Ilford Pan-F Plus

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 2/25/2022 at 9:35 AM, Ornello said:

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

The initial run on Pan-F Plus with my prototype developer described above worked very well. The negatives look very good. I developed for 6 minutes @ 68F. The Beutler formula is also similar. The main difference in mine is more sulfite.
 

Beutler:

Metol 0.5g

Sodium sulfite 2.5g

Sodium carbonate 2.5g

Potassium Bromide 0.1 gram

Water to make 1 liter

I'll make a print tonight.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Ornello]

I tried double-strength developer last night on T-Max 400 for 9 minutes. That proved to be too much. I'll try again tonight with the dilute working strength. Since T-Max 400 is a very fine-grained film, it may be treated as  slow film. The compensating action of this developer will help tame the contrast in the highlights with TMY-2, just as it does with very slow films. I would not use Beutler on Tri-X.

 

Beutler's formula:

Elon (Metol) 0.5 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 2.5 grams
Sodium Carbonate, anhydrous 2.5 grams
Potassium Bromide 0.1 gram

 

My formula:

Elon (Metol) 0.75 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 12.5 grams
Sodium Carbonate, anhydrous 2.5 grams
 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

On 2/28/2022 at 9:36 AM, Ornello said:

I tried double-strength developer last night on T-Max 400 for 9 minutes. That proved to be too much. I'll try again tonight with the dilute working strength. Since T-Max 400 is a very fine-grained film, it may be treated as  slow film. The compensating action of this developer will help tame the contrast in the highlights with TMY-2, just as it does with very slow films. I would not use Beutler on Tri-X.

 

Beutler's formula:

Elon (Metol) 0.5 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 2.5 grams
Sodium Carbonate, anhydrous 2.5 grams
Potassium Bromide 0.1 gram

 

My formula:

Elon (Metol) 0.75 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 12.5 grams
Sodium Carbonate, monohydrated 2.5 grams

T-Max 400 film developed last night in:

Metol 0.75 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 12.5 grams
Sodium Carbonate, monohydrated 2.5 grams

for 8.5 minutes. 

Negatives look very good, similar to Pan-F Plus at 6 minutes. Printing tonight. 

Gave the TMY-2 a long pre-soak, and a lot of the pink dye came out. Negatives have no pink cast after fixing and washing.

 

Edited March 1, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

On 3/1/2022 at 9:39 AM, Ornello said:

T-Max 400 film developed last night in:

Metol 0.75 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 12.5 grams
Sodium Carbonate, monohydrated 2.5 grams

for 8.5 minutes. 

Negatives look very good, similar to Pan-F Plus at 6 minutes. Printing tonight. 

Gave the TMY-2 a long pre-soak, and a lot of the pink dye came out. Negatives have no pink cast after fixing and washing.

 

I tried modifying the formula by adding 1 gram of hydroquinone, but the result was very dense overdeveloped negatives (T-Max 400). It is amazing how little it takes to affect developer characteristics.

Elon (Metol) 0.75 gram
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous 12.5 grams

Hydroquinone 1.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate, anhydrous 2.5 grams

Edited March 6, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

Quite by chance, I came across a copy of Ansel Adams' book The Negative in a camera store last night. On page 90 (page 105 of the pdf file below), there is a graph of the Pan-F curve vs FP4. It clearly shows that Pan-F has less latitude and cannot reach the density levels of FP4. See also page 246 (page 261 of the pdf file), where he lists the 'true' speeds of various films. My results confirm these data.

https://www.dzphoto.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/the-negative-ansel-adams-series-no-2.pdf

Please note that I do not, in any way, endorse the zone system, previsualization, or variable film development. I do, however, have to give him credit for testing all these films. They show that the ISO rating system for B&W films is wrong, as I have repeatedly claimed.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Ornello

[Mr.Prime]

thanks for the link Ornello

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can see this film being useful for my in-camera multiple exposures, for the ‘charcoal sketch’ I like to make. Sometimes I make ~16 clicks per frame, so low ISO is helpful.

[Mr.Prime]

I was able to scan my first roll of Pan F+ recently. I had taken a series of shots at the start of the roll as an experiment, as suggested already.

Constant 1/125th shutter. iphone metered off grass at 4pm on sunny winter day suggested f8.

The sunny-16 rule would suggest between f8 and f11, sunny-11 rule would suggest f8 and getting the snow to lighten up properly would take at least another stop.

Results (somewhat subjective):

(two shots) 1/125  f16 clearly too thin

1/125 f11 lots of grain if try to recover image

1/125 f8 can be recovered but is sub-par

1/125 f5.6 negative looks pretty close to correct, can be adjusted to a nice image but file shows all the tones compressed to left half of tone chart

1/125 f4 can be adjusted nicely to bring up shadow detail

1/125 f2.8 can be recovered but loses detail in highlights

1/125 f2 shadow detail good but highlights getting problematic

1/125 f1.4 clearly dense, adjusted can see ‘glow’ on side lit tree branches

Scanned with Plustek 8100 with Pan F+ film type selected and 'all the sliders at zero'

Development was D76 1+1 using DI water. Target at 68F is 8.5mins

Actual temp 66F requires 9.5mins

Developer started to pour out just after 9mins to allow time to pour, with stop bath finished pouring in at 9 mins 20s. So it seems that I under-developed by 5%

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 April 10, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Mr.Prime]

As a comparison I also fired up an Epson 4990 to grab a scan from this too. 

Not surprisingly the optimal frame was also the one shot at f5.6.

What I also noticed was that the scans were smoother, but less detailed in some areas and the highlights were clearly blown out in the over exposed negatives. Overall, the scans were brighter than the Plustek with more to recover from the underexposed shots and with blown highlights in the overexposed shots. 

What has surprised me is that best image quality seems to be obtained from one frame, there really isn't a lot of latitude in the end-to-end process of Pan F+ and desktop scanner. It’s not a film for high contrast scenes without great care.

 

My results are very much the same as Ornello in the opening post.

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 April 10, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Ornello]

18 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I was able to scan my first roll of Pan F+ recently. I had taken a series of shots at the start of the roll as an experiment, as suggested already.

Constant 1/125th shutter. iphone metered off grass at 4pm on sunny winter day suggested f8.

The sunny-16 rule would suggest between f8 and f11, sunny-11 rule would suggest f8 and getting the snow to lighten up properly would take at least another stop.

Results (somewhat subjective):

(two shots) 1/125  f16 clearly too thin

1/125 f11 lots of grain if try to recover image

1/125 f8 can be recovered but is sub-par

1/125 f5.6 negative looks pretty close to correct, can be adjusted to a nice image but file shows all the tones compressed to left half of tone chart

1/125 f4 can be adjusted nicely to bring up shadow detail

1/125 f2.8 can be recovered but loses detail in highlights

1/125 f2 shadow detail good but highlights getting problematic

1/125 f1.4 clearly dense, adjusted can see ‘glow’ on side lit tree branches

Scanned with Plustek 8100 with Pan F+ film type selected and 'all the sliders at zero'

Development was D76 1+1 using DI water. Target at 68F is 8.5mins

Actual temp 66F requires 9.5mins

Developer started to pour out just after 9mins to allow time to pour, with stop bath finished pouring in at 9 mins 20s. So it seems that I under-developed by 5%

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!

My tests also showed that around 1/125 @f/5.6 was close to correct exposure. The film has very little latitude. Kodak Panatomic-X was a much better film. I really see no reason to use Pan-F+. Delta 100, Acros, and T-Max 100 offer similarly fine grain.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Ornello

[Mr.Prime]

When circumstances allow I may run another roll of Pan F+ through my camera but at EI 25 and then with reduced development time to see how it behaves. But I am wondering if it will give me something compelling enough c.f. FP4+ to use it again, there will have to be a noticeable difference in grain / subjective clarity after scanning. And even then, I can’t see myself using it unless I want to make bigger enlargements, perhaps from mountain hiking where I want to capture some landscapes without the size and weight of a larger film format.

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Ornello]

11 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

When circumstances allow I may run another roll of Pan F+ through my camera but at EI 25 and then with reduced development time to see how it behaves. But I am wondering if it will give me something compelling enough c.f. FP4+ to use it again, there will have to be a noticeable difference in grain / subjective clarity after scanning. And even then, I can’t see myself using it unless I want to make bigger enlargements, perhaps from mountain hiking where I want to capture some landscapes without the size and weight of a larger film format.

 

I doubt whether there is justification for using anything slower than FP4+.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Ornello

[philipus]

I like Pan F but if I am honest I prefer Rollei Retro 80S.for a fine-grained and easy to scan film.

[giannis]

On 4/12/2022 at 5:47 PM, philipus said:

I like Pan F but if I am honest I prefer Rollei Retro 80S.for a fine-grained and easy to scan film.

Now that you mention it, Rollei 80S is probably the finest grained *and* highest resolving slow film, of the "common" films (i.e. not microfilms/technical films). And as a bonus, it also has high infrared sensitivity, can be used with an R72 filter just fine. To top it off, it's cheaper than most films, and with a clear PET base that dries flat. I think it suffers from the same issues as PanF+ though, far too contrasty at its box speed. Aerial and surveillance (derived) films have a different "ISO" definition. And many times, people will try it, set the camera at ISO80, shoot away, get poor results and never use it again. In any case, for pictorial use, ISO80 and the dev times given are too much, it looks like a full 1-stop push. Pulling *at least* to ISO40 is far more realistic and gives great results, where even dedicated film scanners have trouble clearly resolving the grain.

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 April 14, 2022 by giannis
typo

[Ko.Fe.]

On 2/21/2022 at 9:44 AM, Ornello said:

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.

I went trough one bulk of it. I need at least one bulk to get to know the film.

I find it to be usable but finicky.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

On 4/10/2022 at 3:48 PM, Ornello said:

My tests also showed that around 1/125 @f/5.6 was close to correct exposure. The film has very little latitude. Kodak Panatomic-X was a much better film. I really see no reason to use Pan-F+. Delta 100, Acros, and T-Max 100 offer similarly fine grain.

All four are very different films to deal with in developing. TMAX-100 was most simple one to achieve no grain, digital like results .

[Mr.Prime]

On 4/13/2022 at 11:01 PM, giannis said:

Now that you mention it, Rollei 80S is probably the finest grained *and* highest resolving slow film, of the "common" films (i.e. not microfilms/technical films). And as a bonus, it also has high infrared sensitivity, can be used with an R72 filter just fine. To top it off, it's cheaper than most films, and with a clear PET base that dries flat. I think it suffers from the same issues as PanF+ though, far too contrasty at its box speed. Aerial and surveillance (derived) films have a different "ISO" definition. And many times, people will try it, set the camera at ISO80, shoot away, get poor results and never use it again. In any case, for pictorial use, ISO80 and the dev times given are too much, it looks like a full 1-stop push. Pulling *at least* to ISO40 is far more realistic and gives great results, where even dedicated film scanners have trouble clearly resolving the grain.

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!

To my eyes the tones don’t look right here, kinda flat doesn’t really describe it but I just don’t like it at all, is this the Rollei pulled 1 stop?

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Mr.Prime said:

To my eyes the tones don’t look right here, kinda flat doesn’t really describe it but I just don’t like it at all, is this the Rollei pulled 1 stop?

Are you just seeing the inherent infra red response of the film and judging it against a conventional film? Infra red and close to infra red films do often produce flat looking negatives in certain types of light, and you either like the flattened mid tones or do something about it in the darkroom, or at the computer, or wait for another day when the light suits IR more. But either way Rollei 80s isn't a film to make a direct comparison with any other film, it has its own magic when the light is right.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Mr.Prime]

Yes, that’s what it is, I was looking at it without accounting for the IR response. What an idiot 😀

That explains it.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[giannis]

On 4/16/2022 at 8:48 PM, Mr.Prime said:

To my eyes the tones don’t look right here, kinda flat doesn’t really describe it but I just don’t like it at all, is this the Rollei pulled 1 stop?

It is indeed pulled one stop and also @250swb is right on the money. It was a deep red (3-stop) filter, and while not a full IR filter, you start getting some effects like the brightening of vegetation (which you'd expect to darken up with a red filter and normal film), which is probably what threw you off.