Testing of Ilford PAN F

[UKJohn]

Hopefully this is posted this in the right place!

I have recently been undertaking some film tests, one of these films being Ilford PAN F. With the film rated at 25ASA I have had no problem with determining N-Dev and N-1. However, N+1 and N+2 results have been rather surprising, N+1 seems to be achieved with only 10% additional development above N-Dev and N+2 with only 19% additional development above N-Dev.

The film seems to very quickly block up with over development, has anyone else tested PAN F or experienced this when development is increased?

Developer used is LC29 at 1:29 with the film tested using an X-Rite 810 Densitometer.

The densities for each Zone with N-Dev are (reading left to right Zone I - IX)

0.1, 0.21, 0.33, 0.48, 0.70, 0.91, 1.12, 1.31, 1.47

with N+1

0.15, 0.26, 0.40, 0.59, 0.83, 1.09, 1.32, 1.54, 1.68

and with N+2

0.20, 0.32, 0.48, 0.72, 0.98, 1.29, 1.58, 1.78, 1.89

I trust all this makes perfect sense, thanks for your help.

John.

 

[Gibran]

Hopefully this is posted this in the right place!

I have recently been undertaking some film tests, one of these films being Ilford PAN F. With the film rated at 25ASA I have had no problem with determining N-Dev and N-1. However, N+1 and N+2 results have been rather surprising, N+1 seems to be achieved with only 10% additional development above N-Dev and N+2 with only 19% additional development above N-Dev.

The film seems to very quickly block up with over development, has anyone else tested PAN F or experienced this when development is increased?

Developer used is LC29 at 1:29 with the film tested using an X-Rite 810 Densitometer.

The densities for each Zone with N-Dev are (reading left to right Zone I - IX)

0.1, 0.21, 0.33, 0.48, 0.70, 0.91, 1.12, 1.31, 1.47

with N+1

0.15, 0.26, 0.40, 0.59, 0.83, 1.09, 1.32, 1.54, 1.68

and with N+2

0.20, 0.32, 0.48, 0.72, 0.98, 1.29, 1.58, 1.78, 1.89

I trust all this makes perfect sense, thanks for your help.

John.

I tested it a while back and though not as scientific as you, found the same thing. I don't know how you are agitating but if I were to try Pan F again, I would agitate for perhaps the first 30 sec. and afterwards 5 sec. agitation every 3 minutes for the duration. I have found that to tame the highlights for films like Delta, Pan F, Acros.

 

[Gibran]

One more thing. I'm not familiar with LC29 but you may need to increase the dilution(and of course time) with the above technique. I use HC-110 at Dilution H and Rodinal at 1:63.

 

[df cardwell]

I always worry when we use the phrase 'block up'. It really means nothing.

I think Adams used the phrase 60 years ago to describe the effect of the shoulder, when density increase in the highlights became BLOCKED by the shoulder of the film.

Often today, it's used to describe a super-proportionate increase in highlight density... the effect being brilliant highlights, exactly the opposite of how it used to be used.

In any case, Pan F will make brilliant highlights with some developers, and gradual highlights with others. FX30, XTOL, and Rodinal, for instance, will make gradual linear highlights: you will need to adjust the amount of agitation to control them.

Rodinal is capable of either an upswept curve ( brilliant highlights, what you describe now) or a longer scale, flatter highlight response. The amount of agitation you give will determine this, not dilution.

Looking at the ingredients sheet for your developer, I'd bet that reducing the agitation to 5 seconds every 3rd or 5th minute will straighten out the highlights.

I had a nearly identical result to yours with Pan F and FX1. Simpy reducing the agitation to every fifth minute fixed every thing. You'll need to increase the time to compensate.

good luck

 

[Gibran]

The reason I was saying to Possibly increase the dilution was so that the time could be increased as well and it might also give some sort of a compensating affect in the shadows. And I want to thank DF Cardwell as I have learned a lot from looking at his many posts here.

 

[UKJohn]

Hi Gibran,

I tested PAN F by shooting a target and then bracketing either side -1/2, -1 stop and +1/2 and 1 stop of the indicated exposure on a Pentax V spot meter. Developed the film based on Ilfords instructions and measured each exposure for negative density. I found that +1 stop gave a reading approximate to Zone I. Thus my PEI was 25. Well thats the theory lol.

Thanks for comments most appreciated.

 

[BruceN]

I shoot quite a bit of Pan F+ and get full film speed with normal (for me) development in Rodinal. As others have said, however, agitation is key. I had a lot of problems before that, I eventually discovered, were caused by over-vigorous agitation. I now find that 15 seconds initially, followed by one "toroid" inversion per minute just does the trick.

Bruce

PS - I did my testing using this method:

http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/testingm.htm

 

[david b]

I went by box speed and the ilford website.

Ilford Pan F+ at 50 in rodinal 1+50 11@68

 

[UKJohn]

Hi Bruce,

I dont have a problem with N-Dev and N-1, its just that I didnt expect the increase in density to occur as rapidly as 10% and 19% above the normal development time. My method of agitation is 15 seconds initially and then 10 seconds every minute thereafter by gentle inversion. This seems fine for N-Dev, perhaps like some of the other postings suggest I need to reduce agitation for increased development.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[BruceN]

Sometime, when you've got some high contrast scenes to develop, you should try stand development. Pan F+ in 1:200 Rodinal for 90 minutes, 30 seconds agitation then go get lunch. I've gotten some amazing results from this.

Bruce

 

[df cardwell]

A nice cup of tea, soothing music, and gentle thoughts help.

The final touch is the correct color of socks. But personal footwear is beyond the scope of this discussion.

.

 

[mawz]

Bruce: What EI were you shooting PanF at? I'm getting into stand development with Rodinal of late, but at very fast EI's (Neopan 400 and Tri-X at EI1600 or so in 1:100 for 2 hours), PanF is my standard slow film and I'd like to try it with stand, but need a starting point to test from.

 

[gnashings]

... I have found that to tame the highlights for films like Delta, Pan F, Acros.

Funny you should say this - perhaps I am doing something wrong - but I found these three films to be all very different from each other in just about every way (especially the way they respond to development methods, over- and under-exposure, etc). That goes especially for Delta and Acros vs PanF. Actually, I have found PanF to be a bit of horse of a different colour among most films I have used. What am I missing?

Peter.

 

[UKJohn]

Funny you should say this - perhaps I am doing something wrong - but I found these three films to be all very different from each other in just about every way (especially the way they respond to development methods, over- and under-exposure, etc). That goes especially for Delta and Acros vs PanF. Actually, I have found PanF to be a bit of horse of a different colour among most films I have used. What am I missing?

Peter.

Hi Gnashings,

I have also test ACROS which through my method of testing gave me an EI of 80. I found that compared to PAN F ACROS when N-1 dev applied didint need any additional exposure change where PAN F required an additional 1/2 stop to retain the neg densities in Zones I - IV (to match N-Dev). Also with N+1 ACROS proved to again retain reasonable neg density in Zones I - IV yet enabled Zone VII to have the same density of Zone VIII, the increase in development above N-Dev was about 25%.

To me ACROS seems to be a more versitile film and also appears to have as fine a grain as PAN F but give you that extra stop or so with respect to exposure.

Hey I think its time for a cuppa and a change of footwear now!

Thanks to you all for your very constructive comments...its been good chatting.

Cheers

John

 

[gnashings]

...To me ACROS seems to be a more versitile film and also appears to have as fine a grain as PAN F but give you that extra stop or so with respect to exposure...

I found most of the new-tech 100 (Delta, Acros, Tmax) speed films give up nothing in grain size to PanF+, and yes, give you a little extra room to play with. I have to admit, my experiences are not backed by any scientific research - but just going by "feel" I found that PanF+ canlook absolutely gorgeous... I just can't get it to behave. Acros was recommended to me by many for human subjects, and after trying it I have to say it makes skin tones look gorgeous. Now PanF+... I have some shots that are absolutely gorgeous (through no fault of mine), and many (most) that just seem like they want to tell me: "Come back when you know something about photography!"
I think what I am trying to say is this: in today's world choosing PanF+ is not a matter of fine grain, but rather one of flavour. If it was a simple grain-size issue, that film would have no right of being. Thankfully, its not that simple with films!

Cheers,

Peter.

 

[Gibran]

Funny you should say this - perhaps I am doing something wrong - but I found these three films to be all very different from each other in just about every way (especially the way they respond to development methods, over- and under-exposure, etc). That goes especially for Delta and Acros vs PanF. Actually, I have found PanF to be a bit of horse of a different colour among most films I have used. What am I missing?

Peter.

I base this just on trying to achieve the same sort of local contrast in the midtones that I'm used to getting with a traditional film like Agfa APX 100 while maintaing highlight and shadow detail. To me and my methods, Acros is the best of the new technology films in this regard. My experience is that while these New Technology films are all different and have their own look, all seem to sacrifice mid tone contrast for finer grain and build density very quickly in the upper midtones. Trying to manipulate these films to achieve local midtone contrast seems to always result in blown highlights. In the past, I saw this same thing with Pan F when I used the normal suggested agitation which is why I responded to the original post suggesting reduced agiation. Thats why I lumped these films together.

 

[BruceN]

Bruce: What EI were you shooting PanF at? I'm getting into stand development with Rodinal of late, but at very fast EI's (Neopan 400 and Tri-X at EI1600 or so in 1:100 for 2 hours), PanF is my standard slow film and I'd like to try it with stand, but need a starting point to test from.

Oddly enough, I got my best results shooting it at 50.

 

[mawz]

Bruce: Thanks, now I just have to shoot some to test.