Pushing Ilford Pan F

nsurit · Nov 9, 2014

I loaded a roll of Pan F plus into my flipped lens Brownie Hawkeye with the intention of exposing it in very bright sunlight and then didn't end up doing it. Some time later (several months) I picked it up and exposed it in a less that bright sunlight environment thinking the camera was loaded with my usual HP5. So the question is, "Does anyone have any experince push Pan F?" My plan is to punt and process it for 12 minutes rather than 8 at 68 degrees. Any suggestions other than punting and prayer? Bill Barber

Xmas · Nov 9, 2014

Use Avery labels for film speed and type if camera does not have adequate reminder dial.

Richard S. (rich815) · Nov 9, 2014

This is not often discussed but seems more than a few make this mistake:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ilford+pan+F+pushed+to+400

Gerald C Koch · Nov 9, 2014

Even with normal development Pan -F builds contrast very quickly. With extended development I would guess negatives would be very contrasty. Good luck.

Roger Cole · Nov 9, 2014

Well I normally process it in Diafine and get a small but useful increase in speed without excess contrast. But when I say "small but useful" I mean I expose it at 64 and could get away with 80. I doubt much is going to salvage Pan F+ shot at 400.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 9, 2014

I normally shoot Pan-F+ at 25, so for me, shooting it at 400 we'd be talking about a four stop push. My experience with Pan-F+ is that it doesn't build contrast as rapidly as everybody claims. In fact, I was surprised at how long I had to develop the film to get the contrast I want from my prints.

A four stop push will not give you much. You have to resort to extreme measures. If you have something like Agfa Rodinal around, or HC-110. I would dilute the developer at 1:100, and use a tank that is one size bigger than you need and put an empty reel on top. Agitate every three minutes and go for an hour.
If your shots are important, shoot another roll of film at 400 and experiment with it. You may be able to salvage something.

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2014

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2014

hi bill

i did this just this summer. the first time i've used pan-f in maybe 15 years ...

my outlier suggestion is to make a very strong batch of caffenol c you are going to split process it with
something like dektol .. ( i do it with ansco 130 )

so ... mix your caffenol c ( make it a little stronger than the teaspoon recipe prescribes) + add maybe 15cc ( a splash ) of straight dektol into it
and let it sit
you are going to dilute your dektol 1:10 and process your film in it .. for 5 minutes ... agitate normally as you would
for whatever film you use ( i do 1 min then 10/60seconds )

at 5 mins then you are going to pour out, and not rinse off the dektol from your film but pour in the caffenol c ...
agitate continuously for 4-5 minutes. i do hand agitations ( lazy 8's rotated and then get bored and roll it back and forth on my darkroom sink. )

the negatives come out ok, the stain masks what might have been excessive contrast from push processing it ..

you might consider pushing a roll of something else to make sure my suggestion is going to be helpful or not ..

good luck !

john

ps the attached image is 35mm taken with what i remember to be pan f in bright mid-day sunlight

Ghostman · Nov 9, 2014

jnanian said:
...( lazy 8's rotated and then get bored and roll it back and forth on my darkroom sink. )

...

Pleased to meet you, kin.

Oh, and to the OP - I expose at 50 and stand develop PanF+ in Rodinal 1:100. I think it's a beautiful combination.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 9, 2014

That was shot at 400?

jnanian said:
hi bill

i did this just this summer. the first time i've used pan-f in maybe 15 years ...

my outlier suggestion is to make a very strong batch of caffenol c you are going to split process it with
something like dektol .. ( i do it with ansco 130 )

so ... mix your caffenol c ( make it a little stronger than the teaspoon recipe prescribes) + add maybe 15cc ( a splash ) of straight dektol into it
and let it sit
you are going to dilute your dektol 1:10 and process your film in it .. for 5 minutes ... agitate normally as you would
for whatever film you use ( i do 1 min then 10/60seconds )

at 5 mins then you are going to pour out, and not rinse off the dektol from your film but pour in the caffenol c ...
agitate continuously for 4-5 minutes. i do hand agitations ( lazy 8's rotated and then get bored and roll it back and forth on my darkroom sink. )

the negatives come out ok, the stain masks what might have been excessive contrast from push processing it ..

you might consider pushing a roll of something else to make sure my suggestion is going to be helpful or not ..

good luck !

john

ps the attached image is 35mm taken with what i remember to be pan f in bright mid-day sunlight

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2014

yes, i believe it was thomas ...
i loaded the camera on the side of the road
/sitting on the curb. i had been shooting tmy
before it, so i continued with the same ss+fs
and just developed everything together
i had 125 in a different camera ...

took this a few mins later ( or earlier )
can't remember i wasn't feeling well

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 9, 2014

jnanian said:
yes, i believe it was thomas ...

took this a few mins later ( or earlier )
can't remember i wasn't feeling well

I've never seen anything like it. Even shooting Pan-F+ at 100 I would not have expected there to be ANY shadow detail. You gave two stops less yet, and it doesn't fall apart. In fact, in this second picture you have FULL shadow detail. That's as incredible as it is unbelievable.

My recommended method above, with dilute developer and longer development time and extended agitation will do much worse. I withdraw it.

Gerald C Koch · Nov 9, 2014

You might try developing the film normally using a non-solvent developer and then using the Kodak Chromium Intensifier In-4. Re-expose the film to light and then develop in Dektol 1+3.

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I've never seen anything like it. Even shooting Pan-F+ at 100 I would not have expected there to be ANY shadow detail. You gave two stops less yet, and it doesn't fall apart. In fact, in this second picture you have FULL shadow detail. That's as incredible as it is unbelievable.

My recommended method above, with dilute developer and longer development time and extended agitation will do much worse. I withdraw it.

i dug through my files and ...
i made a grave mistake, it wasn't pan f i posted images from it was acros 100 ...
stillpushed, but it seems 1 stop less , and obviously a different film emulsion altogether. OOPS !
sorry for leading you down a path of sadness, distrust and this guy's full of cr@p ...
i know i exposed pan f that day but i can't find the negatives ...

the development method i mentioned is my regular routine bill ( lately with 1 years old brownish ansco 130 )
so if you want to give it a whirl, with something that isn't important and for laughs, feel free to PM me for more details
or if want my exact caffenol recipe, feel free to PM me and i can supply you with sumatran coffee beans roasted to perfection
and some waterlogged+chunky washingsoda ...

sorry again ... for my lapse ...
when i find the pan F i will still a few beautiful frames here ...

RalphLambrecht · Nov 9, 2014

nsurit said:
I loaded a roll of Pan F plus into my flipped lens Brownie Hawkeye with the intention of exposing it in very bright sunlight and then didn't end up doing it. Some time later (several months) I picked it up and exposed it in a less that bright sunlight environment thinking the camera was loaded with my usual HP5. So the question is, "Does anyone have any experince push Pan F?" My plan is to punt and process it for 12 minutes rather than 8 at 68 degrees. Any suggestions other than punting and prayer? Bill Barber

You may have to list this one under'gained experience because,I doubt you can push Pan F that far.Pan F is a great film for fine detail and little grain and especially in MFit is ideal for huge enlargementsbut in your case the contrast will ruin yor shots.another approach may be to under develop slightlyand make up for the loss in contrast with a more contrasty paper,all the best to you!

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2014

.....

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 9, 2014

Interesting.

I have many times shot Fuji Acros at 400 on purpose, and developed in Xtol 1+1 push processing, and those negatives are gorgeous. Not that much lost shadow detail actually, very reminiscent of what you're showing.

I haven't had an experience like that with Pan-F+ yet, but have some that expired in 2006 that isn't perfect for the work I do with lots of even tonality. I may take it down to the city and expose it at 400 and push the dickens out of it, just to see what happens.

- T

jnanian said:
i dug through my files and ...
i made a grave mistake, it wasn't pan f i posted images from it was acros 100 ...
stillpushed, but it seems 1 stop less , and obviously a different film emulsion altogether. OOPS !
sorry for leading you down a path of sadness, distrust and this guy's full of cr@p ...
i know i exposed pan f that day but i can't find the negatives ...

the development method i mentioned is my regular routine bill ( lately with 1 years old brownish ansco 130 )
so if you want to give it a whirl, with something that isn't important and for laughs, feel free to PM me for more details
or if want my exact caffenol recipe, feel free to PM me and i can supply you with sumatran coffee beans roasted to perfection
and some waterlogged+chunky washingsoda ...

sorry again ... for my lapse ...
when i find the pan F i will still a few beautiful frames here ...

Francesco_from_Rome · Nov 9, 2014

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
This is not often discussed but seems more than a few make this mistake:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ilford+pan+F+pushed+to+400

I have no personal, direct experience but this Flickr thread gives some hope:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/72078851@N00/discuss/72157626460788747/72157626635379222/

To the OP, please keep us updated.

Francesco

erikg · Nov 9, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
The exposure index doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the exposure given. At least that's what I see in John's examples.

I think that may apply to the OP's film as well. It was shot in a Brownie, with one option for shutter speed and what, two options for an aperture? If it was average daylight conditions it may have been exposed at something closer to EI 100 or so. The jump doesn't seem so risky. I rate my Pan-F at 32 so I wouldn't have much hope to get anything decent at 400, but I'm not trying either so I'll never say never.

nsurit · Dec 1, 2014

Developed it at 68 degrees for 16 minutes in DDX. Got some useable negatives. Some where the exposure was more questionable are a bit thinner. I think they will print. I'll post either here or in the gallery. They are now drying. Bill Barber

Xmas · Dec 1, 2014

Sigh I was taught to not under expose and over develop.
You guys have gone to the wrong school.
My PanF negs are superb - gorgeous shadow detail...
If you need 100 or 400 use tabular film.

nsurit · Dec 1, 2014

Oh, this was a salvage job, plain and simple. I screwed up.

Xmas · Dec 1, 2014

nsurit said:
Oh, this was a salvage job, plain and simple. I screwed up.

I apologize I was not addressing you merely Panf needs light and can do gorgeous pics, I need another 30.5 m for my fridge.

Pushing Ilford Pan F

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency