Slow speed films- Why do you like Ilford Pan F or FP4+ over Acros/Delta/TMax?

GarageBoy · Mar 10, 2015

What IS the traditional slow speed film look that everyone goes crazy for? I notice a difference in certain prints, but what exactly am I looking for?

Paul Howell · Mar 10, 2015

I think Tmax 100 has better resolution than FP4, Pan F, or Agfa 25 or Panatomic X, but at least with Pan F Agfa 25 or Panatomic X had or have shorter curves with increased contrast, for lack of scientific measure, a harsher look. FP4, and Plus X had or have longer curve and with the right development could be made to look very soft. I was never able to achieve the same look with Panatomic X. I did like Panatomic X in 6X9 for flat subject, like a landscape.

Jim Noel · Mar 10, 2015

PDH said:
I think Tmax 100 has better resolution than FP4, Pan F, or Agfa 25 or Panatomic X, but at least with Pan F Agfa 25 or Panatomic X had or have shorter curves with increased contrast, for lack of scientific measure, a harsher look. FP4, and Plus X had or have longer curve and with the right development could be made to look very soft. I was never able to achieve the same look with Panatomic X. I did like Panatomic X in 6X9 for flat subject, like a landscape.

The slower the film, the greater the inherent contrast. Any ISO 25 film will have greater contrast than any ISO 100 film given the same degree of development.

MartinCrabtree · Mar 10, 2015

Jim Noel said:
The slower the film, the greater the inherent contrast. Any ISO 25 film will have greater contrast than any ISO 100 film given the same degree of development.

Could you explain why in a way a duma$$ like me could understand?

john_s · Mar 10, 2015

When I was young I decided to go for the "best possible" results as far as sharpness was concerned. So I used for a while Adox KB14 (20ASA). I exposed at box speed and developed according to the instructions. Sharpness, there was plenty, but also contrast beyond what I could successfully print. Some years later I discovered that more exposure and less development would have solved the problem of contrast. In my opinion, those very fine slow films are not really near their box speeds for normal contrast. It's years since I used PanF but I think it's similar.

When people say that one film is contrastier than another they're not developing to the whatever contrast they need. As a generalization, all films can be just about any contrast: it's just a matter of degree of development. The problem with the slow films is that they need generous exposure to tame their contrast at box speed, and I suppose manufacturers don't feel like labelling their films ISO=10 or something like that.

piu58 · Mar 11, 2015

>> Any ISO 25 film will have greater contrast than any ISO 100 film given the same degree of development.
> Could you explain why in a way a duma$$ like me could understand?

A lower contrast comes from mixing AgCl crystals of different sizes. This is done with higher ISO films. There is an upper limit for crystal size so that low speed films are mixed from a smaller range.

ericdan · Mar 11, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
What you read about the "look" of this film or that film has mostly to do with pre-conceived notions, biases etc.

Couldn't agree more with the above.
I had guys tell me they love the grain of Tri-X and HP5 just looks wrong not knowing that they're looking at HP5 prints...
anyways, to each his own.

Scanning and printing has much more effect on the final result than the film you use.

Roger Cole · Mar 11, 2015

Jim Noel said:
The slower the film, the greater the inherent contrast. Any ISO 25 film will have greater contrast than any ISO 100 film given the same degree of development.

No, it depends on development. It's easy to develop, say, Tri-X and Pan F+ so that the Tri-X shows much more contrast than the Pan F+.

There are subtle differences but I really agree with Micheal.

Ian Grant · Mar 11, 2015

Roger Cole said:
No, it depends on development. It's easy to develop, say, Tri-X and Pan F+ so that the Tri-X shows much more contrast than the Pan F+.

There are subtle differences but I really agree with Micheal.

I agree.

Pan F needs careful exposure and development to get the best from it and tame it, all that means is some testing to determine the optimum effective film speed and development time, and then exposure needs to be tight, there's little latitude.

My favourite slow films were Agfa AP25 and then APX25 they were muck closer to the medium speed films (AP100 & APX100) in the way they behaved. Unfortunately one of the chemicals used in the emulsion became unavailable, sales weren't high enough to justify the cost of reformulating the emulsion. I used APX25 mostly in 120 in a 6x9 back with my Wista 45DX and the resolution, excellent tonality,extremely fine grain gave me similar print quality to my 5x4 APX100/TMAX100 negatives.

I started using Pan F again in the last 2-3 years with my TLRs because I want that slight improvement in quality achievable compared to FP4/Delta 100. A friend, Bill Spears ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)), uses PanF with Perceptol with his 6x6 cameras and I was impressed by the image qualities he's achieving.

Slow films aren't always practical unless you're using a tripod but when I'm shooting in Turkey & Greece the constant sunlight means PanF is very easy to use hand held with my TLR.

Ian

madgardener · Mar 11, 2015

The one I really liked was the Efke 25, but sadly that's gone. Adox's CHS II 100 is really nice shot at 50, with a tripod. Their CMS 20 I haven't tried, yet. I keep waiting for Adox to ship me some rolls free (hint,hint, nudge,nudge...) Until then it will have to wait until I finish the stuff in my freezer, or the wife will feed it to me for dinner.

Ian Grant · Mar 11, 2015

I still have quite a bit of EFKE 25 left in Quarter plate, 5x4 and mainly 10x8 (3 boxes). I always shoot it at 50 EI in daylight. The Adox/EFKE name actually denotes the Tungsten speed, it's faster in daylight.

For some years the EFKE range was sold re-branded in the UK as Jessops 50, 100, & 200 B&W films.

Ian

Roger Cole · Mar 11, 2015

I have a partial box of Efke 100 someone sent me for free. I bought a Grafmatic and when I opened it there was a (previously opened) box of Efke 100 in it with a note saying "free film - haven't counted but I think there's about 70 sheets." It's now outdated but I popped it in the fridge when I got it. Probably ought to try it out some time.

GarageBoy · Mar 11, 2015

Thanks, before I start playing "the grass is greener on the other side", I'll stick with Acros for a bit- I love the steeliness of it

flavio81 · Mar 11, 2015

GarageBoy said:
Thanks, before I start playing "the grass is greener on the other side", I'll stick with Acros for a bit- I love the steeliness of it

From some tests i've seen online, Acros is even finer grained than Pan F. And in my own experience it has "invisible" grain.
On the other hand its spectral sensitivity is not so nice (to me). All in all, i've more or less settled on Delta 100 which is still extremely fine grained but has a nice spectral response and gives nice results in general.

removed account4 · Mar 11, 2015

GarageBoy said:
What IS the traditional slow speed film look that everyone goes crazy for? I notice a difference in certain prints, but what exactly am I looking for?

hi garageboy...
I am not one crazy for these films. I use tmx/tmy because for certain
clients i have, the film has to be low grain, I have used hp5+ as a replacement
for tmx/y with a 4x5 camera .. I kind of like that better
otherwise I just have film on hand and I just expose it ..
all pretty much the same exposure no matter the format when I am not doing client work.
sometimes between a 4 or 6 count wide open
( or a box camera at whatever the fstop is f10?)
it all gets processed at the same time in the same developer no matter the film ..
I don't see much of a difference .. film is film ...
different people like nuances ways they can somehow extrace something different
from whatever they use .. maybe they can do the same thing with another film, i
have never pressed the issue oe asked because people might think it is rude
or take offense that the film isn't magic, it's just film
to each their own .. if it makes them happy shooting pan f+ at ISO 24,000
and developing it a mixture od 1;15 tmax rs, selectol soft (1:3) and micradolX
for 4 mins in their drum, befor dumping it out and finishing it off in rodinal
1:50 and pyro dog 1:2:400 ...
don't forget to have fun

john

karl · Mar 11, 2015

I find it interesting that no one has really focused on the the unique look of Pan F+. Definitely different than FP4+/TMX/Delta 100. And different still from the APX25 and Efke 25. I'm not sure I can describe it. Creamy tonality with certain heaviness. It produces a very 'rich' image when you get it right.

GarageBoy · Mar 11, 2015

flavio81 said:
From some tests i've seen online, Acros is even finer grained than Pan F. And in my own experience it has "invisible" grain.
On the other hand its spectral sensitivity is not so nice (to me). All in all, i've more or less settled on Delta 100 which is still extremely fine grained but has a nice spectral response and gives nice results in general.

I know that Acros is a little less red sensitive- but what are the differences in practice? This is the kind of thing I'd like to learn to differentiate

Thanks

DREW WILEY · Mar 11, 2015

I've made numerous posts elsewhere on ACROS. Like FP4 and TMX, it basically a medium speed film, but with orthopan rather than normal
pan sensitivity. The grain is perfectly crisp and visible, though very fine, at about 7X enlargement if you have a sharp enough enlarging lens. Orthopan has reduced red sensitivity, so is like putting a light yellow-green filter over the lens with conventional pan films. Foliage will come out more natural looking. I really love this film in the mountains. Things just seem more luminous and authentic. The only other orthopan film I'm aware of is the now defunct Efke 25, a true slow-speed film capable of recording very wide ranges of contrast, but alas, with a lot of contamination defects towards the end of its production life, when the factory was having maintenance and quality-control issues. But why slow films - various reasons including the finer grain needed for smaller cameras. But when it comes to big cameras, I have a particular barrel lens for my 8x10 which I can't afford a shutter for, and which would become unduly heavy if it did have one. That
leaves the old on-off by hand lens cap exposure method, which requires relatively long exposures to perform reliably, and hence is favored
by slower films.

DREW WILEY · Mar 11, 2015

Pan F is noted for is very crisp edge effect, especially in pyro developers, giving it what is often called "wire sharpness", distinct from grain
impression per se, which is minimal. But Pan F has a very limited straight line and pronounced S-curve, so it not a good choice for high contrast scenes if you expect serious shadow gradation. In moderate contrast situations it can yield lovely results. ACROS has distinctly sharper, though very fine, grain, along with excellent edge effect. The edge effect on TMX100 is quite poor by comparison, so even though
the grain is reasonably fine, the appearance of sharpness is sometimes compromised. Just depends. For some subject like portraiture you
might deliberately want fine tonal detail without pronounced edge effect, while with landscape work or architecture, you might want the opposite.

OptiKen · Mar 11, 2015

Not meaning to hijack, but has anyone tried developing the slower films such as PanF in Caffenol?
What are your impressions of that?

removed account4 · Mar 11, 2015

this website has a lot of information on caffenol and recipes for slower, medium speed and faster film
http://caffenol.blogspot.com + caffenol.org and probably caffenol.cookbook.com
and within the walls of the caffenol palace and caffenol pages the flickratzi
probably have most likely tagged or speak about their experiences with pan f+ ..
i have used pan f, and it came out OK, but my recipe is different from
the rest of the users of black gold.

good luck !
john

jim appleyard · Mar 11, 2015

One reason I love to shoot slow films (ISO 25) is simply to get a slow shutter speed. I love to shoot waterfalls and here in the Adirondacks/Catskills we have plenty. In April when the snow is melting and the leaves are not yet on the trees and the sun is shining right on a waterfall, I need a slow film to allow me to get the water to blur. I need 1 sec. at f/22 or thereabouts. Sometimes ISO 50 films are too fast even with a polarizer to use up 2 stops of light.

Paul Howell · Mar 11, 2015

jim appleyard said:
One reason I love to shoot slow films (ISO 25) is simply to get a slow shutter speed. I love to shoot waterfalls and here in the Adirondacks/Catskills we have plenty. In April when the snow is melting and the leaves are not yet on the trees and the sun is shining right on a waterfall, I need a slow film to allow me to get the water to blur. I need 1 sec. at f/22 or thereabouts. Sometimes ISO 50 films are too fast even with a polarizer to use up 2 stops of light.

Other than old stock and Pan F, are there any old fashion slow speeds left? Panatomic is gone is as Agfa 25 and EFKA 25.

jim appleyard · Mar 11, 2015

Not that I'm aware of. Adox makes some 20-25 speed orthopan films. I'm not sure if Rollei 25 is still in production.

RattyMouse · Mar 11, 2015

GarageBoy said:
Thanks, before I start playing "the grass is greener on the other side", I'll stick with Acros for a bit- I love the steeliness of it

I imagine that Acros will be the last film standing over at Fujifilm. I hope I'm not wrong.

Slow speed films- Why do you like Ilford Pan F or FP4+ over Acros/Delta/TMax?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency