WHAT WENT WRONG WITH MY PAN-F 50 ISO ?

Hi.

I used Ilford Pan-F 50 ISO film but shot it at 25 ISO. In the darkroom I developed it for 15 minutes as my other colleagues did. Their photos turned out fine. Mine, not so much! All the photos I shot inside, under low light, were good. The ones shot outside, in sunlight, were completely overexposed. Same roll, all shot using a grey card and a tripod. What could have gone wrong?

You needed to pull development time to counteract the overexposure. That's stand practice when rating film at a lower ISO. Just out of curiosity, what developer and temperature, and agitation was used?

Well there are a shed load of variables here and no one can give you an answer with so little info.
What developer?
Did you expose correctly?
Is your light meter working?
You exposed +1 stop, did you adjust accordingly with development
etc
My bet is on overexposure and or over development.
M

The grey card you used represents a middle tonal value, which is about the same in both lighting conditions you described here. The difference is that in the strong light the high values and the low values are farther apart than they are in the shade. You metered for the mid-tone values by using a grey card in both conditions, so those values would work out fine in both situations, but the shadows and highlights reacted differently.

By over-exposing (exposing the film at 25 rather than 50 and developing as if you exposed it at 50) you allowed the shadow areas to fill in, but you also allowed the highlights to 'burn out'. In order to control the highlights in the development stage, as Andrew stated, you needed to cut the development times from what is listed for the 50 speed with your developer. For example, in strong light I usually over-expose film by one stop, as you did here, and then in development I cut the time by %25, which results in the preservation of the highlights because the developer has less time to work on them.

Controlling exposure and development in conjunction like this allows you to control the range of tonal values in the negative, making printing easier and preserving the details better when the light is strong. I've got something written up on it on my website under articles if you want to know more. Or you can also search for 'expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights'. There are further refinements of this technique, namely the Zone system and Beyond the Zone System (BTZS), but the basic ideas behind the results you just encountered are represented in the technique I mentioned here in fairly easily digested terms.

- Randy

Your film got too much light on the outdoor shots, whether it was in the metering, aperture or speed. That is more likely than having your low-light indoor shots turn out okay due to excess development. But not out of the question.

In any event, I find it difficult to control highlights with Pan F+. If you can nail it, it's great, but it is not what I would call a "forgiving" film. Perhaps have another go at it with your tripod and gray card, but bracket +1/2 and -1/2 on the shots, and that should tell the story. As mentioned above, pay attention to developer temperature and your agitation scheme, because without consistency here, accurate measures elswhere matter little.

Rich,

I've always gotten great results using a very dilute developer coupled with the technique I mentioned above. I love Pan F+ developed in Rodinal 1:100 - it's just good stuff, but I think that the combination of the compensating effect of the dilute developer and the effects of overexposure/underdevelopment is requisite for strong light conditions.

- Randy

Could be as simple as a sticky/slow shutter when set to faster exposure times. Could be a myriad of other things. You need to start eliminating variables.

E6 film sent to a reliable lab can help sort out exposure errors from poor metering technique or poor lab work on your part. Well processed slides will reflect any variation in exposure. If you shoot slides and send them out, and they come back dead on, I'd start diagnosing your lab work.
A shutter speed tester at a good repair shop can find out whether the shutter is accurate.

Best,

C

It would help if you clarified whether your colleagues also shot Pan F in exactly the same conditions, taking the same or very similar shots i.e. exact same light conditions, at the same EI and then developed in exactly the same developer for the same time, using the same agitation.

If that was the case and I infer from your thread that it was then it eliminates a good number of causes and you're left with things like your shutter speed as determined by your meter which might be different from theirs.

If everything was the same apart from cameras, I'd get the others to stand with you and point at the same scene with their cameras at an agreed f stop and then compare exposure. I'd do this before looking at other factors. If you agree with their shutter speed then as others have said it points to a faulty shutter.

pentaxuser

I highly doubt that they were "completely overexposed" if you rated the film at EI 25 and metered off a grey card. Barring mechanical problems, they are probably overdeveloped. Look at your shadows to determine if the exposure was good or bad. Look at your development if the shadows are OK but the highlights are super thick. If you have trouble reading the neg by looking at it, take it to a pro lab and ask them to read it with a densitometer, and then come back here and post the readings from various parts of the negs. If your developer was D-76 or ID-11 1:1, then you developed about 150% of what would be approximately normal at 20C. Your specific water could also boost the activity of the developer somewhat vs. Ilford's testing, as could a thermometer that reads too low. You also may have agitated significantly more than your friends did with theirs. In short, it may be that you overexposed and overdeveloped an already-contrasty film shot in contrasty light, and on top of that, there are numerous other variables that could have contributed. This probably helped your negs in the flat indoor light, but not outside.

In my testing, medium format Pan F has to be rated at EI 16-20 in order to be able to place a tone on Zone I and get something there. It is an extremely contrasty film and does not hold shadow detail well unless you have experimented a bit with how to do it. Same applies to the highlights, so when you give it extra exposure, they tend to block up without some experimentation to find a decent development time.

I would try again at 25, but this time maybe try 8-10 minutes instead of 15, assuming D-76 or ID-11 1:1 at 20C.

Not that it will be applicable to you, but my normal developing time using HC-110 dil. B with the film (rated at EI 16 in one of my tested cameras and EI 20 in another camera) is 6:00 at 24C.

PanF+ is a bit tricky, as are many slow to medium speed films. Contrast can often be too high, and they are more sensitive to development variables. Using highly dilute developers helps tame that excess contrast quite a bit for PanF+, and I've had some very good results with D-76 1+3. It has worked so well for me that I've made it my standard go to soup for this film. Try it for 12 1/2 minutes for EI 25 or 15 minutes at EI 50. I've had no trouble getting box speed with this combination even under challenging lighting conditions. If you read Ilford's doc for the film, you might get the impression that grain is a problem with very dilute or acutance developers like Rodinal. Well, it's all relative isn't it? Sure you get more grain; but it's so fine to begin with, the little extra will never be noticed. Find the doc at the link below. ID-11 developer is identical to D-76 in action.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115811391.pdf

I OF THE BEHOLDER said:

Hi.

The ones shot outside, in sunlight, were completely overexposed.

Click to expand...

Did you print them? If not, how do you know they were overexposed?

All films behave differently in low light, particulary tungsten light situations. It's very important to get to learn how the films you use behave under different lighting conditions. Pan F is an excellent film but it's not very forgiving to under or over exposure or under/over development.

Ian

The gray card is a substitute for a particular Zone, usually 5 IIRC. It will be the same Zone anywhere. If the camera and meter are in good shape, the negative image of the card should have the same density in either sunlight or room light if you set your camera according to the meter reading from the card. Either you erred in the setting, or the meter or the camera or both are not up to snuff.

Probably a better way to meter to get what you were after would be to use an incident meter aimed at the light source from the subject location.

I OF THE BEHOLDER said:

Hi.

I used Ilford Pan-F 50 ISO film but shot it at 25 ISO. In the darkroom I developed it for 15 minutes as my other colleagues did. Their photos turned out fine. Mine, not so much! All the photos I shot inside, under low light, were good. The ones shot outside, in sunlight, were completely overexposed. Same roll, all shot using a grey card and a tripod. What could have gone wrong?

Click to expand...

Was the card between the meter and the subject, or between the meter and the sun?

ISO 25? 15 minute development? No wonder. You need to get another roll, rate it at box speed (ISO 50) and shoot a test. Overexpose and underexpose on either side of your meter's reading. Develop normally. So pick a developer and follow its recommendations for Pan F+. Every photographer's meter, shutter, and development are a bit different. So take anyone's advice on ISO with a heaping grain of salt.

After the development look at the negs and pick the best one. base on a contact sheet. Note what shutter speed and f/stop it was shot at. That's your ISO for that specific film in that specific developer with that specific meter.

It's a simple test which few people follow.

15 minutes is way too long: if you developed in ID-11 at 1:1 dilution, it should be 6 minutes for 25 ISO. I often shoot PanF+ at ISO 16 to 40 (depending on the situation) and then develop in Perceptol but even then it is only 9-10 minutes (depending on dilution). I agree with many of you that PanF+ can be a difficult film to work with but when you nail it, it's thing of beauty.

Another one time, where the hell am I? poster.

tim in san jose

They may have popped back in, read the answers, and then just not said 'thanks!'. It is the Internet after all...

- Randy

Kevin Kehler said:

I agree with many of you that PanF+ can be a difficult film to work with but when you nail it, it's thing of beauty.

Click to expand...

Pan F is definitely tricky but once mastered is an astonishing film. My first couple rolls were horrible. I'm now using rodinal exclusively 1+50 or 1+100 depending on lighting conditions. Like every film, testing is a must..

JOHN

"So take anyone's advice on ISO with a heaping grain of salt."

Or maybe a tablespoon, but bromide is probably better when they say "cut it in half"

reellis67 said:

They may have popped back in, read the answers, and then just not said 'thanks!'. It is the Internet after all...

- Randy

Click to expand...

Well maybe but if we did "do the trick" we were forced to answer it in the same way you can be fairly sure of shooting something if you machine-gun it. We took the time and trouble to give a range of answers in the hope of covering everything.

We were told that the OP developed his negs for 15 mins but in what? We were also told that his colleagues negs were OK and his were not but what did they use etc?

With hindsight, I'd want some more details answered first before I'd respond again. This OP, it would seem, couldn't be bothered despite the disappointment he experienced with his negs.

It was his first post as well so you'd have thought he'd have wanted to help us to help him by giving more info.

Ah well this kind of thing doesn't often happen on APUG fortunately and I am a little wiser now about how much I should give in proportion to what I get back.

pentauxuser

Thank you and by the way...

Thank you to everyone who responded to my post and admittedly, I didn't have a sufficient amount of details to orient you in your answers. I'm new in the darkroom and the prof mixes the chemicals so I have limited control over what I use.

Turns out some of the pictures looked way overexposed on my contact sheet, but when I tested those negatives with longer exposure time most were actually just fine. I definitely have to tweak some of my techniques because they were far from perfect, but all your tips have helped me think about what I have to do to obtain optimal results.

In response to the bitter posts about why I did not respond sooner or add more details to my post, just a note to say that this is the Internet and you don't know the person at the other end (by the way, I am a "she") or what goes on in their lives. It's not because I didn't respond that I didn't appreciate the time you took to help. I just have lot on my plate.

Respectfully,
c

Dear c,

Bitter posts? I suspect you ought grow a bit thicker skin if you think these posts were 'bitter'. I just made an observation, very neutral. Just look up my post history, you'll see an occasion sarcastic remark, but mostly I, and everyone else here, is willing to spend their time, and they have a lot on their plates too, to help someone new. What we don't like is talking out into thin air. If you had explained a bit more I would have personally talked you through stand development, a wonderful technique for taming exposure issues on PanF.

Anyhow, have a great one.

tim in san jose

Hello I,
Please forbear our apparent churlishness; some of us old lab rats on the APUG site spend too much time in the dark!!! and it shows(vbg).