Problem? White dots - Pan F 50

[Ian G]

Hi all
Loving the new site
I developed some Ilford Pan F 50 shot on a Pentacon Six camera — developed Rodinal 1:19 5 min
I normally like the smooth look of this film and it came out rough with white spots.
Is this normal or am I doing something wrong. Should I be doing something differently?

 

[darkosaric]

Hi Ian,

Please explain little more in details:

1) Are you using thermometer - developer, stop and fixer are on the same temperature (which one)? Washing water and final rinse?
2) What are you using as a stop bath?
3) Film is new, not expired?

 

[Michael W]

Same problem in 2012
https://www.photrio.com/forum/index.php?threads/black-spots-on-pan-f-120-cause.79765/#post-1090758

and earlier in 2017
https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...n-f-plus-50-d76-1-1-9min.145413/#post-1902647
https://www.photrio.com/forum/index...n-f-plus-50-d76-1-1-9min.145413/#post-1902647
Interestingly, all the reports seem to be about 120 Pan F, don't think I've seen any relating to 35mm. Anyway, I regard it as a problem inherent in the film that shows up under some conditions but not others.

 

[chip j]

Bad photo-Flo.

 

[Ian G]

Hi
Stop and fix are all the standard ilford products, stop still fine, colour hasn't turned' fix newish, thermometer used. I've dewveloped Pan F before in the same way I do this, other than it being Rodinal and 120 film, and never got this effect. Don't see how photo flo would prduce this

 

[pentaxuser]

I'd write to Ilford with all the details you can and send it a sample negative. Let us know what it says in reply.

pentaxuser

 

[karl]

This is a common issue with Pan F+. How long of a time was there between shooting and developing? Also, has the film been stored in a humid environment?

 

[chip j]

Photo-Flo can expire (go out-of-date).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Humidity-affected?
This is an excellent film for landscape work, and this is not something I have ever seen over about 20 rolls now since January 2016.

 

[karl]

Pan F+ has serious issues with latent image degradation. My advice would be not to go longer than 1 month between shooting and processing. Really only a couple of weeks would be best. Ilford films in general are more sensitive to moisture than most others. Especially the medium format films with backing paper.

Mottling, spots and backing paper numbers showing up on the film are all the results of these problems.

And I say all this as someone who loves and shoots a lot of Ilford film. Just some things to keep in mind.

 

[JPD]

Ilford should replace Pan F with a new slow film with good latent image and that can be made in sheets. People like me don't always shoot and develop quickly, and like slow large format films. I have a brick of Pan F in the freezer, but I can only use the film for special occasions when I can shoot a whole roll within a week or so, due to the latent image degration.

 

[Svenedin]

Ilford should replace Pan F with a new slow film with good latent image and that can be made in sheets. People like me don't always shoot and develop quickly, and like slow large format films. I have a brick of Pan F in the freezer, but I can only use the film for special occasions when I can shoot a whole roll within a week or so, due to the latent image degration.

As far as I know, Pan F is a very old emulsion. The film was introduced in 1948 at ASA 16 then increased to ASA 25 in 1956. After 1960 it became ASA 50 but I cannot determine that the emulsion actually changed but rather it was re-rated. I suspect that if Ilford altered the film to improve latent image stability this would upset a lot of fans of the film who would no doubt find that the film was not the same. Such a change could risk losing customers rather than gaining them. The need to develop it quickly after exposure is just a characteristic of the film.

 

[JPD]

I suspect that if Ilford altered the film to improve latent image stability this would upset a lot of fans of the film who would no doubt find that the film was not the same. Such a change could risk losing customers rather than gaining them.

Kodak took the same risk when they improved TMY, and not many wanted to go back to the old version. To minimize the risk Ilford could make a test run of "Pan F2" to find out what the users think, before contemplating discontinuing Pan F Plus.

The need to develop it quickly after exposure is just a characteristic of the film.

But not a good characteristic. It's not a feature, it's a bug. I want to be able to put the camera on the shelf for a month or two without losing the latent images, and I want a quality slow film for my 9x12 cameras.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ilford should replace Pan F with a new slow film with good latent image and that can be made in sheets. People like me don't always shoot and develop quickly, and like slow large format films. I have a brick of Pan F in the freezer, but I can only use the film for special occasions when I can shoot a whole roll within a week or so, due to the latent image degration.

It's called Delta 100. Same or better resolution than Pan-F, very fine grain, vastly easier to control contrast-wise & a far more useful characteristic curve. Delta 25 was investigated but not taken to production as it was felt it would severely impact sales of Pan-F. Extra film speed is almost always useful in LF, & if you insist on a slow sheet film, Ortho+ in PQ Universal is EI 25 in daylight at what Ilford would call 'normal' contrast.

 

[aparat]

This effect looks like it's caused by reused fixer. It's happened to me, micro particles sticking to the film, unable to be washed away by water and distilled water/Photo-flo bath. The problem went away when I discarded my reused fixer and used one-shot fixer, instead. I found that some films are more susceptible than others (e.g., Fujifilm Acros). If you can look at the film under powerful magnification while it's still wet. If you see micro particles (smaller than dust) floating on top of the film, it will give you the answer your seek.