Rating PanF+

joeyk49 · Sep 30, 2005

NO! Not whether you like or dislike it...but after reading several suggestions to down rate several medium/fast speed films (such as FP5 from 400 to 200) and reading the recent thread on Delta 25, would anyone recommend rating PanF+ down to 25?

I've been getting pretty satisfactory results with it rated at 50. I wasn't planning to change that anytime soon, but I just got to wondering......

Ole · Sep 30, 2005

It all depends on your developer and your preferences. There's no need to change until one of those change!

Fotohuis · Sep 30, 2005

Exactly, I am fully agree with your comment Ole.

But indeed PANF is under some light conditions and typical developers a rather "difficult" film.

In the past I prefered the APX25, that's why I am quite happy with the new Rollei PAN25. Not the same as APX25 but more flexible than the PANF.

Best regards,

Robert

joeyk49 · Sep 30, 2005

I'm fairly content to keep using Rodinal 1:50 with PanF. I originally thought that 50 was just about as slow as one would normally go in a film speed. And, I'm not really at a point where I want to play around too much with pushing and pulling...

The thread which talked about some of the 400 speed films not really being 400 speed and should be rated down to get better results, got me to wondering about PanF...

gnashings · Sep 30, 2005

Fotohuis said:
...But indeed PANF is under some light conditions and typical developers a rather "difficult" film...

I found that to be true.
I also found that under low contrast (like overcast for eg) light, it looks wonderful (in Rodinal, of course! 1:50 is what I use).

One more thing - there is a very commonly held belief that PanF is actually closer to 25 than it is to 50. Many people swear by it, rate the film at 25 because they... well, believe it is. And I cannot argue with their results - some great work I have seen. I know one guy who rates at 25 and soups in Diafine... havent tried, but again, his results are nice. Have not tested it myself - but would not be at all shocked if the 25 speed belief is very true.
Have not tried it - worked well at 50 for me, mind you , I have a tendency to "when in doubt, open up"...

Lovely, albeit temperamental, film.

Peter.

BruceN · Sep 30, 2005

I, too, like Pan F. Got about 600 feet of 35mm in the freezer and thinking about getting more. I also use Rodinal 1:50 and it is awesome for low contrast situations. For high contrast days try this: Rodinal 1:200 / 90 minute stand development (agitate for first 10 seconds, then 1 inversion at 45 minutes). I suspect you'll be pleased.

Bruce

craigclu · Sep 30, 2005

I have consistently needed to rate PanF+ at 25-32 to get proper toes and separation in the shadows. I used lots of it some years ago with traditional developers (to me, anyway....D76, FG7) and never got a true speed over that with both good shadows and controlled highlights. I find that I have a great deal of forgotten 120 stock in the freezer and also bought 2 spools of 35mm from the individual who posted some here in APUG. I think I'll get back to wringing some out with Jay's soups, PyroCat, etc and see what sort of behavior that I see. Maybe something will prove compatible with the PanF+ and I'll have a nice combination to rely on. An acquaintance of mine does beautiful portraits on PanF+ in TMax. This wouldn't have been my instinct to try but it works very well for him.

modafoto · Sep 30, 2005

joeyk49 said:
would anyone recommend rating PanF+ down to 25?

PAN F+ is a great film that can be used in more ways than normally expected. A lot of people have problems with the film because it responds to even slight irregularities in exposure and development. If you rate it @ 25 and develop accordingly you will get an amazing quality. I use it @ 12 and 25 for studio work (still life) from time to time. Great grain and sharpness in Rodinal 1+50 and 1+100.

Morten

gnashings · Sep 30, 2005

I hate scans.. but here goes anyway:

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

PamF at box speed (or close to it - I always tend to err on the side of caution and open up a bit), in Rodinal 1:50. 35mm, 8x10 print - but this is a vertical crop from a horizontal frame.
Taken on a cloudy day - right before a big storm, actually.

joeyk49 · Oct 1, 2005

BruceN said:
I also use Rodinal 1:50 and it is awesome for low contrast situations. For high contrast days try this: Rodinal 1:200 / 90 minute stand development (agitate for first 10 seconds, then 1 inversion at 45 minutes). I suspect you'll be pleased.
Bruce

I may just try this...

I was shooting some test shots with my newly operational Yash Electro GS. I developed the PanF negs in Rodinal 1:50. My initial looks at the negs were promising. I had a couple of prints made at a local lab (cheaper, with more consistant output) and found the prints to be very contrasty.

I made the exposures on a mostly sunny day after four olclock. I thoough I was safe with the light, but the prints had me scratching my head.

So do you think its the film, or the film/dev combo?

BruceN · Oct 1, 2005

joeyk49 said:
I may just try this...
So do you think its the film, or the film/dev combo?

Here's my rule of thumb for Pan F+ in 35mm:

Cloudy, low contrast: Rodinal 1:50 / 10.5 min. w/normal agitation @ 68 deg.(1st 15 sec. then 5 sec every 2 min.)

Sunny, high contrast: Rodinal 1:200 / 90 min. (1st 10 sec. then 1 inversion @ 45 min.)

This seems to work really well for me for 35mm, I've experimented with stuff in between and haven't really found any improvement.

Good luck,
Bruce

gnashings · Oct 2, 2005

joeyk49 said:
... I had a couple of prints made at a local lab (cheaper, with more consistant output) and found the prints to be very contrasty.
...

Well...I think you may be throwing in a lot of variables by doing this as you have no idea what contrast settings they used, paper, etc. Also, I find that larger prints require a touch more contrast dialed in than small ones (to get the same visual impact of the finished product) - what size are these prints?
The only way to really know what you have is to have a complete set of data to play with - and that really means doing it yourself. That way you will know - ok, I printed this 8x10 on paper x at this contrast grade and I got this result. Then you can judge wether or not the negatives are within acceptible range. Especially since you said the negs did not look like they were out of the ordinary contrast wise.

joeyk49 · Oct 2, 2005

I dropped them off at the local 1 hr lab because it was a test roll, in which I was figuring on seeing the clarity of the lens and how well I was able to focus with the rangefinder...

As far as that goes, I was fairly happy with what I saw in the negative. Now, mind you, I don't have a trained eye for negs, but they seems to be pretty even and their density looked pretty good to me...

I'm guessing that the lab may be more accustomed to c-41 type films and set their contrast to suit those. But I figured that I'd throw it out to the esteemed APUG community to get a little direction on this. I value the opinion here, greatly...

I may try a more controlled attempt at it, soon. I'm just not happy with my self taught (reading alot, no formal instruction) printing skills to trust them, yet. I am finding that my results with PanF are mixed, depending on the type of light encountered. I've only gone through about 50 feet of the stuff, with another hundred in the fridge. I'm hoping to iron out some of my wrinkles with more film and more time in the darkroom.

mmcclellan · Oct 2, 2005

I have been rating Pan F at EI 25 after testing it for film speed (.1 density over fb+f) with development in Rodinal 1:50 and the results have been superb. Test it for film speed using your equipment, get a densitometer reading, and then go with what you got. 25 works great for me!

david b · Oct 2, 2005

I just spent the afternoon in the New Mexican landscape with my Xpan and a few rolls of Pan F+ (rated at 25) that I will develope tonight 1:50.

I'll report back later.

jim appleyard · Oct 2, 2005

joeyk49 said:
I was shooting some test shots with my newly operational Yash Electro GS. QUOTE]

You don't see those old girls very often; good solid camera. They don't make 'em like that anymore. Keep 'er rollin'!

Scott Edwards · Oct 2, 2005

The issue I have had is in controlling the highlight separation, and I have not been comfortable using pyro developers with this film. I find that I enjoy the sparkle of this film when developed in Rodinal with its high acutance tendencies. I shoot at EI 40 and develop in Rodinal at 1:50 for 10 minutes. This works for most papers but particularly for JandC polywarmtone which is a little contrasty. If I have a negative shot at midday with particularly blocky highlights, I then flash the paper for 1-2 seconds.

reellis67 · Oct 3, 2005

I rate it according to the light levels. If the light is flat, I shoot at the rated speed and use a standard development time (in Rodinal). If there are shadows but they are not too sharp I cut speed to 25 and cut dev time by %25. If the shadows are sharp (harsh light in Florida is common) I cut the film speed by 1.3 stops and the dev time by %33. When I develop, I check my notes and develop based on the contrastiest lighting conditions on that roll. I have no problem printing the negs using this method with Pan F+ (or FP4+/HP5+). Some of the negs are flat due to changes in the light levels over the corse of a roll, but they print up fine with a little boost from a contrast filter. Please note that I mostly shoot medium format these days so my rolls are often shot under similar lighting conditions, but this method works for me using 36 exp rolls of 35mm as well.

- Randy

david b · Oct 3, 2005

Well, yesterday I shot two roll of 35mm Pan F+ and one roll medium format. Shot all of it at 25. Both lenses (45mm on xpan, 50mm on 503cw) had light yellow filters.

Then I developed them all in the same tank, 1+50 - 11 @ 68.

The medium format negs are gorgeous. The 35mm negs look, well, not so good. Almost flat I guess. Or even undeveloped.

I will be making contact sheets this morning. Maybe I am wrong.

joeyk49 · Oct 3, 2005

I'm glad I asked the question...

It seems that I've got a little work to do with the hundred feet or so of PanF that I have left...

Its seems to me that my development time may be on the long side for Rodinal(1:50 10.5 - 11 mins. @ 68 F). I may also try Accutol as suggested by another of our group. I'll try to keep it slow and methodical, to illiminate as many variables as possible. But I like to read the experiences of others, so as not to reinvent the wheel.

Thanks guys!

Woolliscroft · Oct 3, 2005

You might also try processing PanF+ in Neofin Blue, rated a bit (up to half a stop) over 50.

David

david b · Oct 4, 2005

Well, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) is my example of Iford Pan F+ at 25 and developed in rodinal 1:50 for 11 minutes at 68. I am quite pleased at how it came out. The negs are rather easy to print, so please disregard my previous statement. I was high on crack at the time (just kidding).

fhovie · Oct 4, 2005

david b said:
Well, (there was a url link here which no longer exists) is my example of Iford Pan F+ at 25 and developed in rodinal 1:50 for 11 minutes at 68. I am quite pleased at how it came out. The negs are rather easy to print, so please disregard my previous statement. I was high on crack at the time (just kidding).

Looks like where I live - Palmdale Ca

Rating PanF+

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency