Time for PanF

bvy · Apr 1, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
It's more commonly used in color film developers, but is available from the usual darkroom chem suppliers. You mix up a 1% stock solution in distilled
water and use only a drop of so per session, very very little. Can help the developer flow more evenly.

Okay, I'm intrigued. Did you come up with this? Is this a better alternative than adding a wetting agent to developer?

Ricardo Miranda · Apr 2, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Not quite that simple. Everyone darkroom worker introduces their own variables. How you personally, specifically standardize your agitation and other
variable are what counts, along with your own specific equipment. If you have fussed around trying to OPTIMIZE Pan F and certain other Ilford films
as much as I, along with numerous other individuals have, you'd realize that "easy peasy" might not be the best way to do something at all. Easy
peasy negatives on Pan F can be hell to print. Mine aren't.

Precisely!
In order to achieve a personal "variable and agitation method" you have to start with "following the recipe" as someone not long ago reminded me.
How can you find your personal method to achieve the look you want from a negative if you don't know the standard as defined by the manufacturer?
So, yes it is easy to follow Ilford's recipe.

DREW WILEY · Apr 4, 2016

No, I didn't come up with the EDTA idea. It's been around quite awhile. I rarely bother, but it's an option if your personal agitation method is not completely effective in preventing laminar flow marks. All this Pan F chatter makes me feel like picking up a roll for my 6x9 back and heading to the
beach next weekend where the gentle light of fog allows this film to do wonderful things.

David Lyga · Apr 5, 2016

I have always felt that box speed of 50 was too optimistic if you are after capturing shadow detail. Instead, I have used about 16 for optimal results, appropriately truncating development to prevent excessive density buildup. - David Lyga

piu58 · Apr 6, 2016

> I have always felt that box speed of 50 was too optimistic if you are after capturing shadow detail.

I measured HD-curves with Rodinal, which gave a real speed of 32.

ColColt · Apr 6, 2016

That's as fast as some of the "fast" films of the 30's so, not too bad.

Gerald C Koch · Apr 8, 2016

piu58 said:
> I have always felt that box speed of 50 was too optimistic if you are after capturing shadow detail.

I measured HD-curves with Rodinal, which gave a real speed of 32.

Thanks for posting this. It validates what I determined from my own experience. At an ISO 0f 50 I found the film too contrasty. Even so I develop it in D-23 1+1.

DREW WILEY · Apr 8, 2016

I landed on 25 as my preferred film speed rating.

Tony-S · Apr 9, 2016

K-G said:
As Pan F+ has a tendency to be quite contrasty I think an EI setting of 25 and corresponding developing times ( according to the link mentioned above ) will help you to get good negatives. Correctly exposed and developed, Pan F+ is a marvelous film. Just remember to process as soon as possible as the stability of the latent image is rather limited.

Karl-Gustaf

This is my experience, too. I usually only shoot it on overcast days and use Perceptol or 510 Pyro to bring the contrast under control.

Xmas · Apr 10, 2016

piu58 said:
> I have always felt that box speed of 50 was too optimistic if you are after capturing shadow detail.

I measured HD-curves with Rodinal, which gave a real speed of 32.

I'm close to that but the big dependency is how you (or your in camera) meter(s).
PanF is a superb film, not noticed any artifice or image retention problem with Microphen per Ilford rules or Rodinal stand, contrast has been ok in the sunny days we get here.
I do meter more carefully just in case.

Time for PanF

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency