Surprise shadow detail in PanF50

4rolls of 6x9 were shot Saturday. The first was PanF50 in a zeiss Ikon 515/2 f4.5. It was Edgewood Day Fair and shadows were black under tent booths in the bright sun. Sunny 16 was used. 1/50 f16, yet, after the film was developed that night, there was no high contrast in it. There is massive detail in darks, what I thought would be pure white negative. Awesome.
Delta 100 did the same thing. Lots of soft gray detail- everywhere. 1/100 f16 for most shots.
Every shot turned out to be good.
FP4 has more contrast in the negatives than the other two do. But still massive detail in what should be underexposed areas. I thought.
They all were developed according to normal directions. 68 degrees in D-76 1:1.
This is a wholly unexpected result.
Not that I'm displeased, mind you. Just really surprised.
The last 2 rolls were shot in a Voigtlander Bessa. One shot was a portrait at 6 feet focus, wide open, f3.5 under a tent and the background is not black outside on the negative. There is lots of blurry detail there. Focus was good enough to resolve individual hairs on the head.
These films really suck in detail in dark areas when exposed for bright light!


my blog has all of the pictures on the page called Edgewood day.
http://studiocarter.com/?p=490

Most likely you got some help in the shadows from uncoated lens.

gorbas said:

Most likely you got some help in the shadows from uncoated lens.

Click to expand...

+1

Ditto

It it rare I use multi coated lenses, normally single.

And panf+ is superlative film

That old leaf shutter is likely to be slow, giving you more exposure and thus more shadow-detail.

Mark Overton

albada said:

That old leaf shutter is likely to be slow, giving you more exposure and thus more shadow-detail.

Mark Overton

Click to expand...

A bit of a sweeping statement My experience is that my oldest Compur shutters are some of he more accurate leaf shutter I have, I've found modern Copal shutters are more prone to running slower. A lot of course depends on the amount of use a shutters had and the state of its lubrication.

My experience with a similar vintage (aged) Ikonta 520 is that some of lenses are very prone to atmospheric attack and can suffer degradation causing quite significant flare. This was due to a new Schott optical glass introduced in the early 1930's and used by Zeiss in a few lenses mainly Tessar and Novar, and also supplied to Leitz for the Summar. The glass was much softer than most and also more prone to cleaning marks/scratches.

I've seen the same with some 1930's Tessar lenses which can be lower in contrast than earlier Tessars in Dial-set shutters, as it's an aging problem caued by polution a lot depends on where the camera was used & kept.

The 1930's Novar on my Ikonta 520 looks like it's a very clean lens, no scratches etc but when tested the contrast is so low it's un-useable, so I'd go along with others that it's most likely a flare issue. I'm luck as I picked up a coated post WWII Novar in a shutter at a Camera fair and the cells are a direct swap.

Ian

The reputation for Pan F of being a high contrast film is undeserved in my opinion (especially when postured as if this is a troublesome feature somehow!) Its usually from uninformed people not working with it very closely or who tried it once or twice and wrote it off, or who have certainly not experimented enough to get it dialed in properly. I find that key, if shooting in high and contrasty lighting, is to add just a little bit of extra exposure and then pulling back 10-20% in development times (to ensure at the most that you don't overdevelop, Pan F does not like over development). Do that and you're going to get beautiful and subtle shadow and highlight detail.

Below was taken on Pan F on a clear bright and sunny midsummer day. Heck the film caught more shadow detail than my eyes did when viewing the scene!

As to slow shutter, look at the negatives, they are very light, not dark at all. The fire truck has a bit of flair above the white part, and anyway, flair does not add detail in shadows.

studiocarter said:

...flair does not add detail in shadows.

Click to expand...

It does!

This almost same shot was also taken with Delta 100 and the tent top is black, here, in the negative with PanF50, detail shows and is a better film for that reason, lower contrast, but there is also just as much detail under it in the Delta 100 shot. I can almost read the paper posted in front if I zoom in on a 600 dpi neg. These were scanned through a plastic sleeve. There is flair above the tent roof, and or it is smoke from the cooker. I could not see under the tent from where I was taking the photograph from. It was black under there. Yet, I can see peoples faces in the image.
Well, if "flair" increases detail, I'm all for it.

This is the blank roof Delta 100.

One is a PanF negative and the other a Delta positive which makes comparisons more difficult but there is clearly detail in the tent roof in the PanF negative which I assume would show in the print whereas in the Delta 100 print the tent roof is clearly blown.

I wonder if this is down to the two films or might it be explained by a difference created by an exposure or development aspect?

I have to say that your experience with D 76 and Pan F should encourage those put off by the so-called temperamental nature of Pan F to give it a try

They all look to be great negatives which should print easily

pentaxuser

It was posted like that so the film type markings would be seen. The panF print does not show the film name.
The Delta blown roof will show detail after contrast is reduced as much as possible in the computer. It would need careful burning in in the darkroom and a 1 1/2 contrast filter at least.
Exposures were generic sunny 16. 1/50 f16 pan f and 1/100 f16 delta 100. Same camera. Zeiss ikon 4.5

The trick with Pan F is to use it for moderate contrast settings. It handles high contrast situations very poorly due to the pronounced "S" characteristic curve. I've found it excellent for moderate-contrast scenes where color chrome film would be suitable. Pyro developer also helps to rein in the highlights when printing. There is nothing "temperamental" about Pan F. You just have to become familiar with its idiosyncrasies. You can get lovely results with it in appropriate circumstances. I like it around the beach, where our coastal fog acts like a
natural soft box.

Pan F, for me, tamed a high contrast setting. Pan F is low contrast. It kept detail in bright areas and recorded detail in low light. The negatives look weak, flat, light but have lots in them. I'd like it to show more contrast. Perhaps I'll increase agitation. Longer developing time may be tried, too.

I've never done a comparison with Panf and FP4 or Delta and I've only used Panf on bright sunny days about once a year!
I process it as a generic film which is quite contrasty but adds a third of a stop toe speed.
But it has not been bad at burn out like I was expecting, but I've not got a comparison.
I've not proofed any just looked at the neg file for a keeper with an aspherical loope.
I did wonder why I still had both highlights & shadows, there was no grain.

Rodinal 1:100 20c stand 60 minutes.

I'll pack half a dozen cassettes in future the bulk loader fill is from 2005... I need to get another 100 foot.

The weather is not good here, normally only use HP5 and foma400.

> The reputation for Pan F of being a high contrast film is undeserved

This my experience too. The film is able to handle contrast situations quite well. I use Rodinal as developer. It is my most loved film for 35 mm.

Again, I have a HD curve if someone is interested in.

Hi Uwe

Thanks for offer I'm going to need to process it as a special in ID68 for 15% less than Ilfords recommendation for my condenser enlarger but I'd still be interested.

High contrast scenes are difficult for me to print, template burn dodge split grade bin full of rejects...

Noel

Of the three different films shot in 6x9 during "Edgewood" Day, PanF, Delta 100, and FP4, they increased in contrast in that order. A Voigtlander Bessa F3.5 was used for the two rolls of FP4, but that lens is also uncoated.
Development in all cases was according to charts from Ilford. 68 degrees F, D76, 1:1. Times are different for all three, Delta being the longest. If I shorten that some it should tame the blown out black negative highlights and still retain the great shadow detail that has more contrast than the PanF does.

I develop the film with Rodinal 1+50, 10 minutes with continuous agitation and at 16°C. Please look at the HD curve. The film has some tendency for dense highlights, but this is well in the acceptable range. The given iso value of 50 is nearly reached. I use 50 iso indeed for protecting the highlights.

piu58 said:

I develop the film with Rodinal 1+50, 10 minutes with continuous agitation and at 16°C. Please look at the HD curve. The film has some tendency for dense highlights, but this is well in the acceptable range. The given iso value of 50 is nearly reached. I use 50 iso indeed for protecting the highlights.

Click to expand...

Hi Uwe

Thanks

Noel