan F, can I wait long enough (but not too long) for the latent image to degrade back to the proper exposure?

Haha! Good one! I'm actually curious though.

Xmas · Jun 3, 2016

I can only use PanF on sunny days so it is not often I get to use it.
Microphen ilfords time and temp their ISO.
I get super negatives and my bulk film is from aeons ago.
Not noticed any latent image fading over a year or so but the rebate printing is faint.!

pentaxuser · Jun 3, 2016

Xmas said:
I
Not noticed any latent image fading over a year or so but the rebate printing is faint.!

Yes the range of times for total fade( as in disappear totally ) to no fade at all seems to vary quite widely

pentaxuser

Xmas · Jun 4, 2016

pentaxuser said:
Yes the range of times for total fade( as in disappear totally ) to no fade at all seems to vary quite widely

pentaxuser

It may be temperature dependent my address is UK not Death Valley.
Less than 15C, except when moon is blue.
The expiry is around 2004.

Pan F Plus

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency