Pan F+ Problem.. Came out almost clear!

I shot a roll of 135 Pan F+ and got abysmal/unusable results.
The negatives came out thin as can be with most shots simply nonexistent and others had nothing but the most extreme highlights.
Here's what I did: I processed the film by itself in Adox Adonal (Rodinal) in 1+50 for 11min at 20ºC as per MDC. Solution was 245ml water + 5ml adonal. Plain water stop and Fix with Ilford Rapid fixer.
Now I know for a fact that this was processed right, as in, I did it with a lot of care and attention. It was cooked for 11min, the temp was 20ºC, there was 5ml of adonal in there.
The fact that the ENTIRE film was bad even though there were many different scenes and lighting conditions in there, makes me rule out the camera and it's meter. I've also taken other pictures with it since and those worked out wonderfully.

So my suspects are the following:
5ml of Adonal is simply below the minimum necessary to process a roll? or..
I did keep the roll of Pan F+ on my desk for a couple of months at room temp before processing it. This has never been an issue before but I suspect that this was the first time it happened with Pan F+ (I normally shoot Tri-X). (I live in Rio de Janeiro so by room temp one should read anything between 24º-29º).
I've read around that Pan F+ has some latent image keeping problems. Could this be it?
BTW, there were absolutely NO signs of any number markings left on the roll. Totally clear edges.

Does anybody have any other ideas?

No edge/number markings usually means fixed first - are you sure you didn't fix first by mistake?

I had a very unpleasant experience with five rolls of Pan-F+ that I shot in 2008. I waited almost a year (!) to develop them, in 2009. The negatives were pitifully thin, just like you describe (although they did have some edge print on them). I did the five rolls individually, not as a batch, and I changed things each time to try and improve matters. Nothing worked. At the time, I attributed the issue to incorrectly diluting the developer (Ilfosol-S or Ilfosol-3, can't remember which, but I had never used it before). But after reading your description, maybe I just waited too long. I've been working on my developing technique a lot over the past three years and I have a 100' roll of Pan-F+ in the freezer, daring me to try again.

How dense is the leader?
If it has a little density, then the problem could be dead developer. (Although Rodinal is reputed to keep forever)

Good luck,

Mark Overton

The first few rolls of Pan F were also the first rolls of black and white that I have ever shot (earlier this year). For me it produced some really thin negatives. I'm able to scan them easily enough but they are tough to print in the darkroom. I attribute my problems mostly to inexperience and underexposure. I've been using ID-11 at Ilford's recommended times for 1+1.

Lately I've been using Ilford Delta 400 and that has been coming out really well. I've also been getting better with exposure and have gotten some nice negatives out of it. So, I have one last roll of Pan F that I just loaded in my camera, I'm going to try rating it at ISO 32 and see how that goes.

Ambar said:

So my suspects are the following:
5ml of Adonal is simply below the minimum necessary to process a roll? or..

Click to expand...

I have read that the minimum amount of Adonal, Rodinal etc should be 10ml per roll. In recent times I have done a lot of Pan F 120 in Rodinal 1+50 and I use 12ml in 600 water in a two roll Paterson tank. I would do exactly the same if it was one roll of 35mm. I process for about 13 minutes and get good density.

Depending on what You are after You can use down to 2.5ml Rodinal, I have done it several times with various films and/or contrast scenes.
5ml is supposedly safety precaution if You don't know what You are doing or how Your temps, inversion cycle should go.

Ilford Pan F+ works great with Rodinal, most folks should do their own tests for times and dilutions.
imho, 1+50 for 12 minutes, 1 slow inversion every 30 sec or 2 slow inversions every minute is the bare minimum, except when You shot it @25 and normally You should for the most scenes.
I usually give 16min for 1+50, You can leave it for 20 min if You reduce the inversions.

Ambar said:

..
I did keep the roll of Pan F+ on my desk for a couple of months at room temp before processing it. This has never been an issue before but I suspect that this was the first time it happened with Pan F+ (I normally shoot Tri-X). (I live in Rio de Janeiro so by room temp one should read anything between 24º-29º).
I've read around that Pan F+ has some latent image keeping problems. Could this be it?
BTW, there were absolutely NO signs of any number markings left on the roll. Totally clear edges.

Does anybody have any other ideas?

Click to expand...

Make a note that storing photographic materials @ max 25°C, max RH 60% should cut it for up to 1 month.
That is, if there are no harmful gases present in the storage area and there are reasonable radiation levels - 0,129 ~ 1,29 × 10−4 C/kg
Kodak go a bit further than the ISO standard in one of their docs and if my memory is correct, they say You should be OK if film is processed between 6 to 24 hours after exposure.

Ambar, did you mix the developer and used it right away, or did you let the solution sit for some time (a couple of hours)?
It is true that the Rodinal concentrate lasts pretty much forever, but the diluted solution lasts only a few hours before it goes bad.

I remember a post where a member was getting very thin negatives with Rodinal, because he kept the diluted solution for too long. I can not remember if that post was here on APUG or in some other forum...

I really love Pan F, have shot many rolls over the years. I've become quite consistent with my resulting prints.
Still, last year I had exactly the same problem with a single roll of 35mm - almost clear. Absolutely no idea why, could never figure it out.

Pan F is reputed to not keep for very long after exposure (latent image stability), though up to 3 months have not caused me any particular problems.

Any chance these were from a bad batch? I've never used Pan F, so would be interesting to know.

This might help, a post from another thread last week, so sooner or later...

Simon R Galley said:

Dear MK II et al,

Where do we start?

Latent image stability, a real issue on papers and films, both colour and monochrome some are better than others but by and large they are all amazingly stable especially when you consider the LI performance of 50 years ago. If we talk about PAN F + when the ( all new ) plus emulsions were introduced, one major improvement was latent image stability. I should know, but I don't where PAN F + comes in LI performance compared to our other film emulsions but I will speak to our technical service, they will advise me and I will let you know in the next day or so.

Dear Pentax user....deeply appreciate the 'allegedly' in the sort of 'Have I got news for you' context, you do not have to worry, ever, I believe in people saying what they think about us and our products, I will always robustly defend, or on occasion agree to differ, but a healthy and positive honest debate is always to be encouraged...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Click to expand...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have not admittedly used a lot of Pan F in the past few years but I never ever had a problem such as you describe except when I inadvertently left the ISO setting on a non DX camera to 125 and not reset it to 50 This to me has all the hall marks of simple under exposure.

Pan F has been around as long as I have been involved with photography and that is a lonnnnng time. It is in my experience so stable if it were made from concrete you could moor a boat to it.

Are you sure that the film was correctly exposed? Since you shoot Tri-X did you reset the film speed dial on the camera? Failure to do so would mean an under exposure of 3 stops. Under exposure looks a lot like under development. Also you don't mention any agitation.

You might have faint edge markings but no edge markings, as in fixer first and yet still some faint images? I don't see this as possible. The light conditions for the shots may have been different but the common element is the meter and presumably the film speed setting to name but two

A problem with either could give you what you describe except of course no edge markings. Have a very close look at the edges. If there is an image of any kind I suspect there are edge markings

Ilford are having a hard time with PanF+ recently on APUG. I hear on the grapevine that Simon Galley threatened the whole PanF+ production line with the firing squad if there was one more complaint.

In case he has seen this latest thread can I ask that you consider if there might be any explanation to the problem other than defective Pan F film.

It is right that Simon takes Ilford quality very seriously but the legal authorities will take a dim view if he actually does use the firing squad when there might be nothing wrong with the film

pentaxuser

Sounds to me as though the OP grossly underexposed the film, and under developed a bit as well.Pay close attention to the film speed dial and double check developing times. Also, make danged sure of your developing temperture. It is possible to seriously under develope if your thermometer is off by a couple of degrees.

Rick A said:

Sounds to me as though the OP grossly underexposed the film, and under developed a bit as well.Pay close attention to the film speed dial and double check developing times. Also, make danged sure of your developing temperture. It is possible to seriously under develope if your thermometer is off by a couple of degrees.

Click to expand...

I don't know, with pan F+ I just develop at room temp, and that goes from 66° to 72° depending on time of day and if the wood stove is burning and I've never had much deviation with B&W films, especially not almost blank film, certainly E-6 is more sensitive and I am extremely specific with temps for that. Perhaps the camera shutter is bad?


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rthomas said:

I had a very unpleasant experience with five rolls of Pan-F+ that I shot in 2008. I waited almost a year (!) to develop them, in 2009. The negatives were pitifully thin, just like you describe (although they did have some edge print on them). I did the five rolls individually, not as a batch, and I changed things each time to try and improve matters. Nothing worked. At the time, I attributed the issue to incorrectly diluting the developer (Ilfosol-S or Ilfosol-3, can't remember which, but I had never used it before). But after reading your description, maybe I just waited too long. I've been working on my developing technique a lot over the past three years and I have a 100' roll of Pan-F+ in the freezer, daring me to try again.

Click to expand...

Odd: My experience with PanF Plus flies in the face of the experience of several others here re "alleged latent image decay." Having recently moved (20 October), I discovered, when emptying out the deep-freeze several days beforehand, several rolls (120) of my beloved PanF Plus awaiting development. Two weekends after settling into my new digs, I set up my "darkroom"
(aka the guest bathroom) and began playing catchup. Developed in the usual Perceptol, etc. I found no issues at all. Perhaps the issue for some is post-shoot storage? In those instances when I cannot process immediately (i.e. within a week or so of shooting) I do as follows: double zip-lock bag the film, making sure to remove excess air, then place the bags of unprocessed film inside a suitably sized Tupperware container. To date, I have never had any issues. BTW: the film in question was shot in Banff National Park, in May and June of the year past...

BradleyK said:

Odd: My experience with PanF Plus flies in the face of the experience of several others here re "alleged latent image decay." Having recently moved (20 October), I discovered, when emptying out the deep-freeze several days beforehand, several rolls (120) of my beloved PanF Plus awaiting development. Two weekends after settling into my new digs, I set up my "darkroom"
(aka the guest bathroom) and began playing catchup. Developed in the usual Perceptol, etc. I found no issues at all. Perhaps the issue for some is post-shoot storage? In those instances when I cannot process immediately (i.e. within a week or so of shooting) I do as follows: double zip-lock bag the film, making sure to remove excess air, then place the bags of unprocessed film inside a suitably sized Tupperware container. To date, I have never had any issues. BTW: the film in question was shot in Banff National Park, in May and June of the year past...

Click to expand...

I'm as anal with my unexposed film, but only store exposed rolls open (no bag or Tupperware) on the shelf, but the shelf of the fridge, I think storing unexposed rolls out in the open at room temp or above is just inviting trouble...


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sorry I meant EXPOSED rolls..


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

StoneNYC said:

I'm as anal with my unexposed film, but only store exposed rolls open (no bag or Tupperware) on the shelf, but the shelf of the fridge, I think storing unexposed rolls out in the open at room temp or above is just inviting trouble...


~Stone

The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I forgot to add that, once placed in the Tupperware container, the film goes into a -20C deep-freeze...

BradleyK said:

I forgot to add that, once placed in the Tupperware container, the film goes into a -20C deep-freeze...

Click to expand...

Hahaha!! Nice!

Yea the stuff I won't use for a while or the stuff that's old that I buy for play/experiment is kept in my non-frostfree freezer, I've never checked the actual temp, it's the best I can do so it doesn't matter, and the stuff I plan to use soon in the fridge.

Everything except the the exposed stuff is kept in those 4 side sealing Tupperware type containers (the good ones not the crappy rubbermade ones) and anything that I might need to separate is kept on separate plastic bags inside the Tupperware so if I open quick to grab something the inevitable moisture doesn't risk the other stuff.

I'm sort of done with older film now, it's too much of a pain, so I'm going to run through it, and then not use plastic bags for the newer stuff, those bags they come in are pretty good.

You DO have me worried about my unexposed rolls of pan f+ now...

Waiting on a shipment of multi 120 reel tank that I ordered, doing 10 rolls one at a time taught me a lesson. Hope my unprotected rolls are ok...

It's only been 4 days and I should get my tank by the weekend I hope but still, now I'm all panicked... Lol


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey guys! I've been completely drowned at work and have had little time to respond! Thank you all for the input..
Let me clarify one thing VERY clearly! I LOVE PAN F+.. I just bought a batch of PanF in 120 and intend on using this film for many years to come! If this roll turned out bad for any reason, I am absolutely positive it is simply because of my poor judgement somewhere in the process. Where was my poor judgement, that is the question.. Simon, if you're out there, don't send the firing squad anywhere!! I want my Pan F forever!
This was indeed the first time I've used Pan F+ with rodinal, and I was curiose if there were any mishaps in my processing (Like: "You crazy?!?! 11 minutes would never get you close..") That kind of thing..
I don't beleive this was a bad batch of PAN F because it comes from a bulk load that I've used up most of already. Developed in XTOL with no issues.
The temp was correct, I used that exact thermometer an hour before to process another film and have used it a couple of times since with no issues. With Rodinal and Microphen.
I've thought about a possible problem with my ISO setting on the camera. But it would REALLY be wierd. I shot this roll over the course of some maybe 3 days, and I constantly check My ISO setting (in a somewhat OCD fashion. Maybe I am actually OCD about it). Though rare, I'm not above shooting a couple of shots with the wrong ISO, but an entire roll over the course of 3 days... Really doesn't sound like me shooting, but, there's a first time for everything.
As for letting the developer die a slow painful death sitting on the counter, it's a good hypothesis but I'd say it's not possible. I brought the water up to temp like I always do and mixed the 5ml of rodinal a meager minute before pouring into the developing can.
An APUG friend PMed me a few ideas, and one sounds like it could be good new contender. He hypothesized that it might have been a cross contamination issue, where the tiniest little bit of fixer got into my developer some how and killed it. I am developing these in my tiny bathroom with barely enough sink space for a toothbrush. Though I am careful and sensitive to such issue, in these conditions, these things can't be ruled out.
If it was a latent image stability problem, I know for a fact that I was pushing my luck with the conditions I left it at, sub optimal at best and downright asking for it at worst. I will say that 2 rolls of Tri-X sat by it for pretty much the exact same amount of time and suffered the exact same torture and turned out fine. But this could simply indicate that the conditions were not bad enough to cause this kind of degredation. Once again pointing the finger at chemistry...
When I posted this, I wondered if others had had similar experience with PanF and Rodinal.. If I kept it in conditions that would cause this latent image issue (existant or not) to flare up. But I have to admit that the fixer-in-developer hypothesis seems like it could be it. I'm not saying that I'm blatantly sloppy in my darkroom, but mistakes can be made.
Will a drop or two of working strength Ilford Rapid fixer be able to do this? My guess is that if I were using higher volumes of developer this might not have had as drastic an effect, but when you're dealing with 250 ml, 2 drops goes a long way.

I think all you can do is shoot a small roll(say 12 frames) from your bulk roll and do everything you think you did correctly again but this time treat each stage as if your life depended on it That is check each stage very carefully even down to checking on correct volumes of liquid.

We were all tearing our hair out on another forum trying to solve a similar type of problem where the user was convinced he had done everything correct. When he tried again it suddenly struck him that he had misread the marking on his chemical graduates and had used too little developer. Problem solved

I am not saying that this is the issue here, just that such thing happen

Best of luck

pentaxuser

BradleyK said:

I forgot to add that, once placed in the Tupperware container, the film goes into a -20C deep-freeze...

Click to expand...

I do the same! Those Tuppaware pieces come in mighty handy - took 2 full ones with me on a trip back to the EU, US & UK in 98 (plus I purchased another 30 rolls of Agfachrome 100 in London (Joe's Basement), that just saw out a month around the UK. Approx 3 months total with about 90 rolls of film shot. Now they just store film frozen nicely for use when needed. (Swiped a few extras off my mum - she has soooo much of the stuff, she wasn't the least bit bothered.)