Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone here used much of it? I shot a roll a week ago and processed it Saturday, printed that night. Processed in FX-39 II 1 + 19 dilution. Film was exposed for 1/250 sec from f/16 to f/1.4 with my 50mm Summilux-R II (1997), using whole stop intervals. Negatives exposed at f/5.6 and f/8 were printed. The f/8 exposure gave better highlight separation, the f/5.6 gave better shadow separation. Splitting the difference might be perfect. The film is very contrasty, with little latitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve no experience with your developer so can’t say much - Perhaps try a developer recommended for this film by Ilford, it might be that the contrast and latitude will be easier to manage when paired as intended ?? Sometimes ID-11 / D-76 1+1 is a safe starting point.

Edited by Mr.Prime
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You just made me want to get back into film. PanF was a personal favourite of mine except for its limited use due to ISO 50 and I would not want to push it. Gorgeous blacks and great results from 35mm format. I'm not a large grain lover so never really took to TriX / HP5 in 35mm. Living in the UK PanF 50 needs sunshine but when it was sunny I preferred to shoot on Provia 100F.

Edited by PaulJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr.Prime said:

I’ve no experience with your developer so can’t say much - Perhaps try a developer recommended for this film by Ilford, it might be that the contrast and latitude will be easier to manage when paired as intended ?? Sometimes ID-11 / D-76 1+1 is a safe starting point.

I have not used slow films since the days of Adox KB-14, and I remember giving up on that stuff because it was just too contrasty, even in Neofin Blue. I did shoot some Neopan Acros a few years ago, and liked it, but it was discontinued. I never bothered to try the new Acros II. I seldom use anything other than ISO 400 films anyway. FX-39 is recommended for slow and medium-speed films. I got acceptable prints, but Pan-F Plus obviously is not going to be a film that I shall use regularly. I'll try some Delta 100 and Acros II, simply so that I can work out the correct development times.

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am using up an outdated bulk roll of Pan F + shot at ISO 50. Development so far has been in Rodinal 1+100. Not completely comfortable with the results -

seems too grainy for such a slow film. More experimentation needed when the weather gets a little warmer and I can get out for another test roll.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

I am using up an outdated bulk roll of Pan F + shot at ISO 50. Development so far has been in Rodinal 1+100. Not completely comfortable with the results -

seems too grainy for such a slow film. More experimentation needed when the weather gets a little warmer and I can get out for another test roll.

There should be no grain visible. Try EI 25, and use something other than Rodent-all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

I use Pan F,  but usually FP4 and occasionally HP5. Try Ilford Perceptol for Pan F and rate it at about 25/30 ISO.

Or try Moersch Tanol for high contrast scenes/bright sunshine.

I was just reporting on my results. Not likely to use it again. FP4+ is as slow as I normally use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m more likely to be using FP4+ too, but I don't think I’ve used Pan F since the late 1980s when I was young and didn’t pay too much attention to the details. So I’ve ordered 3 rolls of the modern ‘plus’ version in 135 format in order to have a play; it will be here soon. I’ll be using D-76 as this is what I keep on-hand; dilution still to be decided. I think it maybe just the excuse I need to load up my old iiif Barnack with a WA lens.

Edited by Mr.Prime
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pan F works better in MF, otherwise it's a bit harsh for 35mm in normal development. The best developer for it is 510 Pyro used in a semi stand development as this tames the contrast and smooths the tones. The grain is so-so, in MF it's not a problem but in 35mm not quite as good as you may have hoped for if going to the trouble of using a slow film. I like it for it's graphic qualities, but it's not a film I'd use in 35mm. Now, if Kodak Panatomic X was still available that would be a different story, a beautiful slow film to use.

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, 250swb said:

Pan F works better in MF, otherwise it's a bit harsh for 35mm in normal development. The best developer for it is 510 Pyro used in a semi stand development as this tames the contrast and smooths the tones. The grain is so-so, in MF it's not a problem but in 35mm not quite as good as you may have hoped for if going to the trouble of using a slow film. I like it for it's graphic qualities, but it's not a film I'd use in 35mm. Now, if Kodak Panatomic X was still available that would be a different story, a beautiful slow film to use.

I used FX-39 at 1+19 dilution for 7.5 minutes. It barely controls the contrast. I have rarely used the film; I was just trying to establish a developing time. Odds are I'll never use it again. I did use an occasional roll of Panatomic-X, and it was much easier to work with, probably because it was slightly grainier.

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - Pan F has more contrast than FP4.

Fine-grain films always have a greater possible density range, because the grains can pack more efficiently. It is as though one is trying to cover a patch of land with rock - 100 lbs of fine gravel will cover more completely and opaquely than one 100-lb boulder.

FP4 is a mix of grain sizes - sort of like stirring together Pan F+ emulsion and HP5+ emulsion, half and half. The "HP5" grains capture dimmer light (shadow detail) but block up at about medium gray (Zone 6-7) with an ISO 125 exposure. But on top of which the "Pan F" grains (underexposed at ISO 125) keeping adding highlight separation and detail.

(Note - Kodak's old Verichrome (Pan) film worked the same way, so that it had the latitude to function under all kinds of daylight, with box cameras having only one or two apertures, and only one "instantaneous" shutter speed of about 1/50th. Kodak acquired the formula when they bought Wratten & Wainright in 1912.)

I used Pan F+ a lot when I used film Ms in 2001-2005, for both the fine grain when scanning, and to give more exposure flexibility in bright sunlight with the shutter limit of 1/1000th sec. And yes, 1/250th at f/6.8 was my go-to no-meter sunlight exposure with the M4/M4-2/M4-P. Effectively E.I. 64-80 rather than ISO 50.

I counted on the ability of scanners to suck out the last grain of shadow detail, and a full-film-speed developer (Ilford DDX, chemically similar to FX-39) to develop every last shadow grain, and 10% underdevelopment time, and older Canadian M lenses from the 1980s (less contrast than the last 50 Summilux).

Under those conditions, it worked pretty nicely. But not so well with Hasselblad/Zeiss multi-coated T* lenses when I tried those later - the contrast was pretty fierce under southwestern U.S. desert sunlight. Or with Leica's post-1990 lenses.

Mohawk Guy, Denver, 2001, M4-2, Pan F+, 35 Summicron v.4 at f/6.8, DDX, Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, adan said:

Yep - Pan F has more contrast than FP4.

 

 

I know all of this. I know everything. LOL Been doin' this for 60 years. I just wanted to try the film and developer (FX-39) combo, since I had not used it before. FX-39 is somewhat different than Acutol, which I had used with it before. It's just way too contrasty, and has limited latitude. I'm gonna try some Acros II soon, to see how much easier to work with it is. The last tests I ran were made in 2004. Several products have changed since then, and I have acquired the new 50mm Summilux-R, which is very snappy!

Is punk still a thing? I thought this was the age of Aquarius!

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not punk, not sure what it is!

Three rolls of pan f 50 arrived today.
Why did somebody at Amazon think it was OK to deliver them in separate mail bags, individually addressed etc ?

I’m v curious about this film thanks to this thread. 

Edited by Mr.Prime
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

That’s not punk, not sure what it is!

Three rolls of pan f 50 arrived today.
Why did somebody at Amazon think it was OK to deliver them in separate mail bags, individually addressed etc ?

I’m v curious about this film thanks to this thread. 

How do you plan to process it? I have some metol, sodium sulphite, borax, sodium carbonate, and Kodalk. I'm thinking 1.5 g/l metol; 25 g/l sulphite; and 4 g/l carbonate, as a test developer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a beginner when it comes to the developing, having used labs mostly. I have some fresh stock D-76 so it really makes sense for me to start with this. It’s a metol based developer so maybe it will be similar to what you have. You are already well ahead of me if you are mixing your own.

And even though D-76 is the less exciting option it will provide a baseline if I want to try something else, which most likely would be DD-X. 

Experimenting with trying to reign in the high contrast of this film it seems that the next step after box speed would be to pull 1/2 to 1 stop and then process using D-76 diluted e.g. 1+2.

When I ordered the film it was bright and sunny, today it is grey with blowing snow, so no plans to load a roll into a camera just yet 😞

Edited by Mr.Prime
Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

I’m a beginner when it comes to the developing, having used labs mostly. I have some fresh stock D-76 so it really makes sense for me to start with this. It’s a metol based developer so maybe it will be similar to what you have. You are already well ahead of me if you are mixing your own.

And even though D-76 is the less exciting option it will provide a baseline if I want to try something else, which most likely would be DD-X. 

Experimenting with trying to reign in the high contrast of this film it seems that the next step after box speed would be to pull 1/2 to 1 stop and then process using D-76 diluted e.g. 1+2.

When I ordered the film it was bright and sunny, today it is grey with blowing snow, so no plans to load a roll into a camera just yet 😞

Expose at EI 25, then try D-76 1+1 for 6 minutes.  Try bracketing your exposures, and take notes. Use a tripod if you have one. Your first roll should be just for testing. What equipment do you have?

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a new tripod, Aluminium, Peak Design, which seems solid enough.

I can use a iiif, M3, or M4. The risk with any of these cameras is shutter speed accuracy as I’ve not had any of them go through a CLA. I’ve had good results using HP5+ but it has an exposure latitude as wide as a barn door, and I’ve had good results with FP4+. Lens sharpness is a non-issue as they can be used at the f8 sweet spot. I also have a Minolta x500 with electronically controlled shutter and I’d have no doubt of it’s accuracy.

Do you have a recommendation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...