*Very* Thin Pan F -- Help

[Paul Glover]

I'm certainly curious about the edge markings too. I checked, and of 4 rolls I've shot, all 4 have thinner edge markings than other films, and 2 of the 4 are noticeably thinner than the other 2. Keep in mind this ONLY affects the edge markings, the actual exposures are good (photographer errors excepted, of course).

It's entirely likely the variations I noticed are within normal tolerance. I don't think they were all from the same batch, but they were all bought within a few months of each other.

Seems like a good moment to mention that while there are many things to love about Ilford, one of the best of them is the fact that there's a real live and knowledgeable person who will respond to queries here. Thanks, Simon, for reminding me that customer service still thrives somewhere!

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear BVY,

The batch number number is on the box but with a 2014 expirey its in date.....but If you send me the film I will be able to identify the batch number....

Please post it to the UK address HARMAN technology Limited, Ilford Way, Mobberley, Knutsford, CHESHIRE WA16 7JL. UK Mark it for my attention Simon Galley : Finally make sure you put all your details in with it e.mail / process information / home address etc and I will have it looked at by technical service and we will get back to you.

We will not return the film to you unless you specifically require us to do so.

Simon.

 

[clayne]

I don't know guys, I've always had slightly thin edge markings, but nothing ridiculous. In fact - I'd say this is a common characteristic of Ilford films in general. Here's a frame of PanF+ (I don't even know what the exp date was), developed 3-4 months after shot:

I'm sure you're all intently examining the edge markers as we speak, but they don't look too out of line to me.

 

[bvy]

The top edge markings ("Ilford Pan F") look more than just slightly thin to me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Why does it matter so much what the edge markings look like? Come on, people.

Focus on the image area of the film to solve your problems.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Slow speed films like Pan F have a smaller latitude than faster films. This means that metering errors are more noticeable.

 

[bvy]

Why does it matter so much what the edge markings look like? Come on, people.

Focus on the image area of the film to solve your problems.

The thinness of the edge markings was brought up as being symptomatic of the film's reputedly poor latent image keeping ability. I personally don't care about edge markings in and of themselves. I don't think anyone does.

--

I'll have an update later tonight hopefully. As I mentioned, I was halfway through a second roll of Pan F in the same camera when this happened. I marked the halfway point on the film, and I'm finishing up the roll in haste this week. I'll cut and develop the last half of the roll (the "noncritical" half) tonight and report back. I'll be using Perceptol stock.

 

[clayne]

If possible I'd recommend using D-76 or similar since everyone knows it and it's a good baseline.

 

[bvy]

I developed the last half of my second roll of Pan F Plus this afternoon -- shot in the same camera that yielded the bad roll (Yashica T5). Throughout this whole saga, I was ready to throw in the towel on this combination (Pan F + Perceptol). But the results I got tonight look pretty amazing. I was happy just to see properly exposed images, but the scans show the degree of smoothness I was hoping for to begin with. These were shot in a hurry, as I mentioned, and scanned in a hurry (with no corrections beyond auto-contrast), but I thought I'd share a few. I developed in Perceptol stock at 68F for 14 min.


So what does this prove? The camera seems to be working properly. There's no difference in the exposures shot with the original battery (frames 19-27) and the new battery (28-36). I did a very unscientific test with the film cassette from the bad roll. With the camera opened and in dim light, I timed the shutter with and without the cassette inserted. The exposure was about twice as long with the cassette inserted than without it, which is what I would expect since the camera defaults to ISO 100. And as much as I hate to bring up edge markings again, the ones on the bad roll are barely visible. On this roll, they're easily visible. I'll develop the other half of the roll tonight or tomorrow.

 

[clayne]

Temperature, developer, dilution, subject matter, etc. there's just not enough evidence pointing to film being that you just got a solid set of frames out of it. Is the perceptol the same as last time?

The "stuffed animal" shot I posted was shot someone in June or July. It was developed a week ago. Latent image degradation is not so fast that the density is gone within 6 months, even with the supposed quicker loss with this film.

 

[Paul Glover]

Why does it matter so much what the edge markings look like? Come on, people.

Focus on the image area of the film to solve your problems.

Personally it's just a matter of curiosity. They were mentioned and I've noticed the thinness myself. I've had no problem at all with the actual images that couldn't be explained by "user error".

 

[bvy]

I developed the other half of the previously mentioned roll today, and the negative looks good. These images date from July 5 through a couple weeks ago. And in this case, I admittedly did leave the camera in the car for about a week in August (though this was Pittsburgh August, not Louisiana August). I haven't scanned it yet (it's drying) but I see good density in most frames -- the others I can attribute to poor lighting.

I think I'm going to take up Simon's offer to inspect the bad film.

 

[Bill Burk]

bvy,

What's the density of the edge markings?

In all this thread, I can't help but think that the exposure on the edge markings is "middle gray" to avoid issues like bromide streaks.

 

[bvy]

The edge markings are comparable to scans I've seen of others' Pan F. A bit thin, yes, but it's quite easy to read off the frame numbers. On the bad roll, they're practically invisible.

 

[sepiareverb]

Temperature, developer, dilution, subject matter, etc. there's just not enough evidence pointing to film being that you just got a solid set of frames out of it. Is the perceptol the same as last time?

The "stuffed animal" shot I posted was shot someone in June or July. It was developed a week ago. Latent image degradation is not so fast that the density is gone within 6 months, even with the supposed quicker loss with this film.

You may not be exposing properly then. I certainly see degradation over 6 months with PanF+. But then I;m not as good as you.

 

[ulysses]

I have been using Pan F plus for about one year now and my developers of choice are ID-11 and Rodinal in 1+1 and 1+50 dilutions respectively. Never had any problem exposing it at ISO 50. Negatives were always perfect, good density and contrast. Pan F tends to have deep blacks and lovely dark greys I really like. My habit is to expose and develop the roll within 2 days maximum. The edge markings are always very faint, which tells this is one of the worst films regarding latent image stability. So what I can recommend based on my experience is to expose normally and develop promptly.

Agreed for those developers, dilutions and times with Pan-F+. I have recent experience (Rodinal tonight) with excellent results. I suspect something with the OP's camera or developing technique. My edge markings, for the record, are faint, but the images are beautiful (at least exposure/contrast wise, aesthetically they are as good -- or bad -- as the rest of my work.)

U.

 

[bvy]

Film is on its way to Ilford, as I've taken up Simon on his kind offer to have a technician inspect it. I'll follow up as soon as I hear something. Meanwhile, I made a beautiful 9x12 enlargement last night of a frame from my second roll of Pan F Plus (same camera, same developer).

 

[Dennis S]

Myself. I use the Pan F Plus @ 25 in ID-11 @ 1-3 with very good, repeatable results. Before I found this recipe I thought also that I had a bad film chemical mixture but it was just my selection of developers.

 

[bvy]

I promised to follow up. Allow me to sing the praises of Ilford.

I sent the bad film to Ilford for inspection. Within about two weeks, I got a detailed response via e-mail from a technician. She checked the batch number of the film and found no other complaints or anything unusual in the coating/finishing records. She found nothing unusual in my development or storage of the film. As such, her findings were inconclusive. She did admit that "latent image regression" was the one weakness of Pan F Plus, whereby films developed more than six months after exposure could potentially come out slightly faint -- but, she said, not nearly to the degree that I've experienced. Even so, she could only guess that it was an extremely rare case of this phenomenon, and, as she put it, "that you've been extremely unlucky." She and Ilford were very generous in replacing the film.

I've since had good luck, together and separately, with both Pan F Plus and Perceptol. In fact, I'm considering Perceptol (stock) as my developer of choice for Neopan 100 Acros, of which I have a lot on hand.

Thanks to Simon and to Ilford for their excellent customer service and standing behind their products.

 

[mnemosyne]

thanks for letting us know.

 

[mesantacruz]

bvy, it's great to hear that ilford is extremely quick and responsive.

as an aside to your mystery, perhaps your camera did not reset from the previous roll of iso 1600 (or the new pan f 'cassette' was scratched and/or marked)... i'm pretty sure the former is what happened somehow, as you probably removed the batteries to clean the contacts, etc.

is there any way of loading the 1600 iso cassette again, and seeing if after loading an iso 50 film, it sticks with iso 1600 shutter speeds?

 

[Jim Noel]

Pan F edge markings are light to medium gray.
If oblique light is giving you a positive image, the negatives can be printed. In the 40's and 50's i frequently made such negatives to enable me to see the positive w/o having to make proof sheets. If I was still using 35mm or roll film, I still would do so. Reduce the light source in your enlarger, or close down the aperture, and print them. They will print quickly. I ahve no idea wht happens if you scan them as I see no point in doing so.

 

[bvy]

is there any way of loading the 1600 iso cassette again, and seeing if after loading an iso 50 film, it sticks with iso 1600 shutter speeds?

I can certainly try that, but that wouldn't explain why the edge markings were as faint as the frames. The follow-up roll of Pan F that I shot and developed came out beautifully and had very prominent edge markings.

Also, I did test the cassette that contained the bad film, and the camera read it properly.

 

[sepiareverb]

Thanks to Simon and to Ilford for their excellent customer service and standing behind their products.

Not surprising. Simon and Ilford techs exel in taking care of us.

 

[erikg]

I can certainly try that, but that wouldn't explain why the edge markings were as faint as the frames. The follow-up roll of Pan F that I shot and developed came out beautifully and had very prominent edge markings.

Also, I did test the cassette that contained the bad film, and the camera read it properly.

You may have had some exposure error, or you may just have been a bit "unlucky" as they said in regards to the latent image, probably no way to know for sure. The edge markings aren't much of a clue about anything, they are often faint, sometimes they are not, I've never seen any connection to anything else. My feeling is that the edge markings on factory loaded film are usually darker than on bulk film but I never took the time to investigate it fully.