PanF Plus and Rodinal: times all over the board...

MMfoto · Nov 16, 2006

I've been looking at development times for Pan F+ in Rodinal and have been astonished. I've never seen such a huge degree of variation. Everyone seems to have there own time (a good thing), but wow are they all over the board. The difference between Illford and Agfa's recommended times are also quite large.

Illford recommends 1:50 for 11m ei50

Rodinal box recommends 1:50 for 15m ei50

Other times online range between 1:50 5.5m w/ no aggitation(!), to 1:100 for only 11.5m (70F)also ei50.

I have no point, I guess. Just that it does seem people struggle with this combination, and we certainly all like our negatives developed in greatly differing ways.

Personally, I just ran a roll at the Illford recommended time of 1:50 for 11m. 25-50ei ish. A little thin for me. I'll go for 13m on the next round... I saw the same time listed on a popular film dev site as a +2 time for ei64, go figure.

I would give anything (I don't have much ;-) to see all these different peoples negatives and corresponding prints side by side. That'd be really interesting I imagine...

Markok765 · Nov 16, 2006

Ive done 11min for iso 50 with agitation every min

erikg · Nov 16, 2006

I've done 1:100 for 10 minutes @ 70. Normal agitation, EI 32. This combo has been a standard of mine for years, going back to pre "+" days. My negs are pretty normal looking, but I do use grade 3 as my normal paper for 35mm. I have recently tried stand processing and I am pretty excited by it so far. After doing a few rolls I wanted to see a direct comparison so I shot one roll, cut it in half and ran it both ways. It is very interesting, I'll post some images later. My stand time: 60' @ 70 1:100. Presoak and agitation at the start only. Strange to set the tank down and just walk away.

MMfoto · Nov 16, 2006

erikg said:
I have recently tried stand processing and I am pretty excited by it so far.

Have you obseerved a change in affective film speed when using this method?

I'm trying my first hand at stand processing as we speak... Got two rolls of Pan F+ souped in TFX-2 1:1:40(twice normal dilution) 90min w/ 90sec initial aggitation + 60sec at the half hour mark. Wish me luck...

MMfoto · Nov 17, 2006

MMfoto said:
I'm trying my first hand at stand processing as we speak...

...well that went well!

The negs are quite nice. A bit hot in extreme highlights, or at least more than I'm used to. The amazing part though is that the emulsion really does have a serious engraving like texture to it. Can't wait to print...

Gerald Koch · Nov 17, 2006

Unfortunately, development times are usually published without a reference as to the contrast that is produced. Some manufactures times are for a diffusion enlarger and others publish times for condensor enlargers. The times will be significantly different.

Brian Jeffery · Nov 17, 2006

I too found the times for this combination to be a bit erratic. Indeed, although the negatives looked great the highlights were completely blown (for want of a better term). However, doing some film speed tests I've come up with Rodinal 1:100 at 10mins 30secs @ 20 degrees C (68F). I do four inversions every minute. The film speed was pretty close to box at 40 E.I.

I recommend that you do your own testing as your light meter, thermometer etc are likely to differ from mine. The above times were for use with a diffuser enlarger.

Brian

jon furer · Nov 17, 2006

IMO, the best way to figure out proper dev times is to run old fashion film calibration tests which will give you both your personal film speed (each camera and lens combo can be different) and your own personal dev times with said camera/lens combo. It's tedious, but well worth it as you will get incredible negatives that print very easily, with deep blacks, rich luminous whites and everything in between (think AA, for example).

pentaxuser · Nov 17, 2006

These variations destroy your faith in trusting internet sources. If your negs are a bit thin at 1:50 for 11mins then what's 1:50 for 5.5 mins like!

There's much we disagree about on APUG but fortunately PANF plus and Rodinal seems to be one combo most agree on. May I suggest a search of the threads. Because of the large degree of agreement this should produce a narrow range of times within each ratio of Rodinal.

Because APUGers can generally be relied upon to state times, agitation and print grade accurately, I've often thought it a pity that there isn't the APUGer equivalent of the Massive Dev Chart.

We have a lot of good stuff here but it's not always drawn together as well it might be.

pentaxuser

erikg · Nov 17, 2006

MMfoto said:
Have you obseerved a change in affective film speed when using this method?

Yes, I'll have to get out the densitometer, but it looks like an EI of 50 will be about right for stand development. I do see a very noticable difference in shadow and mid-tone seperation, much more pronounced when compared with the normal agitation batch.

Glad your film is looking good.

MMfoto · Nov 17, 2006

To follow up on the stand processed negs...

...now that they're dry and I've had a loupe over 'em, I have to say that they are really overdeveloped. This is my first go at stand development, and I suppose I was expecting a little more compensation.

The images I really cared about and everything else with a short scale look great, beafy, but really nice. Skylit images in the afternoon also look good, hot, but printable for sure. Many of the longer scale images, and anything shot in shade with direct sunlight peaking through are borderline unprintable-unprintable, at least with my skill set. This is a contrasty film by nature. Next time I'll use a higher dilution and perhaps cut the 30 min mark aggitation.

All said and done though, I'm really excited to see how these exciting new negs print!

Gerald Koch · Nov 17, 2006

Pan F+ builds contrast very rapidly and it is easy to get negatives that are hard to print.

sbelyaev · Nov 17, 2006

Try IE25, 68F, 6min 45sec., agitate every 1 min. Dilution 1:50. I checked zones 3, 5 and 8 densities (25-30, 75-80, 125-130). Very easy to print.

Ole · Nov 17, 2006

In my experience, it's also a lot easier to "pull down" an over-contrasty negative than to breathe life into a terminally flat one. I prefer to err on the side of overdevelopment - like my latest gallery entry.

sbelyaev · Nov 17, 2006

Sorry, I mean zones 2, 5 and 8.

joeyk49 · Nov 17, 2006

pentaxuser said:
There's much we disagree about on APUG but fortunately PANF plus and Rodinal seems to be one combo most agree on.

Amen to that!

PanF Plus and Rodinal: times all over the board...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency