Pan F is the one with the worst latent image characteristics that I'm aware of. No need to panic, but I certainly wouldn't leave it laying around for six months before processing. Been there, done that, and regret it. One or two months shouldn't cause worry.
On the other hand, I've stumbled onto forgotten exposed sheets of TMax, Acros, and FP4 several years old, and have successfully developed them without fog or other complications.
I once considered replacing Panatomic-X with Pan F but heard so much about Pan F latent image loss that it scared me away.
Now I can see latent image loss over time, and I can adjust processing (give more time for older images) to reduce its impact.
I suppose I could test some Pan F. I still have a sealed bulk roll.
I don’t think you can come to very meaningful conclusions let alone generalizations regarding latent image stability using 50 year old film.
I don’t think you can come to very meaningful conclusions let alone generalizations regarding latent image stability using 50 year old film.
psychophysical print studies
This is the key aspect that people, especially those who think they've lucked into a silver-bullet staining developer formula, persistently deny the reality of. Kodak had them outflanked long ago, and under much stricter conditions (and continued to outflank them for a very long time).
This sounds interesting. Do you have a moment to flesh the statement out?
This is the key aspect that people, especially those who think they've lucked into a silver-bullet staining developer formula, persistently deny the reality of. Kodak had them outflanked long ago, and under much stricter conditions (and continued to outflank them for a very long time).
One of the elephants in the room is that all the work done at Kodak also made its way into emulsion design, effectively rendering the so-called art of making great negatives superfluous at best. With modern films, exposing and processing great negatives from a tone reproduction perspective is basically a trivial exercise. The photographer valuing maximum print quality should be working on printing, which is where the real control is.
Thanks all for sharing your experience. A sub-question: if Rodinal were the only developer you had, which of the three films would be your pick to go with it?
but if Rodinal's higher than average graininess is a concern ...
Mostly speed.
All three films will give you the same speed in Rodinal. Rodinal is said by some to produce less than full emulsion speed. In my experience, and from a sensitometry/tone reproduction perspective (like other speed differences among general purpose developers) this phenomenon is grossly overstated. But if it is a concern, whatever speed loss there is will be the same for the three films +/- experimental error.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?