XP2 and PanF+ Thick Thin Negs

[Shaggysk8]

Hello, a while ago like a few years I used XP2 film and got it developed at a shop now I have started to develop my own stuff I use PanF+ these negs are so much thinner than the XP2 I guess this is because it is a true black & white film, my general printing times are 35secs at F11 for about 8x10 paper using 120 film.

Now I just wondered how do I tell if my negs are to thin, I mean they seem to print ok, but as I don't know any other photographers I can not show them my negs and them just say bleh bleh bleh and give me some pointers.

Everything might be fine, the images print fine and nice, contrast is as expected really!

 

[trexx]

Maybe the XP2 is too thick, The starting point on all my enlargers is right close to f8 at 8 sec for an 8x10.

 

[MattKing]

Hello, a while ago like a few years I used XP2 film and got it developed at a shop now I have started to develop my own stuff I use PanF+ these negs are so much thinner than the XP2 I guess this is because it is a true black & white film, my general printing times are 35secs at F11 for about 8x10 paper using 120 film.

Now I just wondered how do I tell if my negs are to thin, I mean they seem to print ok, but as I don't know any other photographers I can not show them my negs and them just say bleh bleh bleh and give me some pointers.

Everything might be fine, the images print fine and nice, contrast is as expected really!

The fact that your negatives print well is the best test, but there are additional references you may like to review.

This "ePhotozine" article on "Assessing Negatives" may be helpful:

Assessing negatives

Some of my Black & White Kodak Darkroom Dataguides have a useful section as well. There is a wealth of useful information in that publication, so I recommend them highly.

If you are looking for one of the Kodak Dataguides, it is important to remember:

a) there are many different editions out there (they are all used);
b) if you are thinking about buying one for a particular purpose, it would be advantageous to look through it first to see if that edition deals with that issue; and
c) some of the information in the Dataguides is dated, due to the fact that films have changed over time (e.g. Tri-X 400), been discontinued (e.g. Royal-X pan), or been invented (e.g. TMX-100).

Matt

 

[polyglot]

35s at f/11 is a really long printing exposure, at least for my enlarger. 8-15s at f/11 is more normal for me. But you say the negs are thin, not thick - how long do your XP2 shots take to print?

The real test though is: is there shadow detail? If you have the shadow detail you want, then the negs are not underexposed at least. Is the contrast coming out how you expect it to?

 

[Shaggysk8]

my xp2 are 1.45secs which is really long, I get good shadow detail and highlight and the contrast is ok on grade 3 and above i like high contrast so normally i am on grade 4

 

[fschifano]

I'm starting to think that you have the wrong lamp in your enlarger. Might not be bright enough.

 

[2F/2F]

Can you take a picture of the Pan F negs on a light box and post it here? Or, ask a lab to use their densitometer, read various densities, and tell us what you get.

 

[Shaggysk8]

It's 75 watt it should be 100 watt I like long exposure times as when I start dogging and burning it will give me more control I have a lab around the corner and I did a 10 zone test so I might get them to check the densities of those I have just not got round to it

 

[Rick A]

I think you are close on your exposure time, as per your description of your settings. Shooting 8x10 on grade 4 paper at f11 is VERY close to what I use. If you have the correct bulb in the machine, then if you want to shorten time, open up to f8. You dont say what brand of paper, but there are some that are dead slow compared to others. I wouldn't worry about what others are doing especially since you are happy with the results(and it appears that you are). If you have established a procedure that works for you, now have a base line to work from.

Rick

 

[Shaggysk8]

Rick you are very true, although I can't help always thinking how can I improve the quality or predictability of my work as one day I would like to sell my work and it needs to be as good as it can.

 

[polyglot]

Well if your contrast is sufficient and you've not lost any shadow detail, I don't reckon your negs are too thin! Maybe you were over-exposing the XP2 or your lab was over-cooking them. If you posted photos of the negs in question though, we might have a better idea - but if the results (prints) don't have problems and aren't hard to print, then I'm not sure you're doing anything wrong.

 

[Rick A]

Rick you are very true, although I can't help always thinking how can I improve the quality or predictability of my work as one day I would like to sell my work and it needs to be as good as it can.

Well spoken-- that is exactly the response that shows an artist and craftsman in the making. You have the baseline down, now to fine tune.
God Bless , and keep on shooting, and printing.

Rick

 

[Shaggysk8]

Ok this is XP2 on Ilford Warmtone with warmtone dev
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This one is PanF+ on Ilford Warmtone with warmtone dev
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Rick A]

They look good to me--Are you happy with them? Were they hard to print(other than time factor)?Looks like you are on the right track. Ilford warmtone is a slow paper to begin with(which I like), it helps when you must do any dodge or burn. The XP-2 is hard to print to begin with, since it has the mask later.
I've been printing Kodak BW400 on Kodabrom II grades 4 and 5, it works very well. As before--keep it up, and good printing.

Rick

 

[Shaggysk8]

Yeah they are ok for a start, I did not do much to print just did 4 test strips and worked out a rough time, did it and well thats what I got
Now I need to find a subject to shoot and really get into it

 

[vedmak]

you could use http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm stouffer wedge to see if your enlarger/film/paper are in sync.