Pan F 50

[underground]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How far have you pushed/pulled Pan F 50

and how where the results. Im looking to experiment

with this film and thought I would ask for some insight.

 

Thanx in advance for any comment.

[leicamann]

Of all the Ilford films, the Pan F 50 is the most inflexible..latitude wise..if you want to experiment with pushing and pulling films..may I suggest the DeltaPro 100, 400, the HP5

 

If you want to do somehting REALLY interesting.. look at this website..you can do a "reversal on the Pan F 50 exposed at ISO 25...the results can be quite beautiful....

 

dr5 CHROME - Black and White slide / transparency process + THE ONLY QUALITY SCALA PROCESSING WORLDWIDE

 

My fave, as I said... are the Ilford Deltas..they are VERY forgiving

 

Good luck and have fun.

 

Cheers, JRM

[JSU]

In the mid 1970's I did a college semester long course based solely on exposing and processing Ilford Pan F.

 

I established for myself an ideal rating of ASA 64 and achieved the greatest latitude when I developed it in Kodak D-23. This developer is somewhat compensating and as such would provide a greater flexibility for contrast than resorting to specific manipulations as suggested by the Zone System.

 

D-23 with its high levels of Sodium Sulfite does not produce as high a level of perceived sharpness, that is accutance, as a Rodinal process. But I concluded this is only relevant for very big enlargements and really only for side by side comparisons. For 12" x 18" enlargements of a 35mm negative, the Pan F @ ASA 64 developed in D-23 was the best final print when all issues (range of tonality, grain, sharpness and non-specific aesthetics / perception by non-photographers) were considered. In 20" x 30" enlargements from 35mm negatives and viewed up close, too close really to appreciate the print as a whole, the Pan F images processed in Rodinal appeared sharper than those processed in D-23.

 

Once I arrived at a full and even range of 8 distinct zones at ASA 64, I didn't go any further with attempting to shoot at alternate ratings. I was trying to achieve the best negative available for this given film, which was my choice at the beginning of the course. Once selected, I was limited only to the film of my choice. Others in the course worked with different films, all were limited to 35mm offerings.

[tmickan]

pan f 50 @ 100, in diafine, 75mm 'lux

 

 

one of my favourite emulsions.

[crbirchenhall]

pan f 50 @ 100, in diafine, 75mm 'lux

 

 

one of my favourite emulsions.

 

Beautiful portrait

[Leitzmac]

I use Pan 50, both in 35mm and 120 and as has been mentioned Pan 50 is fairly inflexible so I don't tend to mess about with it much, generally I give it about a third of a stop more light and process as normal which tends to give good results.

 

However I have rated it @ 100 and it worked, but I'd definitely be careful pushing it in contrasty light.

 

Wish I could help more, perhaps I haven't been daring enough, but I tend to use FP4/HP5/Deltas100/3200/TriX for greater speed.

[blatent liar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used to rate Pan F and Tech Pan at 400 iso, and process in Acufine; 100 in Rodinol. No negs scanned to show you, but I used to do mural print Portraits tinted in Cu Blue which I made with chemicals from Aldrich.

 

The Results were quite good, and the grain was soft, but resolute. Very 3D.

 

Regards

 

Max

[underground]

Thank you all very much for your insight.

I appreciate it greatly.

[christer]

I used to rate Pan F and Tech Pan at 400 iso, and process in Acufine; 100 in Rodinol. No negs scanned to show you, but I used to do mural print Portraits tinted in Cu Blue which I made with chemicals from Aldrich.

 

The Results were quite good, and the grain was soft, but resolute. Very 3D.

 

Regards

 

Max

 

400?

 

That would qualify for a nomination to the Nobel price in photo chemistry