PanF 50 @ 400 to 800 Stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. Anyone tried?

reakeener1970 · Aug 13, 2015

Anyone tried underexposing PanF by a 3-4 stops (400 or 800) and stand-developing in Rodinal 1:100 for an hour?
Kind of curious to try it out but just wanted to see if any others had and what they thought before spending the film/$$.
Thanks!
p.s., this would be on 35mm film. Don't mind grain in general but don't want EXTREME grain on such a small negative.

reakeener1970 · Aug 13, 2015

...and if I don't hear from anyone first, I'll give it a shot and let you know how it turns out...

pentaxuser · Aug 13, 2015

reakeener1970 said:
...and if I don't hear from anyone first, I'll give it a shot and let you know how it turns out...

Good idea. I was about to suggest this myself. You will hear all sorts of comments pointing out the drawbacks of choosing this film and underexposing by 4 stops, including possible drawbacks with stand development. I am sure you know the problems involved in this but believe that stand development in Rodinal may be a success or at least a reasonable success with severely underexposed film.

You'll only know by trying. Learning by doing is a powerful tool

Let us know how it goes and show us scans of the negs

Best of luck

pentaxuser

reakeener1970 · Aug 13, 2015

Sure will.

Hatchetman · Aug 13, 2015

I'm predicting disaster, but let us know how it turns out.

Xmas · Aug 13, 2015

Good recipe for manure.

Hatchetman · Aug 13, 2015

I don't know about grain, but you will get EXTREME contrast.

David Lyga · Aug 13, 2015

reakeener1970: A word to the uninitiated: You WILL get great highlights. And that just might be what constitutes the successful picture for you, depending upon the subject matter and your own private perceptions of just what constitutes 'art'. 'Nuff said? There ARE subjects which will actually benefit from such dearth of light.

Shadow detail might, or might not, be important to what you wish to convey. This factor, shadow detail (and the absence thereof), is the primary reason for successful sales in decades past of special film developers which 'increase' film speed. In all too many cases, this 'film speed parameter' was allowed to shun such threshold detail.

And, Hatchetman, not necessarily 'much excessive contrast' if the exposure is sufficiently deficient. - David Lyga

bdial · Aug 13, 2015

It's said that miracles happen every day. This could be your day.

A more reasonable experiment would be to expose the Pan F at ISO 10 or 20, then stand process it.

pentaxuser · Aug 13, 2015

I have a feeling that the OP may have left us already to try his experiment. It may not work but I have a feeling that he will show us his efforts, good or bad and not come complaining that if only we had warned him.....etc

We can't ask for more than that

pentaxuser

miha · Aug 13, 2015

Hatchetman said:
I don't know about grain, but you will get EXTREME contrast.

How come? Rodinal stand for an hour is a standard time for most films, it's known to balance out the contrast.

cliveh · Aug 13, 2015

If you are going to try this technique, you need to place your hand on the tank, concentrate for 30 seconds that it will work and then relax for the next 59 minutes. However, the result may be crap.

gzinsel · Aug 13, 2015

I thought you were suppose to "concentrate" until you "got a message from yourself" saying it was o.k. to let go!!! I never heard of the 30 second rule!!! sometimes I had to hold my hand on the tank for the whole hour!!! can you believe that! I never got the message from myself.

AlexMalm01 · Aug 13, 2015

I accidentally exposed pan f plus at either 200 or 400 by accident and tried to stand process for an hr to salvage some images. The ones i shot at box speed looked great, contrast was tamed. But the underexposed shots were terribly muddy with almost no shadow detail whatsoever. Grain was excessive in those shots. I wouldn't recommend underexposing pan f plus.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

reakeener1970 · Aug 13, 2015

Ha!
Shooting a roll of 24 exp.
Doing at various levels of exposure on same roll. I completely agree that with "normal" development methods I would have horrendous shadow detail -- just curious to see the effects of stand development (a technique I have only recently started doing)(literally just started -- two rolls so far that were exposed at their box ratings (HP5+ and Delta 400). These turned out nicely but I am curious about finding the limitations of stand developing's ability to deal with exposure variances. Maybe I'll shoot Delta 3200 at 100 next or something equally crazy. I have no illusions about getting good results... just curious.
Hopefully manure will not result, but that is certainly a possibility, too.
p.s. In addition to curiosity, the reason for this experiment is that I would like to see what film, and development method, best handles exposure variances to my liking -- both over and under box speed on the same roll (at which stand development allegedly excels). Just by instinct, I would guess Tri-X, TMax 400, HP5+, or Delta 400, but figured I'd see what happened with the PanF. Basically seeing what can semi-emulate the auto ISO function of a digital camera.
Thanks for all the replies!

reakeener1970 · Aug 13, 2015

Thank you for this info! I have already shot most of the roll so we shall see. Or maybe, given your own experience (AlexMalm01), I will abort the attempt and push it in XTOL, or something (most shots were done at around 400) so as to not completely lose images of my daughter.

Xmas · Aug 14, 2015

reakeener1970 said:
Thank you for this info! I have already shot most of the roll so we shall see. Or maybe, given your own experience (AlexMalm01), I will abort the attempt and push it in XTOL, or something (most shots were done at around 400) so as to not completely lose images of my daughter.

The concept of pushing ignores how the silver halide works. If you want a normal print it is better to not underexpose and overdeveloped.

In the past photo journalists by accident or dispair underexposed a front page shot, and overdeveloped to salve but they don't do that any more.

There were even processes for salvaging accidentally underexposed negatives - intensification.

If you are going to try any of these it is best to do it on a repeatable still life shot.

Some people do use Rodinal stand to try and increase the dynamic range of a film but that mainly reduces the highlight blow out a bit it makes very little improvement to shadows, some say no improvement.

There are ways of making the silver halide more sensitive - and eg Kodak have gone to town on these as did the astronomers before they had photon counter sensors. But many of these are not practical other than for Andromeda or fine spectral lines.

zanxion72 · Aug 14, 2015

PanF has been a beautiful, never forgiving, pain in the ass to use film. One has first to discover its true speed in a developer of own like, and then decide how far it can be pushed. In most developers it can be pushed to 80-100 or even to 125, but any further than that you are not going to like it.
In Xtol pushing it to EI 400 will give you awful blacks and weird grain as it will be something between grain build up and grain dissolution due to prolonged stay in the developer.
One can get something out of a gross overexposed PanF, but for sure you won't like it.
If there is only Rodinal available, try with stand development, more developer than 1:100 (say 1:75) and minimal agitation in under 18 degC. The negatives will be grainy, thin and flat but you will get the best possible out of it.

pdeeh · Aug 14, 2015

reakeener1970 said:
... I am curious about finding the limitations of stand developing's ability to deal with exposure variances ... I have no illusions about getting good results... just curious.
Hopefully manure will not result, but that is certainly a possibility, too. ... In addition to curiosity, the reason for this experiment is that I would like to see what film, and development method, best handles exposure variances to my liking -- both over and under box speed on the same roll (at which stand development allegedly excels).

I applaud curiosity!

(Though this sort of "I wonder what would happen if I ... " messing about tends to get frowned and held in contempt by the most Orthodox of APUG members )

As far as stand development goes, for me the key word is "allegedly"

However, what seems to be not only commonly agreed upon but actually true, is that the "film, and development method, [which] best handles exposure variances -- both over and under box speed on the same roll" is probably Ilford XP2 Super (and perhaps Fuji Neopan400CN?) properly developed in the C-41 process for which it was intended.

paul_c5x4 · Aug 14, 2015

pdeeh said:
However, what seems to be not only commonly agreed upon but actually true, is that the "film, and development method, [which] best handles exposure variances -- both over and under box speed on the same roll" is probably Ilford XP2 Super properly developed in the C-41 process for which it was intended.

And if you ever speak to Simon Galley (or just about anyone else from Ilford), XP2 is often recommended if you plan on scanning the negatives.

As for pushing PanF, I for one am looking forward to information on development and the results. PanF is a fine grained film, but will Rodinal produce massive amounts of grain, or will it still be pleasant to look at..

Simon R Galley · Aug 14, 2015

It's absolutely true ILFORD XP2 Super has the most 'latitude' both unders and overs, its also the very best film to scan ( IMHO).

Whilst I am all for having fun with photography, experimentation and indeed settling on a personal work flow with a film and dev combo and method what you propose doing with PAN F+ is ......how shall I put this ? is bonkers and will result in a c**p neg.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

reakeener1970 · Aug 14, 2015

zanxion72 said:
PanF has been a beautiful, never forgiving, pain in the ass to use film. One has first to discover its true speed in a developer of own like, and then decide how far it can be pushed. In most developers it can be pushed to 80-100 or even to 125, but any further than that you are not going to like it.
In Xtol pushing it to EI 400 will give you awful blacks and weird grain as it will be something between grain build up and grain dissolution due to prolonged stay in the developer.
One can get something out of a gross overexposed PanF, but for sure you won't like it.
If there is only Rodinal available, try with stand development, more developer than 1:100 (say 1:75) and minimal agitation in under 18 degC. The negatives will be grainy, thin and flat but you will get the best possible out of it.

Thanks. Maybe I'll try 1:75 at 18C.
I have Rodinal (Adonal), XTOL, Ilfosol, DD-X, and PMK Pyro at my disposal -- In case you think one of these might work better than Rodinal 1:75.

With small 35mm negatives I like to keep the grain under control for cropping and enlargement ability.
Most of my photos are of people, not landscapes and I don't always get a chance to get as close as I would like to them (hence cropping and enlargement).
I have been (lately) doing Delta 400 @ 300 to 400 in XTOL 1:1, which accomplishes this pretty well.
That said, I really like Rodinal and stand development, and conventional grain films, so was trying to determine if there was a way to get similar results. It could very well turn out that there isn't.

reakeener1970 · Aug 14, 2015

Simon R Galley said:
It's absolutely true ILFORD XP2 Super has the most 'latitude' both unders and overs, its also the very best film to scan ( IMHO).

Whilst I am all for having fun with photography, experimentation and indeed settling on a personal work flow with a film and dev combo and method what you propose doing with PAN F+ is ......how shall I put this ? is bonkers and will result in a c**p neg.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Yeah...probably

reakeener1970 · Aug 14, 2015

cliveh said:
If you are going to try this technique, you need to place your hand on the tank, concentrate for 30 seconds that it will work and then relax for the next 59 minutes. However, the result may be crap.

Ah yes, using Reiki on it...

reakeener1970 · Aug 14, 2015

Simon R Galley said:
It's absolutely true ILFORD XP2 Super has the most 'latitude' both unders and overs, its also the very best film to scan ( IMHO).

Whilst I am all for having fun with photography, experimentation and indeed settling on a personal work flow with a film and dev combo and method what you propose doing with PAN F+ is ......how shall I put this ? is bonkers and will result in a c**p neg.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

What would you know about it, Simon from Ilford Phot... er...oh...

PanF 50 @ 400 to 800 Stand developed in 1:100 Rodinal. Anyone tried?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency