j.henry Posted July 26, 2011 Share #41 Posted July 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I love PanF, both in 35mm and 120. In 35mm, as you can see from the below shots, there is some grain...but I like it. In 120 it is so, so clean. I shoot it at box speed, and develop in Ilford LC29 (mainly because I can't find other developer here in New Zealand). In the summer time it is a great travel film, if you have a second body with a faster film for indoor shots. I didn't take it on a trip to Istanbul, Greece and Italy this past April because I didn't think the sun would be strong enough...I was wrong. Buy it, use it, love it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 Hi j.henry, Take a look here Any Pan F users out there?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Randle P. McMurphy Posted July 27, 2011 Share #42 Posted July 27, 2011 I shot in daylight, so I had no problems. Generally aperture was about 5.6-11 with shutter between 500-125. Sure - but Portraits in direct sunlight may even get some bad shadows so I prefer to shot them in open-shadow. If you use a tele-lens like me a 50 ASA Film can get some Problems then. This picture was made on Tri-X 400 ASA in open-shadow (under a tree) and a 180mm lens. 1/250 at 5,6 - sometimes 8 if lucky even enough for a snapshot. http://s7.directupload.net/images/110727/8fz9vmk4.jpg [url=http://s7.directupload.net/images/110727/8fz9vmk4.jpg][/url] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share #43 Posted July 27, 2011 No. Using 32 ISO indoors is pushing it a bit ...agreed, Andy - my problem is that I intend to use it indoors. Without a tripod. Clearly, this is going to be fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 28, 2011 Share #44 Posted July 28, 2011 ...agreed, Andy - my problem is that I intend to use it indoors. Without a tripod. Clearly, this is going to be fun. Well for a long time all we hade was Kodachrome II at 25 ISO, i.e. what became Kodachrome 25. Done weddings with II. But I do have a daylight loader of PanF, for senics, Rodinal at 20C 1:100 for 60 to 120 mins. Delta 100 is an option for similar shots... Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted July 28, 2011 Author Share #45 Posted July 28, 2011 Well for a long time all we hade was Kodachrome II at 25 ISO, i.e. what became Kodachrome 25. Done weddings with II. But I do have a daylight loader of PanF, for senics, Rodinal at 20C 1:100 for 60 to 120 mins. Delta 100 is an option for similar shots... Noel ...thanks, Noël - I guess one has to be grateful for Ms and Summiluxes. My initial indoor meter readings at ISO 32 & 50 have been very encouraging. Hope the real thing yields the desired results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted July 31, 2011 Share #46 Posted July 31, 2011 ...thanks, Noël - I guess one has to be grateful for Ms and Summiluxes. My initial indoor meter readings at ISO 32 & 50 have been very encouraging. Hope the real thing yields the desired results. Hi If you need more speed Ilford recommend Microphen... http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf A high backed chair can be used to reduce camera shake. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted August 3, 2011 Share #47 Posted August 3, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yup, love it. Especially in 120. But I've got some in the M7 right now actually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted August 3, 2011 Share #48 Posted August 3, 2011 Haven't used it for ages, but it used to be a favorite. Shoot at ISO32 and process in Perceptol for ultrafine grain and an excellent tonal range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted August 4, 2011 Author Share #49 Posted August 4, 2011 Hi If you need more speed Ilford recommend Microphen... http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427133131459.pdf A high backed chair can be used to reduce camera shake. Noel ...thanks for this, Noël - have never mixed from powder before, so this will be a first for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganzosrevenge Posted August 4, 2011 Share #50 Posted August 4, 2011 Grain-Free, Detail, etc.? Microfilm such as ADOX CMS 20 rings to me as the best choice... although it will redefine slow. Jason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted August 4, 2011 Share #51 Posted August 4, 2011 One thing I recently learned and want to share - is that PanF+ apparently needs to be developed as soon as possible after exposure as it degrades with time, even if kept cool. I hadn't heard of this previously, so if anyone can expand on that - I'm all ears. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted August 4, 2011 Share #52 Posted August 4, 2011 One thing I recently learned and want to share - is that PanF+ apparently needs to be developed as soon as possible after exposure as it degrades with time, even if kept cool. I hadn't heard of this previously, so if anyone can expand on that - I'm all ears. I said this on RFF, and will repeat it here. Someone should ask Simon Galley on APUG about this. Otherwise, this is how internet myths start. Simon should know, or should at least be able to relate the official Ilford position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted August 5, 2011 Share #53 Posted August 5, 2011 ... this is how internet myths start... well identified an IM, the faster films need more prompt development, but it is still desirable with slow films to dev prompt, it says that on all the data sheets. But why would anyone be interesed apart from GWinogrand emulators? Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted August 5, 2011 Share #54 Posted August 5, 2011 I have no problem with prompt development for films. And it's perfectly believable that some films have better latent image keeping than others. All I said is that it's pretty easy to ask Ilford if PanF+ has worse latent image keeping than some of their other films. The original post on RFF was talking about how just a couple months (I think) noticeably affects image quality. That's really not that long, especially for someone like me who only rarely shoots PanF+ and might wait a bit between developing batches so I can do a couple rolls at a time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.