What is your experience with Pan F 50 Plus?

[ColdEye]

I was given two rolls of this in 35mm to try out, what is your experience shooting with this film? I will be out in the desert this weekend to try out some landscapes and some portraits too. How does it play with yellow/orange filters? Is the contrast high? Developers I use are Rodinal and HC110, I will be shooting it at iso 50 and following manufacturer dev times.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Think about it this way: normal BW neg films are designed to place about 7 linear stops of information on to Grade 2 paper at design (ISO) contrast. Pan-F however is seemingly intended to match the 5-stop straight line of transparency films when rated at box speed, developed normally, and printed on Grade 2. So you can see the problem here. Especially in contrasty situations. If you must expose and process for 50, you'll have an easier time if you aim your exposure to protect the highlights and accept shadow drop-out, otherwise you'll get very dense and undifferentiated highlights that will be no fun to burn in (if you expose for the shadows). Easier to get some FP4+, Delta 100 or TMax 100, rate them at 50 and pull back the processing appropriately. You'll get negatives that are much less tricky to handle.

 

[David Lyga]

Think about it this way: normal BW neg films are designed to place about 7 linear stops of information on to Grade 2 paper at design (ISO) contrast. Pan-F however is seemingly intended to match the 5-stop straight line of transparency films when rated at box speed, developed normally, and printed on Grade 2. So you can see the problem here. Especially in contrasty situations. If you must expose and process for 50, you'll have an easier time if you aim your exposure to protect the highlights and accept shadow drop-out, otherwise you'll get very dense and undifferentiated highlights that will be no fun to burn in (if you expose for the shadows). Easier to get some FP4+, Delta 100 or TMax 100, rate them at 50 and pull back the processing appropriately. You'll get negatives that are much less tricky to handle.

Thank you, Lachlan.

For YEARS I had problems defining the nature of Pan F+ to myself so I could fully understand it. How many times I had wanted to capture the shadow detail, only to mess up the highlights, even if truncated development followed. I have to say that, although I am conservative with negative film speeds, the "correct" film speed for Pan F+ (corroborated even by Ilford) is really "50", only ONE stop slower than FP4. - David Lyga

 

[Paul Howell]

The few times I've used Pan F, or other slow films was in low contrast situations, surprising here in the desert although bright is low contrast, so much reflected light, lots of dust in the air to diffuse light, that I will shoot Pan F, in the old pays Agfa 25.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

great film!

It is contrasty, so don't over develope. Rodinal works good, nice grain - not much finer than Delta 100, but somehow nicer (subjective impression and that's why I like this film). PMK is very good, but with less effect than with FP4plus. Sure D76/ID11 is an other option...

Develope soon! Best within a week. It's latent image tends to fade.

I expose it at 25 ASA. Just to give you a starting point...

Like from most pan films, I don't like the look without filter in daylight conditions.
Here I made comparison:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/542754@N24/discuss/72157644418726588/72157670304992073/
My conclusion: My favourite is one of the yellow light filters, the darker yellows are fine.
If light or dark yellow is a matter of taste and subject...
The greenish filters let the tonal reproduction get a bit out of balance. The worst image is the one without filter.

Best wishes
Jens

 

[NB23]

At iso 40, there is already a drastic development time difference, versus iso 50. This slight difference in exposure which ends up showing as a big difference is the real culprit of the widely known problem of “latent image”. I firmly believe that this film lacks exposure flexibility, and not a latent image problem. If your camera underexposes by 1/2 stop (and a lot of them do, without the user ever noticing, ever!), well, it will clearly show as underexposure with this fim!
I believe it is a good idea to rate it at 25 or 1/2 stop overexposure. I usually expose at 40.

The best thing about this film is its unique spectral sensitivity, like no other film. This is such a misunderstood aspedt that is actually the most important aspect of a B&W film: 100% of the look depends on this!

wonderful film

 

[JensH]

... I firmly believe that this film lacks exposure flexibility, and not a latent image problem.
The best thing about this film is its unique spectral sensitivity, like no other film. This is such a misunderstood aspedt that is actually the most important aspect of a B&W film: 100% of the look depends on this!

wonderful film

Dear NB23,

first, I agree - it is a wonderful film!

Hmm, what do you mean for it's unique spectral sensitivity, some behavior between pan and orthopan ?
The latent image problem really exists from my own experience.
That's why the frame numbers are so pale on not very fresh film here.

Greetings
Jens

 

[NB23]

Dear NB23,

first, I agree - it is a wonderful film!

Hmm, what do you mean for it's unique spectral sensitivity, some behavior between pan and orthopan ?
The latent image problem really exists from my own experience.
That's why the frame numbers are so pale on not very fresh film here.

Greetings
Jens

It renders a scene, or it tranates colors, in its own unique way. Portraits are lovely with this film. And just about anything else! Yes, tastes are personal but I am talking about my taste here obviously.

About image latency, I believe this is due to improper/inexact exposure. Period.
A very slight underexposure of even 1/3rd of a stop will be picked up by this film while a film like HP5 will make a whole stop of error go unnoticed, or at least go down as a happy accident.

Developing a roll of faint Pan-F can be the result of a very slight underexposure that is amplified by the very nature of this film. And even an error in accurate processing can produce a faint film, in the end.

As for me, I’ve used 10 years exposed Pan-F that came out super punchy and with extra clear side markings. Let’s just say that if this film had bad latent image properties, the side markings would have completely disappeared. They’d surely not be super clear and contrasty. Nobody can disagree with this.

And yes, I’ve developed pan-f films a few months after having been exposed, with good results.

If the degeloper is fresh, if the camera’s shutter is well calibrated, if the metering is accurate, there is no “bad latent image properties” to blame. This film is simply unapologetic just as Velvia is.

 

[baachitraka]

Its a great film and it could build up contrast really fast. So you may tune your dev. times for contrast and exposure to capture shadow detail.

* Do not stand develop this film in Rodinal @1+100

 

[NB23]

Its a great film and it could build up contrast really fast. So you may tune your dev. times for contrast and exposure to capture shadow detail.

* Do not stand develop this film in Rodinal @1+100

Do not stand develop any film at all. Worst technique ever.
Pan-f accentuates bad technique, and in your case it showed what stand-development really is: A sloppy technique which can get away with super forgiving film. Pan-f is not forgiving.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thank you, Lachlan.

For YEARS I had problems defining the nature of Pan F+ to myself so I could fully understand it. How many times I had wanted to capture the shadow detail, only to mess up the highlights, even if truncated development followed. I have to say that, although I am conservative with negative film speeds, the "correct" film speed for Pan F+ (corroborated even by Ilford) is really "50", only ONE stop slower than FP4. - David Lyga

The other thing to consider too is that if you pull your processing time too far, you'll flatten the mid-tone gradient - Pan-F is a case in point (I'd suggest) where ND grads are probably a better plan than trying to pull the process time back to hold 7-stops on G-2 paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

If the degeloper is fresh, if the camera’s shutter is well calibrated, if the metering is accurate, there is no “bad latent image properties” to blame. This film is simply unapologetic just as Velvia is.

I wonder why Simon Galley no less and now late of Ilford said that there was a latent image problem. If there is no truth in this or at least no truth if the three conditions you mention above are met. It just seem strange that someone whose future depended on the sale of this film should warn of its latent image problem.

My own experience doesn't way as I have used it only once in my early days when ignorance was bliss and it worked fine at box speed but I did develop within about 2 weeks

pentaxuser

 

[removedacct1]

I've tried to like Pan F but its been very difficult to obtain usable results: there is a fine line between slight overexposure (to increase shadow information) and an unusable negative with blocked highlights. I gave up on it two years ago in favor of films that are far easier to expose and develop.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder why Simon Galley no less and now late of Ilford said that there was a latent image problem. If there is no truth in this or at least no truth if the three conditions you mention above are met. It just seem strange that someone whose future depended on the sale of this film should warn of its latent image problem.

My own experience doesn't help either way as I have used it only once in my early days when ignorance was bliss and it worked fine at box speed but I did develop within about 2 weeks

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wonder why Simon Galley no less and now late of Ilford said that there was a latent image problem. If there is no truth in this or at least no truth if the three conditions you mention above are met. It just seem strange that someone whose future depended on the sale of this film should warn of its latent image problem.

It's quite noticeable that the edge print is often less dense than you'd expect. And I suspect that the latent image stability problem probably relates to the relatively low profitability/ sales of the film (thus not huge ability to R&D, relative to a film meant for a specific part of the AdAm sector - the often oxymoronic 'careful worker'). I got the feeling that Ilford wanted to replace Pan-F with Delta 25, but they'd made a rod for their own back by promising to withdraw no currently manufactured films in their range.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I got the feeling that Ilford wanted to replace Pan-F with Delta 25, but they'd made a rod for their own back by promising to withdraw no currently manufactured films in their range.

I've found Pan F Plus can produce great results in the right circumstances by careful selection of exposure index. As far as I can remember ILFORD did consider releasing a Delta 25 film several years ago.

 

[NB23]

In

I wonder why Simon Galley no less and now late of Ilford said that there was a latent image problem. If there is no truth in this or at least no truth if the three conditions you mention above are met. It just seem strange that someone whose future depended on the sale of this film should warn of its latent image problem.

My own experience doesn't way as I have used it only once in my early days when ignorance was bliss and it worked fine at box speed but I did develop within about 2 weeks

pentaxuser

I remember very well how this happened. It went something like this: At first, and for a very long time, Simon Galley didn’t know it was an issue. Then he didn’t know what to say about this. Then they denied. And then he said “oh yeah, develop asap”.

What else did you want him to tell the forum?

 

[Vaughn]

If one could map out the decay of the latent image, I wonder if that info could be used in conjunction of time/temp of development to get the film curve one desired. Something crazy like, wait 5.2 months post-exposure before developing to bring highlight values down two stops after exposing at 3x box speed and developing at N+2.

PS...I am not at all serious.

 

[warden]

If one could map out the decay of the latent image, I wonder if that info could be used in conjunction of time/temp of development to get the film curve one desired. Something crazy like, wait 5.2 months post-exposure before developing to bring highlight values down two stops after exposing at 3x box speed and developing at N+2..

I can't wait 5.2 hours!

(I like Pan F but use it rarely.)

 

[David Lyga]

I've tried to like Pan F but its been very difficult to obtain usable results: there is a fine line between slight overexposure (to increase shadow information) and an unusable negative with blocked highlights. I gave up on it two years ago in favor of films that are far easier to expose and develop.

How I wish I could call you a bold faced liar. But, unfortunately, what you say here is all too true. Pan F+ is nice, but an enigma. - David Lyga

 

[Down Under]

To me Pan F is a leftover from those good old pre-T grain film days when we were all younger, films had more silver content, EI/ISO/ASA ratings and grain structures were different from today's and we could more easily hand-hold our cameras at slower exposures. Using the Sunny 16 rule average exposures with this film would mean shooting at 1/60 and f/16, and at 70+ years my hands now shake too much for me to get the sharpness I want. These days FP4+ and even HP5+ shot at box speeds give me much the same sharpness I could get back in the '80s and '90s with those slower films, and I can set my shutters to cover the effects of too much coffee in the mornings or, sadly but more to the point, the physical effects of my age.

I've always tended to slight underexposure anyway as shooting at say a third of a stop under produces negatives I prefer to work with. Thinner negatives scan best anyway and scanning gives me the shadow and mid-tones I prefer in my images. Choice of developer was crucial. I went with my favorite, D76/ID11 1-1 and Ilford's recommended time for the latter.

I've never had the oft-mentioned latent image problem with this film, as I always process everything I shoot within 48 hours and usually the same day. Most of us do, I suspect.

So for me, it was an okay film in its time, not up to Panatomic-X or Agfa 25, but I no longer use it as I've found other faster films to be as good. I think I may have a dozen or so bulk-loaded rolls in my freezer, unexposed. When I find them, I'll probably give them away to a young photographer I know to use for her art images.

 

[Huss]

I just shoot it at Sunny F16

 

[NB23]

Look at those tones. Presence all over the image. This is a look unique to pan-f.

Sure, other films can come up with but this kind of contrast, but pan-f consistantly gives it. Quite unique spectral response. Once you see it (and if you like it), you understand what this film is about. It’s not about speed or about grain.’it’s about its own look.

pan-f oozes a unique look that is more distinct than trix, fp4, hp5 and so on.

I just shoot it at Sunny F16

 

[craigclu]

I've been back and forth with this film over the years and would have abandoned it except that I had an obscene amount of it (don't ask) in the freezer (120 and 35). When I finally tackled it with some vigor, I found that with my techniques and equipment, shooting at 32 and developing with longer time gaps in agitation (seemed to help keep the highlights from blocking) and single, slow inversions helped to tame things. This seemed to behave in a similar way with multiple developers, too.

 

[Pioneer]

I tried it initially as a stand in for Efke 25 but found it was not going to be any help in that department.

But I did find it works pretty good as a Sunny 8 street film on hazy days. If I'm shooting it on a sunny day I meter for the highlights and let the shadows follow along as they please. If you are looking for shadow details this usually is not the film for you want though a green filter in the late afternoon will surprise you sometimes. I do use filters a lot with this film, yellow seems to work nicely during the day but in the afternoon I will go to green filter to bring the tonal information back into control. As I recall Ilford recommends this as well.

As others have said it is not a particularly easy film to shoot but it can return some truly astounding hi key images with a yellow-green filter. I almost always use it with a fast lens and focus on narrow depth of field because I can no longer hold those slow shutter speeds. If you have one try it with the Nokton 50 f1.4 on a Leica or a Zeiss Ikon. Play around with a few filters and you may be surprised what it can do.

Lately I've been using my Pentax LX with the SMC A 50 f1.2 lens and have been enjoying the results. This was shot with a Rodenstock #15 filter on an overcast day (it actually started snowing later that same day.) I metered for the snow on the peak but it was still blown out. Fortunately the other tones played nicely and came along. Straight print on RC VC paper.