What is your experience with Pan F 50 Plus?

[pentaxuser]

pentaxuser - No, Pan F is one of the least flexible films out there in terms of curve restructuring.
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.

Drew I think it was Lachlan and not Adrian who presented the two different curves. Adrian Bacon showed his replenished Xtol graph. In his there seemed to be no sign of an S shaped curve and in Ilfotech HC the graph was substantially different and pretty straight by comparison.

I was simply asking for an explanation which reconciled the apparently characteristic S shaped curve with these three different shaped graphs. I am unsure if you are saying that Ilford has made a mistake when you use the word discrepancy i.e. despite it being a different developer namely Ilfotech HC, the HC graph is wrong as well and in fact no matter what the developer there is no getting away from the characteristic S shaped curve that Pan F produces.

Adrian's "curve in replenished Xtol looked pretty straight to me as well

So as a disinterested outsider my conclusion based on what I had seen was that the developer appears to have a great deal of control over how the "curve" turns out unless both Ilford and Adrian have made serious mistakes.

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

I use ilfosol-3 @ 1:14 with Pan-F and I’m delighted with the added Zip that ilfosol-3 gives.
Same for tmx100.

 

[NB23]

Quite interesting video about Pan-F with surprising results.
Also allows for different conclusions than what has been flowing around.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentaxuser - yes, I am distinctly implying that Ilford made a mistake on their latest tech sheets graphs. Either that, or they've renamed FP4 as Pan F, and visa versa! It's pretty obvious, really. The relatively minor distinctions in common developers and dilutions thereof can somewhat alter curve shape; we all know that. But it won't turn a giraffe into a zebra, or a monkey into a lizard. Just compare every single previous tech sheet of these two respective films. I've made numerous families of curves for FP4 on my own involving different developers and dilutions, hundreds of plots overall. One can easily induce a sag in the curve with underdevelopment etc, extending the toe; but I've never ever gotten something reminiscent of the bullwhip-effect S curve characteristic of Pan F using FP4, regardless of developer type. Nor of the hundreds of shots I've actually printed from FP4 has a single one ever resembled the look of a PanF shot. Two totally different flavors of ice cream.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I was simply asking for an explanation which reconciled the apparently characteristic S shaped curve with these three different shaped graphs. I am unsure if you are saying that Ilford has made a mistake when you use the word discrepancy i.e. despite it being a different developer namely Ilfotech HC, the HC graph is wrong as well and in fact no matter what the developer there is no getting away from the characteristic S shaped curve that Pan F produces.

Adrian's "curve in replenished Xtol looked pretty straight to me as well

I've attached screengrabs of what the Fotoimport site came up with for Pan-F in HC-110 and D-76. Make of those what you will relative to Ilford's published curves and times. The x-axis is apparently divided into 0.5 stop increments.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The geometry of those plots is non-standard, Lachlan. The graph would have to be re-tweaked to match the normal convention to form a valid comparison.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@DREW WILEY - I know, that's why I said 'make of them as you wish'. I've got better things to waste my time on.

 

[DREW WILEY]

And, unfortunately, my densitometer doesn't have a strong enough light to allow a deep blue reading to accurately show the effect of pyro stain on reining in the highlights. So I'm not going to waste a lot of time either. FP4 is a highly versatile film in the lab as well for general shooting, available in many sizes; Pan F is more of a one-trick pony, and available only in rolls.
That pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[Arvee]

One more data point on the latency issue: bought a 100' roll from B&H with 1 year left before expiration and consumed it in 7 months each roll spooled as needed. Fully aware of the latency issue I carefully monitored edge markings from beginning to end. First roll was already demonstrating some moderate fading compared to edge markings on FP4+. The last roll's edge markings, 7 months in-5 months to expiry, were only discernible with a 10X loupe and they were just barely there. All rolls developed in D-76 stock at recommended time within 24 hrs. of exposure.

 

[pentaxuser]

Drew you have concentrated exclusively on Ilford's graphs but made no mention of Adrian Bacon's replenished Xtol graph which seem pretty straight as well. What has he done wrong as well when plotting his graphs. If he has made a major mistake in his graph with Pan F then it calls into question his other film graphs as well, doesn't it

This is not an attempt to set you and Lachlan or you and Adrian at each other's throats but is simply an attempt to get to the truth about Pan F

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

What you need to understand is that graphs have to been standardized between one another. For example, Ilford themselves have published graphs which, between different film tech sheets, don't span the same curve distance, so can be misleading if you don't look closely at the specific given parameters and exposure method. One might show the full extremes of a curve all the way from toe to shoulder, while another kind of film might just launch so far into orbit on the straight line that they simply lop off the upper end of the graph because it would equate to unprintably high density anyway. In other cases, a person might plot only the midsection of a curve - the part they consider usable. The vertical versus horizontal proportioning also factors because it reflects relative geometry; and densitometry in conventionally plotted logarithmically with respect to density. Or someone might have used a badly stained step tablet (lots of old ones are like that), or even a home-made step tablet or some other novel method that doesn't compare apples to apples. A person can devise a system that works fine for themselves personally, but which is not standardized for sake of convenient reading by others, like the examples Lachlan posted a bit ago. Many people use ordinary graph paper or some computer grid that is not geared to industry convention. I still use old-fashioned translucent Kodak plotting sheets and a pencil; but it comes out correctly and is better detailed than the tiny graphs on tech sheets and over the web. For example, what might seem like almost nitpicky differences between the toe structure of certain films might have quite significant practical ramifications if one views the graph in larger size and realizes everything is logarithmic. Lots of variables. That's why I recommend people get ahold of a basic sensitometry text to understand the primary variables. You don't need much chemistry or math. You just have to understand what a standardized graph represents, along with the key implications of curve profiles.

 

[JensH]

One more data point on the latency issue: bought a 100' roll from B&H with 1 year left before expiration and consumed it in 7 months each roll spooled as needed. Fully aware of the latency issue I carefully monitored edge markings from beginning to end. First roll was already demonstrating some moderate fading compared to edge markings on FP4+. The last roll's edge markings, 7 months in-5 months to expiry, were only discernible with a 10X loupe and they were just barely there. All rolls developed in D-76 stock at recommended time.

Hi,

that's my observation with fresh and not that fresh 120 rolls, too.
And with films that waited too long (over two months) for developement.
The latency issue exists, but doesn't keep me from using this great but special film.

Fully agree with Drew's posts, it needs more light than 50ASA (typically 25 or even more) to help shadow definition at higher contrast situation - I like two bath dev's like Moersch MZB here to keep highlights printable.

Best wishes
Jens

 

[Anon Ymous]

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 @Harman Tech Service could have a look at improving their datasheets. The thing is, they used to have better datasheets, but removed quite a lot of useful information from them. I've seen datasheets from the late 90s - early 2000s and they used to have time/gamma curves, as well as characteristic curves for different developers. Why dumb them down? I'd really appreciate having multiple characteristic curves, for different development times and developers, this is fascinating and useful stuff.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I think @Harman Tech Service could have a look at improving their datasheets. The thing is, they used to have better datasheets, but removed quite a lot of useful information from them. I've seen datasheets from the late 90s - early 2000s and they used to have time/gamma curves, as well as characteristic curves for different developers. Why dumb them down? I'd really appreciate having multiple characteristic curves, for different development times and developers, this is fascinating and useful stuff.

It is a shame that Harman don't engage with customers on this forum, they might realise the issue you've mentioned more readily; the focus from Mobberley now seems to be on social media outlets.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is a shame that Harman don't engage with customers on this forum, they might realise the issue you've mentioned more readily; the focus from Mobberley now seems to be on social media outlets.

I suspect that this tells you of our importance to the marketing men at Pemberstone.

pentaxuser

 

[Harman Tech Service]

We do monitor this forum and will chip in occasionally, but really can't get drawn into public debate and differing opinions (as much as we'd love to at times!). It's very difficult to provide technical support on multiple fronts, this isn't the only forum there is of course and then there's social media too, so we prefer to offer support in a more structured way; only through the website and using the appropriate contact form.
On the subject of DlogE curves, the reasons for using different developers are mainly historic and to do with the product developers/tech service personnel preferences of the time. In recent years we've concentrated on removing obsolete information, products and inaccuracies from tech sheets and updating anything new, but they really haven't changed a great deal at least since 2004.
Having a consistent development regime for characteristic curves is something we'll consider for future updates though, I don't see why we can't look at that.
For info; my department is currently returning after an extensive period of furlough, we have hundreds of support emails to work through, not to mention having to manage in a Covid secure environment, so response may be slower than usual at the moment. Please bear with us whilst things return to normal.
It's good to see the debate is as lively as ever on here, thanks so much for supporting our products.
Kind regards,
Neil

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Drew I think it was Lachlan and not Adrian who presented the two different curves. Adrian Bacon showed his replenished Xtol graph. In his there seemed to be no sign of an S shaped curve and in Ilfotech HC the graph was substantially different and pretty straight by comparison.

I was simply asking for an explanation which reconciled the apparently characteristic S shaped curve with these three different shaped graphs. I am unsure if you are saying that Ilford has made a mistake when you use the word discrepancy i.e. despite it being a different developer namely Ilfotech HC, the HC graph is wrong as well and in fact no matter what the developer there is no getting away from the characteristic S shaped curve that Pan F produces.

Adrian's "curve in replenished Xtol looked pretty straight to me as well

So as a disinterested outsider my conclusion based on what I had seen was that the developer appears to have a great deal of control over how the "curve" turns out unless both Ilford and Adrian have made serious mistakes.

pentaxuser

that wasn’t me, except for the replenished xtol curve, yes, I have that posted under the resources section, but I don’t show anything above zone 7 or 8 because I didn’t have enough light to make the exposures.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What is even more annoying is when a mfg provides a spectral sensitivity chart for one kind of film using a tungsten source (3400K), and a different film using a daylight standard (5500K). There might be traditional usages of a few specific films that warrant a tungsten standard; but most films on the market today are multi-application. And maybe just a particular machine was available at a particular time. But it leads to all sorts of unnecessary arguments and difficulties in interpretation if people don't read the "fine print". They should really provide both in each relevant case.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Drew you have concentrated exclusively on Ilford's graphs but made no mention of Adrian Bacon's replenished Xtol graph which seem pretty straight as well. What has he done wrong as well when plotting his graphs. If he has made a major mistake in his graph with Pan F then it calls into question his other film graphs as well, doesn't it

This is not an attempt to set you and Lachlan or you and Adrian at each other's throats but is simply an attempt to get to the truth about Pan F

pentaxuser

there’s no need for that. I document how I generate the graphs when I post them so anybody can look and point out any mistakes made. I’m the first to admit that I’m a human being and if I hosed something up, I’ll just simply fix it once I know what actually needs to be fixed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks, Adrain. There is no contradiction in your graph and my statements because you simply didn't expose as far as the shoulder, so it doesn't appear. For anyone out there addicted to the Zone System, PanF basically only has a Zone 3 to Zone 7 dynamic textural range with common developers. One might be able to tweak a little more range, but it will still be less than nearly all other current black and white taking films. It could give me lovely silvery tones out on the beach today, with the fog present - our natural softbox conditions. But I'm shooting 8x10 this week, so it's going to be FP4.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Thanks, Adrain. There is no contradiction in your graph and my statements because you simply didn't expose as far as the shoulder, so it doesn't appear. For anyone out there addicted to the Zone System, PanF basically only has a Zone 3 to Zone 7 dynamic textural range with common developers. One might be able to tweak a little more range, but it will still be less than nearly all other current black and white taking films. It could give me lovely silvery tones out on the beach today, with the fog present - our natural softbox conditions. But I'm shooting 8x10 this week, so it's going to be FP4.

I’m actually looking at modifying my setup a little bit to try to extract a bit more light out of it so I can get to at least zone 10, though I’d really like to expose up 7-8 stops over middle gray just to see what’s going on up there with replenished xtol. The slower films really tax my setup, but I think I need to make a couple modifications as I’ve got a handful of 80, and 25 speed films to work out development times for and right now I just don’t have enough light to make full 10+ zone exposures.

 

[JPD]

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.

I have around twenty rolls of APX 25 in 120 in the freezer, and maybe ten Pan F+. So far I have developed APX 25 in Rodinal 1+50 and Agfa 8 (Glycin). Agfa 8 is said to be good for portraits and middle tones, so I tried it for portraits and was pleased. It's a Glycin only developer, so it wants more exposure for the dark tones. The negatives look very nice and the grain is sharp and crisp. Pan F+ I have so far only developed in Agfa 44 1+1.

I have never used a densitometer to test film. It's interesting, but I don't want to complicate things too much.

 

[Huss]

Quite interesting video about Pan-F with surprising results.
Also allows for different conclusions than what has been flowing around.

Yeah, I wonder who came up with that 1 stop for every 10 years nonsense? It's something that is parroted everywhere.
I just shoot my expired film at box speed with no issues.

Also the prints show a beautiful full tonal range, as opposed to those who claim it is super contrasty etc etc.

P.S. pretty funny describing the film from 1988 as smelling like Kylie Minogue, while the one from 2020 smelling like Ed Sheeran!

 

[NB23]

Yeah, I wonder who came up with that 1 stop for every 10 years nonsense? It's something that is parroted everywhere.
I just shoot my expired film at box speed with no issues.

Also the prints show a beautiful full tonal range, as opposed to those who claim it is super contrasty etc etc.

P.S. pretty funny describing the film from 1988 as smelling like Kylie Minogue, while the one from 2020 smelling like Ed Sheeran!

One thing is for sure, the film science is very obscure, even after more than a century. Everyone has his own take about any film.

We should indeed stop talking about curves and grain. Describing them as Iron Maiden, kylie Minogue and The Beatles could be much more fun and comprehensible

 

[pentaxuser]

P.S. pretty funny describing the film from 1988 as smelling like Kylie Minogue, while the one from 2020 smelling like Ed Sheeran!

No sure about the smells but given what some feel are the limitations of Pan F and especially an old Pan F film, Kylie's song from 1988 "I should be so lucky, lucky, lucky lucky" is perhaps apposite

pentaxuser