• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

*Very* Thin Pan F -- Help

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.
Click to expand...

Never had this issue on any of their other films. There is obviously a massive discrepancy between Pan F+ and other Ilford (and Kodak) films in keeping properties. This isn't a general film problem, it's a Pan F+ problem.
 

It's probably a contact process, and it would seem that all films can receive enough exposure to mark the slowest emulsion. I can't see any risk in overexposing edge markings, but, like you, I'm just speculating.
 
Athiril said:
Never had this issue on any of their other films. There is obviously a massive discrepancy between Pan F+ and other Ilford (and Kodak) films in keeping properties. This isn't a general film problem, it's a Pan F+ problem.
Click to expand...

Agree. I developed another roll this weekend -- shots taken in December and January. The roll (35mm) was shot at 25 and developed in HC-110 (F) for 7:30 at 68F. The resulting negative is thin -- maybe not unusable, but far from ideal. I had to use a loupe to read off the starting frame number. Yeah, I know, develop it sooner next time -- but I don't see three months as an unreasonable amount of time to wait when every other film I use can hold up for over a year. Bottom line, then, is that Pan F probably isn't the film for me.
 

No it is denial.
You need to read the data sheet for each film you use.
The have different ISO and different number of frames, complaining you don't like 24 off would not get you sympathy.
Some need special developers.
Some will only do reversal.
Some needed loading into camera in total darkness.
Some cannot tolerate concentrated acid stop.
Pan F needs processing within several months ...
 

I'm not in denial and I'm not looking for sympathy -- I'm simply sharing my results. I've been all over the data sheet, and I processed the film within "several months" (quoting both you and Ilford here). When I say Pan F isn't for me, I simply mean there are other films better suited to my way of working.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

And you have found your answer. Happy photography times ahead, I hope!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register