*Very* Thin Pan F -- Help

[Athiril]

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.

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.

 

[bvy]

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.

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.

 

[bvy]

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.

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.

 

[Xmas]

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 ...

 

[bvy]

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.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

And you have found your answer. Happy photography times ahead, I hope!

 

[bvy]

And you have found your answer. Happy photography times ahead, I hope!

Admittedly my "way of working" has to do with letting exposed film sit for long periods. I am working on that...