Tabular: terrific or terrible? Your opinions, please.

[Augustus Caesar]

No, there's nothing wrong with the Ilford data sheets. The problem is just with the tiny size of the characteristic curves printed in them, often with the extremes lopped off and not enough grid lines. These published curves can tell you quite a bit, but one has to know how to properly read them, or else understand what is left out from them. Yes, Pan F+ has lovely edge definition, especially in pyro. I don't know much about Wales; but I presume it's often overcast or foggy much like our coast here, and under those conditions Pan F can be a wonderful performer. It's dynamic range is basically about the same as color slide film. But up in our mountains here, which reach over 14,000 ft in altitude, and out in the deserts, scene contrast range can be extreme, and a difficult challenge even for FP4. Likewise, our redwood forests here can go from "natural softbox" lighting when the fog is in, then rapidly up to 12 stops of range once the sun breaks out later in the day.

It not just a problem per shadow detail. A very long toe film like Pan F simply doesn't have much gradation down there. It just goes bland. Only a steeper toed film will deliver a nice drop off the cliff into graphic bold blackness, if that's what you're after. What Pan F does is render a wonderful silvery quality to the margins of its very limited straight line. It's only good for about a 4 stop range before things start looking off, even souped in pyro.

We also have a problem with incessant wind most of the year along the coast. And when the wind starts up on high mountain passes, even a heavy tripod can picked up and tossed. So if the only option left is to hand shoot the image with my 6X9 RF, I'm going to want a faster film anyway, specifically either TMX100 or TMY400.

The slower the film, the narrower the latitude. Even with very soft developers, films like Pan-F are not going to hold the highlight and shadow detail that a faster film will. This is because the silver bromide crystals are all very small, and this makes them develop rather quickly and at the same time. Faster films like Tr-X Pan and HP5 + will deal better with extreme SBR. I remember using Adox KB-14. Never could get nice shadow detail with the stuff. Best results were with Neofin Blue, but FP4 in Acutol was much better.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, that's entirely incorrect. Slow speed films can be engineered for a wide contrast range. Efke 25 was an example of that. And Tri-X and HP5 are medium toe films not really as fast as their marketing speed, and certainly won't handle anywhere near the contrast range as the old 200's like Super-XX or Bergger 200, or even TMax 100. Speed and scale are not generically interlocked. I don't like the term
"latitude", because that can imply simply bagging "something" way down there, but not necessarily of much usable quality.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

No, that's entirely incorrect. Slow speed films can be engineered for a wide contrast range. Efke 25 was an example of that. And Tri-X and HP5 are medium toe films not really as fast as their marketing speed, and certainly won't handle anywhere near the contrast range as the old 200's like Super-XX or Bergger 200, or even TMax 100. Speed and scale are not generically interlocked. I don't like the term
"latitude", because that can imply simply bagging "something" way down there, but not necessarily of much usable quality.

Well, no, not really. The narrower the range of crystal sizes, the narrower the latitude. Slow films have not only small crystals, they have a smaller range of crystal sizes. Fast and ultra fast films have a much wider range of crystal sizes. You simply cannot get as much range out of Pan-F as you can with HP5+. It's not physically possible.

EFKE 25 was the same as Adox KB-14. I have used lots of it.

 

[Mark J]

Yes, Pan F+ has lovely edge definition, especially in pyro. I don't know much about Wales; but I presume it's often overcast or foggy much like our coast here, and under those conditions Pan F can be a wonderful performer. It's dynamic range is basically about the same as color slide film. But up in our mountains here, which reach over 14,000 ft in altitude, and out in the deserts, scene contrast range can be extreme, and a difficult challenge even for FP4.

Yes, I'm familiar with Colorado, I think I've been there 6 times, but also 3 or 4 times elsewhere in the West. I was struck by the contrast on the first visit in 1988. The shadows were inky black ! The combination of low humidity and high altitude does ramp up the dynamic range.
Wales is more rainy than foggy, but I'm not very motivated by either, though colour can be worthwhile in the wet.
I use Pan F for abstracts and 'small-scale landscapes' where it'll produce a grainless 16 x 20 print from rollfilm.
I'm looking forward to trying the TMY I just bought in the Fuji GW690 this winter if we get any snow.

Edit : the wind is a big deal too in Wales. Often the 'post-storm' days are too much for LF.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mark -The Fuji 6X9 RF's are even easier for me to handhold than my Nikon, though I shoot on tripod whenever possible. So I generally load them with TMX100 instead of TMY400. Either speed will render a very nice 16X20 print, but the grain will be almost invisible with the 100 speed version. Pan F has a different look - more a blended "watercolor grain" effect, yet with excellent edge acutance. TMax 100 is capable of extreme detail, but need a little more grain growth than PMK pyro supplies, so I use a different developer for it. I've only seen pictures and travel documentaries of Wales and Scotland; but much of that, and also the coast of Ireland resembles our Marin County right across the Bay. Pt. Reyes Natl Seashore is the second foggiest place in the US; but all that fog reaches my place here along the Bay, and all the wind too. It's rare for a midsummer day to get above 60F. But just 15 miles inland, behind the first range of hills, it can be 50 degrees F hotter in summer. It's all about microclimates.

Augustus - I'm not a film chemist, but I certainly understand that grain growth options have come a long ways, and your blanket generalization of it simplistic at best. T-grain technology, for example, allowed for more lumen capture area at smaller and more consistent grain size, although the early version of 400 TMax could be a little bit clumpy. Efke 25 was even a little slower than Pan F, but not only had far greater dynamic range, but even greater detail capacity. In that case, by limiting the red sensitiivity, and going orthopan, they minimized the light scatter somewhat. Too bad their anti-halation layer wasn't very good - had to be very careful loading those rolls in the shade.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Mark -The Fuji 6X9 RF's are even easier for me to handhold than my Nikon, though I shoot on tripod whenever possible. So I generally load them with TMX100 instead of TMY400. Either speed will render a very nice 16X20 print, but the grain will be almost invisible with the 100 speed version. Pan F has a different look - more a blended "watercolor grain" effect, yet with excellent edge acutance. TMax 100 is capable of extreme detail, but need a little more grain growth than PMK pyro supplies, so I use a different developer for it. I've only seen pictures and travel documentaries of Wales and Scotland; but much of that, and also the coast of Ireland resembles our Marin County right across the Bay. Pt. Reyes Natl Seashore is the second foggiest place in the US; but all that fog reaches my place here along the Bay, and all the wind too. It's rare for a midsummer day to get above 60F. But just 15 miles inland, behind the first range of hills, it can be 50 degrees F hotter in summer. It's all about microclimates.

Augustus - I'm not a film chemist, but I certainly understand that grain growth options have come a long ways, and your blanket generalization of it simplistic at best. T-grain technology, for example, allowed for more lumen capture area at smaller and more consistent grain size, although the early version of 400 TMax could be a little bit clumpy. Efke 25 was even a little slower than Pan F, but not only had far greater dynamic range, but even greater detail capacity. In that case, by limiting the red sensitiivity, and going orthopan, they minimized the light scatter somewhat. Too bad their anti-halation layer wasn't very good - had to be very careful loading those rolls in the shade.

D-76 is still a great product (though I prefer FX-15). Solvent developers in general are reliable, and especially good for faster films. Ilford still sells Perceptol by the ton. Efke 25 is the same as Adox KB-14, just different name. I used to use a lot of it. I eventually gave up on slow films after a while, for two reasons. First, they require a different regimen in development. Many of the special developers made for them have disappeared from the market. Secondly, I really prefer faster films for the type of work I do most of (candid/street photography). The fine grain and sharpness of TMY-2 leave little to be desired, and so I see no need for slow films any more. I use Adox FX-39 II diluted 1 + 17 for about 9.5 minutes @ 68F/ 20C. Condenser enlarger.

By the way, Acros II is to my eye just as fine-grained as Pan-F+ and much easier to process.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Pan F has just about the worst S-curve of any film today I can think of, but can be outright wonderful in falling snow or rain, in fog, or other low contrast settings.

My limited experience with Pan F has been in soft light and drizzle. Under such conditions, it is really nice. Here are some Mississippi examples:

Another Film Treasure: Ilford Pan-F Plus

This short review is for a film that is still in production (yes, I do sometimes use modern film): Ilford Pan F Plus . According to the ma...

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

@DREW WILEY, I've heard/read that exposing Pan F+ at EI 25 and developing it in a pyrogallol-based developer will allow more shadow detail, without the highlights burning-out. Is this true? As I am sure you can tell, my experience with this film is non-existent.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, it's true. But it only allows you about one extra stop of good highlight reproduction, so it still won't allow good capture of high contrast scenes. I would also add, that if you do that, you want to rate Pan F at 25 to give the shadow values more exposure. You also want a different dilution of PMK pyro : 1:1 to 100 (A+B+water), rather than the typical 1:2:100. The third tweak is to add a tiny amount of 1% EDTA to minimize streaking.

Now Augustus : Alas, Acros might not be around much longer. I'm going to develop some 4X5 sheets of it later this morning, and will probably run out of that this winter. There's a lot of skepticism if another coating of Acros II roll film will ever be made, due to its dramatically increased price. Efke R25 developed just fine in PMK pyro too; but the last run of it had a lot of grit contamination as the plant fell way behind in maintenance. Now I've pretty much standardized on TMX100 for MF applications, using a 1:3 dilution of Perceptol, which allows just enough grain growth to overcome the otherwise poor edge acutance of this film, yet still provides distinctly finer grain than either TMY400 or Delta100. I'm all out of original flavor Acros 120 rolls, but will continue to shoot a certain amount of 120 Acros II while it's still around.

For 35mm work, I actually prefer a bit of grit, so mainly shoot TMY400 in that size, pyro-developed, or sometimes Delta 3200 (rated at 800 for PMK). I rarely print 35mm, and when I do, it's small. The Nikon is sorta my alter-ego or comic relief from my more typical big highly detailed large format printing.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Yes, it's true. But it only allows you about one extra stop of good highlight reproduction, so it still won't allow good capture of high contrast scenes. I would also add, that if you do that, you want to rate Pan F at 25 to give the shadow values more exposure. You also want a different dilution of PMK pyro : 1:1 to 100 (A+B+water), rather than the typical 1:2:100. The third tweak is to add a tiny amount of 1% EDTA to minimize streaking.

Thanks!

 

[Mark J]

Are you saying that more EDTA should be added, because PMK already includes EDTA in the 'A' solution ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

EDTA was NOT part of the original PMK formula. Gordon H. did recommend it in the second edition of his pyro handbook, but only optionally for Pan F, or if streaking was otherwise an issue in inversion drums. As far as commercial providers of pre-mixed A and B concentrates, you'd have to check in each case whether EDTA is included or not. The MSDS sheet for Photog Formulary PMK doesn't even list it, but would not be required to anyway, because EDTA isn't considered hazardous, especially in such tiny amounts.

 

[Mark J]

Interesting, yes. I have the 3rd-edition, and had never noticed the 'optional' comment beside EDTA. Silverprint always included it in their kit, I have always used it.

 

[whatsnewsisyphus]

At the risk of resurrecting this beautiful thread @aparat it seems like the flickr shortlinks have all died, was wondering if I could bother you for the images?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

At the risk of resurrecting this beautiful thread @aparat it seems like the flickr shortlinks have all died, was wondering if I could bother you for the images?

He hasn't been around for a few years now but...hopefully he'll see this.

 

[whatsnewsisyphus]

He hasn't been around for a few years now but...hopefully he'll see this.

Yup I've noticed based on posting history, and looks like his flickr timed out too. Just teaching an advanced darkroom class and wanted to share (with citation) some of the data with students. Thank you for the note, and keeping the site alive!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The choice is a matter of personal tastes. There are no right or wrong answers. I prefer traditional grain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What T-grain allows for is more surface area on small grain, hence undermining the notion that smaller grain equates to less contrast range, among other evidences why that is a wrong assessment to begin with.

 

[retina_restoration]

Oh lord, can we please NOT rehash this again?! This is beyond tedious.

 

[Radost]

With the right development a traditional grain can look almost grainless Like T Grain. T grain usually straggles with highlights Like sky detail. At least for me.

 

[mshchem]

No modern film (Kodak, Ilford) is "grainy" not like Tri-X of the 50s through the 70's

I've been delighted with the Kentmere 200 film, I need to use a Micromega magnifier to try and grain focus it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Oh lord, can we please NOT rehash this again?! This is beyond tedious.

Some people would rather blame one particular form of controlled crystal growth structures for their inability to work with materials that have a slightly narrower latitude for significant user error (ineptitude if you want) in return for much higher information bandwidth, than learn how to use a light meter, a thermometer and a timer at the most basic level.

 

[pentaxuser]

Oh lord, can we please NOT rehash this again?! This is beyond tedious.

Rehashing tends to be quite popular in the same way we rehashed Dracula in those Hammer Horror films of the 1960s even after a stake had been driven through his heart or he was detained in fights while the daylight came up and turned him to dust


Flash Gordon also escaped each week from certain death as you may remember

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

Some people would rather blame one particular form of controlled crystal growth structures for their inability to work with materials that have a slightly narrower latitude for significant user error (ineptitude if you want) in return for much higher information bandwidth, than learn how to use a light meter, a thermometer and a timer at the most basic level.

Sadly, yes.

 

[Alan Townsend]

I just learned that Fuji Super HR-U green Xray film has tabular grain, Fuji calls it (sigma)-LIC 30 grain technology. It should be added to the list since many Photrio folks are using it in large format cameras and alt process enlarged negatives due to it's very low cost. Today, my favorite dealer on ebay is selling 8x10 100 sheet boxes for $68 making it very affordable for experimentation. Personally, I prefer traditional grained photography films, my favorite being Kentmere 100 for 35mm. I like using acutance developers with traditional grain failms since they respond to it very well showing mackie lines etc., but Tgrain film do not respond very well to these. TMX responds the best, from my experience, and Fuji hru doesn't respond at all. likely due to being a dreamy looking film with very attractive halation. It has double sided emulsion coating with no antihalation or scratch resistant coatings, so is difficult to hand process, but possible using smooth bottom trays or ziplock plastic bags. There is no dye of any kind detectable coming off into the solutions, although it is an orthochromatic film, there is that.

The main thing I don't like about Kodak Tgrain films is horrible curviness they display after drying which forces the enlarger aperture to be stopped down due to the curvature of the film. This reduces print sharpness due to diffraction. One thing I LOVE about Fuji hru is that it's alsway flat as a pancake, unlike any film I ever worked with. This is because there are identical coatings on both sides. These stay dead flat in negative carries of 4x5 size. However, it's never sharp at all due to double emulsion and halation effects, but at least we can reduce print exposure times with it. I've had a love/hate relationship with this film for a while due to its weirdness. I just learned this film has a Dmax of around 2.0 developed in most film developers, which is much lower than most films I've used. So it is a learning experience for all.