What is your experience with Pan F 50 Plus?

[Lachlan Young]

At this point I am too afraid to ask what all these terms like "S Curve" and "long toe" mean lol

Not a stupid question at all (very few are).

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

One important pictorial characteristic you may want to consider is the sensitivity to blue.

With some exceptions (Ortho+ and Delta 400), Ilford films have a spectral sensitivity that favours colours from green to red. This can help keeping details in skies, but it also means that your shadows can be darker than with films more sensitive to blue.

I was born and raised in the culture of Kodak, whose films are much more sensitive to blue (you really need that yellow filter for skies). I'm used to a specific look and tonal rendition for black and white films, and it took me a while to figure out why I wasn't getting what I wanted from Ilford.

I spotted the difference when I compared a few films, and found out that the same subject wasn't rendered the same way. This particular aspect correlated with spectral sensitivity.

PanF+ is one of the least sensitive to blue, and it shows.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bormental - if one has a basic understanding of sensitometry, they'd also understand how wonderful film still is, and how, in many ways, it still offers superior performance, and delivers a kind of highly nuanced imagery you'd find nearly impossible to achieve with consumer electronics devices. Or or you just a lurker here to watch a sideshow of us old fuddy-duddies driving horse carts and buggies around? But no, one does not necessarily need to own a densitometer to figure things out in a practical sense. Yet it does achieve a common denominator of vocabulary in an actual scientific sense, and in that manner can save one a lot of time and effort in terms of getting from Point A to Point B more efficiently when choosing a film. Even if you prefer to scan film and then post-tweak curves digitally for sake of digital printing, you'd still be ahead of the game understanding film curves and selecting an optimal product to begin with, rather than trying to beat it into submission afterwards and ending up with compromised results. Otherwise, this is an non-digital thread, so I'm reluctant to talk about the potential flavors of imitation ice milk.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michel - you're making a an incorrect generalization about alleged differences between Kodak and Ilford. Kodak once made a very wide variety of products, but then narrowed the selection down by introducing T-Max films, which do not fit your stereotype at all when it comes to spectral sensitivity. These were designed for a more balanced visual spectrum which specifically included applications in color separation work, something most people today don't either realize or remember, but it is still an important characteristic of those particular products. Even in the Ilford lineup, there is some divergence with respect to this, with potentially different filter factors involved. What is amazing right now, is how, due to far less planes flying overhead, the refineries lowering output, our port less busy offloading huge filthy diesel ships, and far less cars on the freeway - the sky has been really blue the last few months, and what one presumes would be a correct filter factor for this or that film no longer is correct, at least for the moment. High altitude can have the same effect. Many people have never even seen a deep blue sky.
Once again, knowing how to read the spec sheets, and in this case, the spectral sensitivity charts, can save you some time. But there is a huge problem interpreting some of them if they've been plotted using a 2400K yellowish tungsten source, versus a 5500K daylight source, making objective comparisons difficult.

 

[Huss]

...So this is a very poor choice of film for high contrast situations. ...

I love it in high contrast situations:

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, that's fine, Huss, if you understand what you'll get. In your case, you're allowing the shadows to go blank and then boosting the output contrast to turn it into largely sheer black. I've sometimes done just the opposite by adequately exposing the shadows and allowing the highlights to blow out in some ghostly flared esthetically-interesting sense. Either way, it simply proves how Pan F has a very short straight line. But if one expects a full range of tonal values and textures in a high contrast scene, Pan F would be a very poor choice.

 

[Huss]

Well, that's fine, Huss, if you understand what you'll get. In your case, you're allowing the shadows to go blank and then boosting the output contrast to turn it into largely sheer black....

Only when I choose to do that.

 

[Huss]

..But if one expects a full range of tonal values and textures in a high contrast scene, Pan F would be a very poor choice.

This one that I posted earlier shows a full range to tonal values and textures in a high contrast scene:

 

[Bormental]

Bormental - if one has a basic understanding of sensitometry, they'd also understand how wonderful film still is, and how, in many ways, it still offers superior performance, and delivers a kind of highly nuanced imagery you'd find nearly impossible to achieve with consumer electronics devices.

Drew, actually this was rather a practical question. I wanted to get into measuring things. I often ask myself why I prefer the look of one film vs the other, and data sheets often do not provide enough. In the spirit of saving money, I was thinking about practical things I can measure with what I already have, and I have two relatively recent SLRs. I'm not sure if this belongs to a 100% analog forum, feels appropriate since it's 100% analog thing I am trying to develop a better understanding of.

Or or you just a lurker here to watch a sideshow of us old fuddy-duddies driving horse carts and buggies around?

Click on my posting history and see if there's an extra seat on your horse cart.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm no expert at it - the only digital SLR I own is strictly for copystand work in the lab, where the lighting is tightly controlled. But I do find people jumping through all kinds of unnecessary hoops trying to translate between how digital cameras think versus actual film and its own kind of relevant metering. I often go backpacking with people who try to do that kind of thing, when it would really be far easier for them just to learn how to use a real light meter to begin with. Even a TTL meter inside a film SLR doesn't provide you with the same ability. Of course, one can learn a certain amount just by bracketing a gray card exposure and finding out how far you can go either side in a particular form of lighting; but it doesn't show you the actual curve distribution like a real densitometer. Many people just stick with a specific film and developer combination long enough to intuitively learn its specific personality. But someone like me needs to work with quite a variety of films, developers, and formats for sake of not only printmaking, but all kinds of related technical options that potentially go with that, particularly in color printing. I'm not a densitometer salesman, so have nothing to gain by promoting them. I have a couple nice ones in the darkroom, but in a past life used far more sophisticated industrial spectrophotometers, while my wife used a custom six million dollar spectrophotometer during her stint at a biotech firm that was so secret that her little lab had concrete walls four feet thick and had a timed bank vault door. She was trained to use the device, but nobody in the company was allowed to know how it was actually programmed except the two company founders, and each of them only knew one half. But at $40,000 per 10ml of designer prototype pharmaceuticals, those were kept in a refrigerator behind the vault door too. All that is now gone and the new University LBL Campus is going in there. I have no idea of what happened to the device. But my humble b&w transmission densitometer, some of the industrial spectrophotometers I once used, and the very sophisticated one my wife used all came from the same company - XRite. That just proves that some buggies have been fitted with the latest rocket engines for sake of speed records on the Bonneville Salt flats. And having a century and a half head start before the advent of digital helps too, even if it's just a tortoise pulling the buggy instead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Huss - I doubt it. Doesn't look anything like a full range of values to me. But the web is far too crude a visual medium to even begin to show what is involved, much less prove anything in that regard. I'd like to see you try to back up that kind of statement in an actual print. But you can't, because I don't think you understand what it means. Throw some glistening ice into that scene and try to maintain all the crisp sparkle of the specular highlights within the bright white, while at the same time, make every individual fiber in that woman's fabric evident in the general blackness, and every grain of sand in the deep shadows under the concrete barrier discernible, and you might get an idea of what separates the men from the boys in terms of film curve choice. And I'm NOT referring to some extreme compensation dev trick that smashes all the midtones together attempting to reign in the extremes (which Pan F is not very amenable to anyway). There is only so much you can do to alter the characteristic curve of a film. If nothing is even way down there in the actual exposure density, there is no way to retrieve it afterwards. But you apparently shoot small format? - maybe that's why you don't pay much attention to extreme detail or the subtleties of tonality. There's nothing wrong with that, if it's the case. But it might mean you don't have any other kind of yardstick to compare to.

 

[pentaxuser]

So it would seem that different developers can change the curve substantially based on Adrian's chart and Lachlan's examples of ID11 and Ilfotech HC. Based on the evidence shown so far the word characteristic used in phrase characteristic curve by Drew would appear to be a misnomer

If this is not a fair conclusion I have drawn from the posts I mention then can someone show me the flaws in my conclusion?

pentaxuser

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel - you're making a an incorrect generalization about alleged differences between Kodak and Ilford.

I mainly had Tri-X in mind, but yeah, of course you can't say that all Kodak films have the same spectral sensitivity.

Anyway, my point is that the OP will gain useful information from that aspect of the spec sheets.

 

[Huss]

Huss - I doubt it. Doesn't look anything like a full range of values to me. But the web is far too crude a visual medium to even begin to show what is involved, much less prove anything in that regard. I'd like to see you try to back up that kind of statement in an actual print. But you can't, because I don't think you understand what it means. Throw some glistening ice into that scene and try to maintain all the crisp sparkle of the specular highlights within the bright white, while at the same time, make every individual fiber in that woman's fabric evident in the general blackness, and every grain of sand in the deep shadows under the concrete barrier discernible, and you might get an idea of what separates the men from the boys in terms of film curve choice. And I'm NOT referring to some extreme compensation dev trick that smashes all the midtones together attempting to reign in the extremes (which Pan F is not very amenable to anyway). There is only so much you can do to alter the characteristic curve of a film. If nothing is even way down there in the actual exposure density, there is no way to retrieve it afterwards. But you apparently shoot small format? - maybe that's why you don't pay much attention to extreme detail or the subtleties of tonality. There's nothing wrong with that, if it's the case. But it might mean you don't have any other kind of yardstick to compare to.

You are right about one thing, the web does not show the images in their best light - losing sharpness, detail and tonal structure.

 

[JPD]

I haven't shot Pan F+ for a couple of years, since it takes me a while to finish a roll. But shoot it at ASA 25 and develop it accordingly, and enjoy. I prefer medium to semi-low contrast, so I pull most films.

I am tempted to use a roll of Agfa APX 25 this summer. 12 ASA and Rodinal 1+50.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've done side by side shots, with both rated at 25. The Agfa has a slightly wider exposure range, but is still somewhat handicapped in terms of crisp shadow separation in the very low values. Both appear quite sharp, but in a different manner. The specific "wire-edged" look of Pan F is unique. But I develop in pyro, which slightly enhances that, as well as improving highlight printability. I think the quality control of Pan F is better. Agfa tended to have more tiny anomalies, but that might have improved. I'd go ahead and try the Agfa with your developer. It has it's own look. Rating at 12 should bring shadows a bit further onto the straight line section, but you'll have to be careful not to overdevelop and compromise the highlights, which is apparently your custom anyway.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michel - I figured something like that. Tri-X is sorta the living fossil of Kodak films. They put it on the chopping block along with Plus-X Pan and Super-XX, basically condemning the three most popular films among pro photographers in favor of TMax as a replacement for all of them, depending on how it gets developed. Well, old habits die hard, and folks made quite a fuss.
Tri-X was revived, but a number of other films were discontinued too, including Tech Pan. Kodak did now have a highly versatile silver bullet film in their arsenal with TMax, but it proved harder to aim, so quite a few folks moved over to the more forgiving films of Ilford, especially FP4 and HP5, and then Ilford added a T-grain film of their own. Pan F was designed to fill the vacuum of Pantomic X, but old time users of that weren't entirely pleased with the replacement. I like more than one flavor of ice cream, and enjoy working with a variety of films too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

pentaxuser - No, Pan F is one of the least flexible films out there in terms of curve restructuring. People who scan it might be willing to put it on the rack and torture it till all the limbs get pulled out of their sockets straighter; but it's not going to cooperate much in terms of darkroom developers. Of course certain improvements can be made, and I've spent a fair amount of effort exploring those. But there are numerous far more flexible films in terms of curve control through development alone.
I think what Adrian was showing by presenting those two different curves side by side was the blatant discrepancy between the version in the latest tech sheet and all previous official tech sheets, which convinces me that somebody at Ilford recently selected the wrong one for use in that publication. But you could ask him.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So it would seem that different developers can change the curve substantially based on Adrian's chart and Lachlan's examples of ID11 and Ilfotech HC. Based on the evidence shown so far the word characteristic used in phrase characteristic curve by Drew would appear to be a misnomer

If this is not a fair conclusion I have drawn from the posts I mention then can someone show me the flaws in my conclusion?

pentaxuser

You'd certainly notice that they had rather different characteristics. In HC, if developed per the published curve you'd likely think it relatively slower in the shadows and quite contrasty, in ID-11, it'll seem a bit faster and softer - highlights and shadows are as if they've had a significant N- development, but the midrange is still a 'normal' gradient - ie an attempt at solving the problem of midtone gradation in high contrast situations where people resort to N- development. The problems seem to arise over uncertainty over how best to place your exposure relative to these differing curve shapes and what subsequent development to use - and, most importantly, how that curve relates to your paper. As for why Ilford changed the developer used for the published curves, that's a question only @Harman Tech Service could possibly answer (request to Harman: would you be able to (re-) publish the ID-11 curves for the films you currently only give HC curves for? Would make it easier for more people to understand the behaviour of your films in your most popular developer).

 

[baachitraka]

I haven't shot Pan F+ for a couple of years, since it takes me a while to finish a roll. But shoot it at ASA 25 and develop it accordingly, and enjoy. I prefer medium to semi-low contrast, so I pull most films.

I am tempted to use a roll of Agfa APX 25 this summer. 12 ASA and Rodinal 1+50.

But the prices have gone way up for Pan F+ and in-fact for all other films too.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The problems seem to arise over uncertainty over how best to place your exposure relative to these differing curve shapes and what subsequent development to use - and, most importantly, how that curve relates to your paper. As for why Ilford changed the developer used for the published curves, that's a question only @Harman Tech Service could possibly answer (request to Harman: would you be able to (re-) publish the ID-11 curves for the films you currently only give HC curves for? Would make it easier for more people to understand the behaviour of your films in your most popular developer).

I've not followed this thread closely but Harman could probably do with revisiting the data sheets as I've come across inconsistencies on previous occasions. Ilfotec HC 1+31 (4 minute development time) seems like an odd choice of developer to focus on in a datasheet compared to ID-11 for example.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I've not followed this thread closely but Harman could probably do with revisiting the data sheets as I've come across inconsistencies on previous occasions. Ilfotec HC 1+31 (4 minute development time) seems like an odd choice of developer to focus on in a datasheet compared to ID-11 for example.

I think it may have been because when those graphs were revised (mid-late 90's?), the processing that more people were likely to encounter wasn't ID-11 based but something closer to the replenished HC type of thing - by the time Delta 3200 arrived and Delta 400 was released, the pendulum had swung back the other way towards DD-X/ DD/ Xtol/ ID-11 type developers.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I think it may have been because when those graphs were revised (mid-late 90's?), the processing that more people were likely to encounter wasn't ID-11 based but something closer to the replenished HC type of thing - by the time Delta 3200 arrived and Delta 400 was released, the pendulum had swung back the other way towards DD-X/ DD/ Xtol/ ID-11 type developers.

- that could well be a factor, although I'm not sure I'd want to put a film like Pan F Plus through commercial processing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

- that could well be a factor, although I'm not sure I'd want to put a film like Pan F Plus through commercial processing.

Unfortunately there is often a gulf between what is optimal and what people actually do - and the manufacturers have to try and mitigate that.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Unfortunately there is often a gulf between what is optimal and what people actually do - and the manufacturers have to try and mitigate that.

I know there are lots of 'how to' photographic books covering film photography and darkroom work but a modern series of tutorials from Harman with worked problems etc. could have potential as an excellent resource for serious beginners and others who might wish to brush up on a particular topic. I am however realistic that creating this might not be worth the time and resources from Harman's point-of-view. - edit: also there is the issue that some aspects of photographic processing are subject to ligitimately varying approaches and there is room for nuance and interpretation of method, so perhaps not such a great idea...