Ilford Pan-F Plus

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

25 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

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?

Do you have an incident meter? Use the M3 or M4, with a 50mm Summicron or Summilux. Leave the shutter speed at 1/125 or 1/250 and run the lens from f/16 to f/2 or f/1.4. Repeat this for an entire roll. Try to do this on a brilliant sunny day. Choose a subject like a house that has lots of white details and shadow possibilities, such as I show in my tests:

 

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!

Edited February 23, 2022 by Ornello

[Mr.Prime]

You have a nice house.

I have a 50mm Summilux (blk E46) fit for that and the M3 is currently empty… now waiting for sunshine.

Unfortunately I’ve no incident light meter, so best option is my iphone lightmeter ap (or Minolta internal meter) using my driveway or red brick wall on my house as a substitute grey card.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ornello]

59 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

You have a nice house.

I have a 50mm Summilux (blk E46) fit for that and the M3 is currently empty… now waiting for sunshine.

Unfortunately I’ve no incident light meter, so best option is my iphone lightmeter ap (or Minolta internal meter) using my driveway or red brick wall on my house as a substitute grey card.

That's an apartment building, not my residence. You don't need a meter, just set the shutter speed at 1/250 or 1/125. The meter is merely to tell you what the measured exposure is (you'll likely find that the best exposure corresponds to the film speed of EI 25). You simply run a roll through, from f/16 to f/1.4, repeating to the end of the roll. After you have processed the film, it should be easy to determine the correct exposure. It should be f/8 or f/5.6, if the light is full clear sun. What kind of enlarger do you have?

Edited February 23, 2022 by Ornello

[Pyrogallol]

Years ago I found that metering off a tarmac road is similar to using a grey card.

[Ornello]

2 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Years ago I found that metering off a tarmac road is similar to using a grey card.

Or grass.

[Mr.Prime]

Normally I’d use the grass but at this time of the year it’s all under snow.

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Mr.Prime said:

Normally I’d use the grass but at this time of the year it’s all under snow.

We had some still on the ground a week ago, but it's all melted now.

[spydrxx]

For reflective metering the interior side  of the cardboard from a cereal box works well as a substitute for a gray card (at least from the cereals I eat).

[Ornello]

2 minutes ago, spydrxx said:

For reflective metering the interior side  of the cardboard from a cereal box works well as a substitute for a gray card (at least from the cereals I eat).

Müselix?

[giannis]

I think I need to say some words, because I really like this film but it's one of those emulsions that require a bit of special care.

First of all, I also find it too contrasty at ISO50 and recommended dev times. This is easily ameliorated though by pulling the film. I.e. not just shooting it at ISO25, but also reducing dev times by ~15%. At that rating + development, it sings with a longass tonal scale and non-existent grain. General purpose developers work great in such a regime (Xtol, ID-11, D-76, etc.), and so do diluted fine grain developers (like Perceptol at 1+3). I'm attaching some examples, of the film shot at ISO25, pulled in development, maybe with a green-yellow filter (Hoya GX0). (Specifically, these were in Perceptol 1+3 which gives full speed at that dilution, and then reduced dev time and reduced agitation. The result would be very similar by using any general purpose dev at a normal dilution and reducing dev times, i.e. following massive dev chart times for ISO25):

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!

 

 

Of course another very good option for PanF+ that both maintains box speed (especially in the shadows and low mids, where it needs it the most) and protects highlights, is Diafine. Essentially the same result as pulling, but with an extra stop of speed. Many times I can't tell which is which unless I have the full res scans with me so I can zoom in a lot (Diafine gives slightly larger grain, which is of no practical relevance with such a low grain film). Here's a couple that were of PanF+ shots, shot at ISO50 and devved in Diafine:

 

 

I chose on purpose high contrast scenes (pretty much midday sun) - apart from the cyclist one - to make a point, that even a film that has a reputation for high contrast, can behave beautifully with appropriate shooting and development. (Btw, I'd place in the same category and give the same treatment most Rollei "aerial" derived films, i.e. Retro 80S, Retro 400S, IR400).

Unfortunately, PanF+ really works poorly with the standard Rodinal regimes (not stand). That is because PanF+ is too contrasty to begin with, and rodinal is a speed losing developer, so many people end up either getting completely crushed shadows and generally thin negatives, or trying to counteract that, end up overdeveloping, getting excessive contrast and grain (and still not much in the shadows). 

 

One last point I wanted to add, a characteristic "flaw" of PanF+, is its poor latent image retention. After getting exposed, it's best to develop as soon as possible, because the latent image (i.e. the "energised by light" halides) don't stay put and start diffusing to nearby halides, degrading and "washing out" the image in terms of grain and shadow detail. This can start happening even after 1-2 months, and is quite noticeable at 6 months onwards. While not a crippling short time, it's worth mentioning because it's quite a bit shorter of a time window than pretty much all other films.

[giannis]

21 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

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.

This sounds like a very good plan and is what I'd suggest. Also gentle agitation, like two inversions per minute (after continuous agitation for the first half minute). And of course post some results when your thoughts once you have shot and developed some.

[Mr.Prime]

The sun is out here today, the film is loaded….

(need to wait til I can get out during lunch break)

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!

[Ornello]

On 2/24/2022 at 8:33 AM, giannis said:

This sounds like a very good plan and is what I'd suggest. Also gentle agitation, like two inversions per minute (after continuous agitation for the first half minute). And of course post some results when your thoughts once you have shot and developed some.

I mixed up some developer last night. Took only five minutes. 1.5 g/l Metol; 25g/l sodium sulfite; 5 g/l sodium carbonate. I threw some film clips into the solution, and they turned dark very quickly. I'll try it diluted 1+1 on Pan-F Plus. No KBr was added, since this is a slow film, and fog should not be a problem. The Metol I have is quite old, but it seems to work just fine. The idea is to use a small amount of Metol with a fairly active accelerant (sodium carbonate). This will cause the Metol to work actively in the regions of heavier exposure only until it becomes exhausted. 

I didn't realize it, but this is similar to Crawley's FX-1: 

Metol 0.5g
Sodium sulfite 5g
Sodium carbonate 2.5g
Potassium iodide (0.001% solution) 5ml
Water to make 1 liter
Working Strength

Here's mine, at working strength:

Metol 0.75g
Sodium sulfite 12.5g
Sodium carbonate 2.5g
Water to make 1 liter

Edited February 25, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

In my beginning with photography the old PAN-F was my favorite film. I mostly developed it with Perceptol 1+3. That was fine. But it has a tendency to become quite grainy with non fine-grain developers. The other slow films in these days where better in this aspect (Agfapan 25, Kodak Panatomic X). Guess the PAN-F+ is similar to the old one.

Once I got a grain that could have been from a HP5 even after developing it with ID-11 (like D-76). So I moved to other films.

The Metol developer with so few sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate is also no fine grain formula and the result looks grainy too. Reminds me a bit on the old Willi Beutler formulas that might have been the base for Tetenal Neofin. But therefor a small amount of potassium iodide is missing. 
Guess for example Kodak D-25 would give a much finer grain.

[Ornello]

3 minutes ago, fotomas said:

In my beginning with photography the old PAN-F was my favorite film. I mostly developed it with Perceptol 1+3. That was fine. But it has a tendency to become quite grainy with non fine-grain developers. The other slow films in these days where better in this aspect (Agfapan 25, Kodak Panatomic X). Guess the PAN-F+ is similar to the old one.

Once I got a grain that could have been from a HP5 even after developing it with ID-11 (like D-76). So I moved to other films.

The Metol developer with so few sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate is also no fine grain formula and the result looks grainy too. Reminds me a bit on the old Willi Beutler formulas that might have been the base for Tetenal Neofin. But therefor a small amount of potassium iodide is missing. 
Guess for example Kodak D-25 would give a much finer grain.

I doubt that grain will be evident with this film. Something must have been wrong with your technique. You don't need solvent to get fine grain with his film.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

ID-11 is a slight fine grain developer with it's 100 g sodium sulfite. So I guess it was not the only explanation for it. But the grain in your picture looked quite similar. Guess it was a combination of maybe low exposure and the film got x-rayed several times. Also PAN-F seemed to be quite sensitive to different developers. The compared HP5 was also rated at 250 ASA and developed with Perceptol. Anyway I found the grain of the 50 ASA films to be to close to the 100 ASA class for me (guess today maybe Fuji Acros had a even finer grain).

Found the 25/32 ASA films more reliable with much less grain. 
Neofin and Crawley FX-1 are high acutance formulas. More for sharpness, but not fine grained.

But some people like to have a visible grain. That's fine. Lots of folks even add grain to there digital files. 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by fotomas

[Ornello]

41 minutes ago, fotomas said:

ID-11 is a slight fine grain developer with it's 100 g sodium sulfite. So I guess it was not the only explanation for it. But the grain in your picture looked quite similar. Guess it was a combination of maybe low exposure and the film got x-rayed several times. Also PAN-F seemed to be quite sensitive to different developers. The compared HP5 was also rated at 250 ASA and developed with Perceptol. Anyway I found the grain of the 50 ASA films to be to close to the 100 ASA class for me (guess today maybe Fuji Acros had a even finer grain).

Found the 25/32 ASA films more reliable with much less grain. 
Neofin and Crawley FX-1 are high acutance formulas. More for sharpness, but not fine grained.

But some people like to have a visible grain. That's fine. Lots of folks even add grain to there digital files. 

 

The photo in here of the apartment building was made on Delta 3200.  It was put here just to show a suitable test subject. A test on HP5 Plus showed very little grain. FP4 Plus showed almost none. Pan-F showed even less, but the contrast is excessive, so I'm going to try the Metol-only developer that I mixed last night. As I said, it closely resembles FX-1, but I was unaware of that last night. I just 'winged it'. It is very useful to be able to mix your own formulas.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

Yes, this is very useful. I mix up my own stuff for more than 30 years. Then the PAN-F+ must be highly improved above the old one. Maybe I will give it a try with your formula. Would be nice to see your example with PAN-F+ here, instead of the one with Delta 3200.

[Ornello]

5 minutes ago, fotomas said:

Yes, this is very useful. I mix up my own stuff for more than 30 years. Then the PAN-F+ must be highly improved above the old one. Maybe I will give it a try with your formula. Would be nice to see your example with PAN-F+ here, instead of the one with Delta 3200.

I'll try to do that soon. Sorry for the confusion. I like to make concentrated solutions to save time and make measuring easier. I have an old triple-beam scale (Ohaus), which is fine for 25-100g measurements, but I'm going to get a small digital scale for these tiny weights.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mr.Prime]

I ran 10 frames through the M3 yesterday, at different exposures, as planned. The sun is out again today. I think I’ll finish the roll today/tomorrow. One further idea is to cut the film into two lengths, then develop them separately, one at box speed d76 1+1, the other length d76 1+2 with reduced time (pulled).

Edited February 25, 2022 by Mr.Prime