Very Thin Pan F -- Help

bvy · Oct 24, 2013

Jim Noel said:
Pan F edge markings are light to medium gray.
If oblique light is giving you a positive image, the negatives can be printed. [...] 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.

Well this is news to me. There is a scan of the negative in post #32. It's very thin, but several of the frames do reveal themselves when held to the light as described. I'm cautiously encouraged. I know they'll be "difficult" prints at best, but I might still have to try it.

Xmas · Oct 26, 2013

Pan F is a slow short scale film compared to HP5.
Needs more care in exposure - bracket +&- 2 stops until confident.

Use a hot dev like Microphen + 15% time if using low contrast enlarger and meter carefully Weston meter and zone or softer dev like D23 or POTA if less confident

Alternate is Delta 100 still more critical than HP5.

I like the grain in HP5...

GarageBoy · Apr 14, 2015

I shot a roll of Pan F+ three months ago- now I'm worried...

Ian Grant · Apr 14, 2015

GarageBoy said:
I shot a roll of Pan F+ three months ago- now I'm worried...

Get it processed as soon as you can, you may be OK. I made a mistake of leaving 2 rolls of Pan F unprocessed for about 8 months and even with extra development they were quite thin, my HP5 negative were perfect. Normally I process the same day, or within a week but moving house, no darkroom and I forgot

Ian

GarageBoy · Apr 14, 2015

I'll dev and post my findings- nothing was important on the roll, though a few shots I really like were on it
I just hate getting water to the proper temperature

cliveh · Apr 14, 2015

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

But they don't explain why Pan F has thin edge markings.

Athiril · Apr 15, 2015

Here is some Pan F+ that I shot 5 or 6 years ago and developed in Xtol Replenished, I shot it at EI12 and was going to pull it at the time, developed this year normally, overall density is reasonable still a bit on the thin side, but not as bad as slightly less than new Pan F+ exposed at box speed, but still distinct lack of shadow detail.

I've found 40 year old film that's come out a lot better, might be better off sticking to Delta 100

Xmas · Apr 16, 2015

Alessandro Serrao said:
Try shot another roll at EI 50 and wait another 5 years before developing and see what will happen...

Dont see the point you are supposed to read the data sheet.
If you don't like the data sheet don't buy.
At 50 ISO in microphen as data sheet it is superlative.

Ian Grant · Apr 16, 2015

Alessandro Serrao said:
The point is that PanF+ compared to other emulsions has poor latent image keeping quality.
That's it.

But if you are aware of that and process promptly it's an excellent film. I have quite a few rolls stored ready for use.

Ian

Xmas · Apr 16, 2015

Alessandro Serrao said:
The point is that PanF+ compared to other emulsions has poor latent image keeping quality.
That's it.

Alessandro please read page 6 of data sheet.
Lots of films have specific instructions in data sheet.

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 16, 2015

Xmas said:
Alessandro please read page 6 of data sheet.
Lots of films have specific instructions in data sheet.

"Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon aspractical – ideally within 3 months".

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20131021134532242.pdf

Indeed. And that piece of information appears at the bottom of the left column of the first page as well. I think Ilford is really trying to make a point.

I think this is good practice with any film, but I too have had Pan-F+ develop very thin after waiting a bit long with processing.

NB23 · Apr 16, 2015

Total BS, imo.

I've shot 10 year expired pan-f and the edge markings were/are so clear and contrasty. Poor latent image? Not, according to this.

Those who have poor/super thin results from pan-f probably have shit a bad batch and ilford hides behind the "poor latent" bs.

I have purchased 10 100' pan-f rolls, last month. I am not expecting my films to be thin. If they are, I'll report back with my personal findings and theories.

Ian Grant · Apr 16, 2015

NB23 said:
Total BS, imo.

I've shot 10 year expired pan-f and the edge markings were/are so clear and contrasty. Poor latent image? Not, according to this.

Those who have poor/super thin results from pan-f probably have shit a bad batch and ilford hides behind the "poor latent" bs.

I have purchased 10 100' pan-f rolls, last month. I am not expecting my films to be thin. If they are, I'll report back with my personal findings and theories.

There's no need to be so offensive.

The thin Pan F film I had recently is from a perfectly good batch, it's in date and stored in a cool place, films I processed from the batch before were fine. It was thin because I shot it in June 2014 and didn't process it until March this year (2015) 9 months later, entirely my fault as all my darkroom equipment was stored after moving house.

It makes sense to process all films as soon as convenient regardless of their latent image stability.

Ian

destroya · Apr 16, 2015

i had a roll of partially shot pan f in a camera that was shot about 5 months ago. didn't remember what film it was but seeing the ISO dial at 25, I figured it was pan f. finished the roll and developed last night. the shots that were done months ago were very faint and basically useless. the new shots were perfect. develop ASAP. I would guess that the film ages like any other, just has, as been mentioned many times before, latency issues.

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 16, 2015

I shot a few 120 rolls back in the 90's and never had a problem. EI 25, Xtol 1+1.

Xmas · Apr 16, 2015

Alessandro Serrao said:
So what?
I've developed a roll of PanF+ within 3 months of being exposed and, tadaaaa, thin negatives.
So?

Well I expose at 50 ISO develop a week after rewinding in either

microphen per Ilfords recc or
ID68 or
Rodinal 1:100 stand 60 mins @20c

And burn highlights... You are doing something wrong...

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 16, 2015

destroya said:
i had a roll of partially shot pan f in a camera that was shot about 5 months ago. didn't remember what film it was but seeing the ISO dial at 25, I figured it was pan f. finished the roll and developed last night. the shots that were done months ago were very faint and basically useless. the new shots were perfect. develop ASAP. I would guess that the film ages like any other, just has, as been mentioned many times before, latency issues.

That's the way to do it to have actual empirical evidence.
On the same roll.
5 months apart.
Radically different results.

Nice example!

K-G · Apr 16, 2015

Thomas Bertilsson said:
That's the way to do it to have actual empirical evidence.
On the same roll.
5 months apart.
Radically different results.

Nice example!

I have made the same experience. On the other hand I just developed two rolls of PAN F+ ( 120 ) of which one was exposed about one and a half month ago and the other last week. Developer was Rodinal 1:50 . Both turned out to be perfect.

Karl-Gustaf

bvy · Apr 16, 2015

Just realized the last roll I developed I started in mid-December (gulp!). I exposed it at 25 intending to develop it in Perceptol, but I don't want to mix a whole batch just for this one roll.

HC-110?

Xmas · Apr 16, 2015

Yea ilford provide time in data sheet.

bvy · Apr 17, 2015

Yep. It's a problem we invented...

Thomas Bertilsson · Apr 17, 2015

Michael R 1974 said:
You guys with your Pan F LIK properties are funny. Try developing your film sooner. It should be noted Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc. always recommended processing any film as promptly as possible after exposing, for best results.

People do make honest mistakes, though, and leave a half finished roll in their camera. If you're shooting Tri-X it'll be fine for months. If you're shooting Pan-F+, good luck.

One might perhaps argue that while Pan-F+ is a marvelous film from a picture quality standpoint, it is not a film to recommend for those who take a few months to use up a roll of film.

But I 100% agree that after film has been exposed it should get processed ASAP. That is simply good practice.

BetterSense · Apr 17, 2015

I deliberately leave film unprocessed sometimes, due to priority or to batch together processing. Supposedly Gary Winogrand would leave film unprocessed for like a year or long enough to forget the context in which the pictures were taken. I think a lot of people get in the habit of assuming LIK properties and I think it is good for them to be warned and honorable for Ilford to put an actual number in the datasheet.

GarageBoy · Apr 17, 2015

I don't go through enough film-
Have some TMZ3200 sitting in my drawer from last October

henpe · Apr 17, 2015

About thin edge markings:
Can it be that the same equipment/configuration is used to mark all films and since PanF is iso50 it will get 1 stop less exposure compared to fp4 and 3 stop less than hp5 etc. Can this explain why markings on panF are thinner? But I agree this is of minor importance.

*Very* Thin Pan F -- Help

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Very Thin Pan F -- Help