Reversal Processing Pan F Plus in the Adox Scala Reversal Kit

DeletedAcct1

Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
869
Location
World
Format
35mm

What causes the emulsion to flake off is not an emulsion damage, the emulsion doesn't melt, otherwise you wouldn't get flakes.
What fails is the subbing layer, an adhesive layer between the emulsion layer and the base, and there's nothing that can be done to prevent its failing other than reducing the bleach concentration, the time spent in the bleach plus a lower temperature (say 18°C).
Not all b&w films are up to a permanganate bleach. Generally stick with Fomapan R 100, Fomapan 100, Adox Scala 50 and nothing else.
And don't use the final fixer bath at regular strenght (1+4). Try 1+9 instead.
 
OP
OP

ChrisGalway

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 24, 2022
Messages
429
Location
Ireland
Format
Medium Format

You may care to look at this thread:


where I gave an update using Rollei Superpan 200 film instead of Pan F. I got great results, no evidence of emulsion damage at all. I agitated the 1st Dev as normal but I agitated very gently, almost continuously, in the bleach. In future, I'll use Superpan 200 ... note it's super-panchromatic, i.e. extended red sensitivity, which I'm not keen on, so I used an IR absorbing filter to convert it to normal pan film.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format

The emulsion issues you experienced might have nothing to do with reversal processing. I recently decided to try 35mm PAN F PLUS, exposing a roll and developing it in FX-39 II. While sharpness, grain and characteristic curve were all excellent, throughout there were places where the emulsion was missing and/or appeared to have been partially sloughed off and deposited nearby, doubling the thickness/density compared to the even-toned frame it was part of. Edge markings identify this as 5616-12. The box it came in (recycled before developing) was unforgettable because it had a small piece of paper marked "4/27" pasted over the printed expiration date. I don't recall what other numbers were printed on that box.

Not wanting to give up on this film, I purchased a couple more rolls, both of which have "4/27" expiration dates printed directly on their boxes. I haven't exposed/developed either of them yet, but will post again to this thread when I do to report what their edge printing says and whether the emulsion defects persist.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2024
Messages
93
Location
Germany
Format
35mm
[...] the emulsion is barely holding on.
I got similar problems when reversing my first Rollei Infrared 400 and Ilford Delta 3200 films.
Could I have rinsed too much? Bleached too long (6 minutes)? Agitated too vigorously?
I thought the same. So I modified the process that I had used before (with Fomapan R100):
  • I reduced bleach time from 7:30 min to 5:00 or even 4:30. In my opinion it might be a good idea to open the tank just after 4:00 min for example and check if the film is already bleached completely. If not, continue to bleach for a minute or two, then check again.
  • I reduced rinsing: with Fomapan I inverted 10 times each time I had filled the tank with water. With Rollei and Delta I invert 3 times only.
  • With developer, bleach, fix etc. I use to rotate the tank (about 40 times per minute). Same with Rollei Infrared and Delta 3200 films, but very very tenderly and carefully.
  • Same during the whole process with any movement of the tank and the fluids: very very tenderly and carefully!
  • I reduced fixing time from 4 to 3 minutes.
  • I reduced final wash as described here to "After fixing, fill the spiral tank with water at the same temperature, +/– 5o°C (9oF), as the processing solutions and invert it five times. Drain the water away and refill. Invert the tank ten times. Once more drain the water away and refill. Finally, invert the tank twenty times and drain the water away."
With Fomapan R100, I had used four water fills and inverted 3, 6, 12, and 24 times.

Thus, even with the sensitive Rollei Infrared 400, I haven't had problems any more.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
7,530
Location
San Clemente, California
Format
Multi Format

I've now exposed and developed the first of those two additional PAN F PLUS rolls (which were purchased from a different retailer than the first one was). Using Andrew O'Neill's approach of cutting a roll in half to compare results in different developers, I processed the first part in exactly the same chemicals (FX-39 II, indicator stop and TF-5 fix) at the same temperature, for the same time and with the same agitation regime as the previous roll. This one, apparently from an earlier batch with edge printing 5616-11, was not only free of emulsion defects, but also ended up with a substantially higher contrast index: right at ADOX's datasheet value of 0.65 vs its predecessor trial's 0.55.

I then developed the second part of the roll in Perceptol 1+1. Its emulsion too was physically perfect, delivering a contrast index exactly as expected for the processing time specified by Ilford.

I suggest anyone having emulsion issues with PAN F PLUS examine the edge printing. If it's 5616-12, there's a chance the problem lies with the specific batch of film and not reversal processing of it.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…