Ilford Pan F 50 - what to expect

ChrisN · 06-02-2006

I just bought a bulk roll of Ilford Pan F 50, because it was half-price and I've used up my last bulk roll of HP5+. Now obviously this is a pretty slow film, so I won't be using it for low-light applications, but what should I expect from it? Any tips or things to avoid?

Michael I. · 06-02-2006

it has a thin emultion and excelent midtones

Uncle Bill · 06-02-2006

I used a 120 roll of Pan 50 in a Rolleiflex, be prepared for almost no grain. I had to scan the proofs as I have no means of scanning a 6x6 neg. Even then the images look amazing.

Ash · 06-02-2006

I been using it almost as experimentation. I managed to get some grain out of the film by push-processing and using warm water in development.. see here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=24059

but also below are two properly developed images. You can see the midtones and even contrast you can get with a bit of fluke, i mean, concentration

ChrisN · 06-02-2006

Thanks for the feedback, guys. Looks like this will make an interesting change from the usual HP5!

kaiyen · 06-02-2006

No offense Ash, but the contrast on the one on the left seems pretty high.

Which leads me to my advice..Pan F is quite contrasty. Very low grain, and you'll probably need to shoot it closer to 30 or even 25 depending on developer, but very contrasty. Be careful of your development time and temperature. Of course, it's also not tech pan so it's not terrible with which to work.

allan

ChrisN · 06-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaiyen

Which leads me to my advice..Pan F is quite contrasty. Very low grain, and you'll probably need to shoot it closer to 30 or even 25 depending on developer, but very contrasty. Be careful of your development time and temperature.

allan

Why the need to shoot it at the slower rating?

Ash · 06-02-2006

kaiyen I'm a little confused at your response. My results have varied because I have altered the developing for the results I wished to get. Those two images are from the same roll of film. And you can't see grain in the second image. I was posting to show the different results you can obtain.

kaiyen · 06-02-2006

Quote:

You can see the midtones and even contrast

That seems to imply that contrast is relatively controlled in your examples. I am saying that the one on the left seems quite contrasty to me, which is indicative of the nature of the film. I apologize if I misinterpreted you, but the point remains valid nonetheless.

Quote:

Why the need to shoot it at the slower rating?

I find that Pan F loses speed in most developers, meaning that you will not get the desired shadow detail if you shoot it at 50 unless you develop it in a speed-enhancing developer. I shoot Pan f at 30 if I'm spot metering and 25 if I'm average metering.

allan

jonasv · 06-02-2006

Pan F+ at 25 in Rodinal... Goodness, I love that.

kaiyen · 06-02-2006

Oops - I should've mentioned that those speeds are in Rodinal, though I don't adjust by much for D76 1+1, either. FX-39 gave me an honest 50.

allan

Trius · 06-02-2006

In DD-X it's about ISO 40, but close enough to 50. But I've got some exposed and ready for some Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100, stand development.

The DD-X negs looked quite good, but I want to try the Rodinal coax the maximum out of the emulsion.

ChrisN · 06-02-2006

OK - thanks again. I use DD-X and would plan to try the first roll at 50asa and the standard 8 minutes recommended on the spec sheet.

Now humour a novice here: to get the best neg for scanning - I have heard that a "thin" neg scans better than one too dense. To achieve that would I shorten the time in the developer, or lengthen it? I'm assuming that a thin neg looks lighter than a dark negative.

Trius · 06-02-2006

Shorten it, but I can't say by how much; you don't want to have inadequate highlights. Maybe up to 10% less, but don't go any further ... that's just a guess. I'd rather have too much contrast than have a weak negative, whether for scanning or printing, but I'm not a scan wizard, either, so I may be all wet.

I'd have to look at my PAN-F/DDX negs again, but shooting a few frames/bracketing at 40 might be a good thing.

stevew · 06-02-2006

I shoot with it alot. I shoot at EI 30 and use HC-110 at 1:100 to control contrast. Agitate 7sec per 2 min. My negs are scanned on Nikon Coolscan V.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...y.php?cat=5661

ChrisN · 06-02-2006

Trius - thanks for the hints on the dev times.

Stevew - checked the shots in your gallery and am very impressed with the results. The CV35/2.5 is a fairly contrasty lens - do you get similar contrast with other lenses? Love the "Bell" shot especially.

stevew · 06-03-2006

The lens is contrasty but I wouldn't call it a bad quality. The scenes I shot were very contrasty and were well handled. I would not think the lens would be the best for available light shooting where alittle bit of flare fills in the shadows. I'm very impressed with the lens.

Benjamin Marks · 06-03-2006

My Pan F shots have always been a little low in contrast, indicating that a little more development is needed for my set up than was indicated on the box. It is interestnig to work with a film that has such speed limitations and a reminder tht 400 used to be a super-speed film. You can use larger apertures for work outside. Post some examples when yuo get a pic you like.

good luck

Ben

ScottH · 06-03-2006

Here's a question for those of you who've used this a bit: Where is it's color sensitivity? I use HP5 and FP4 as my primaries, and for my preferences have to use at least a med. yellow filter as those 2 seem to be pretty sensitive to blue (sky) - or is it in-sensitive to blue? I don't get much density/contrast for outdoor scenes, esp. clouds etc. What can one expect from Pan F? Sounds as though it's a bit less of an issue as it's already a contrasty film...

wpb · 06-03-2006

I too just started playing with a 100' roll of Pan F. Developed in Rodinal 1:50 shot at ISO 30. The sensitivity cuts off very steeply at 630nm and is zero at 650nm... according to the Ilford spectral sensitivity chart (using 2850 K tungsten light).

darkkavenger · 06-03-2006

My humble contribution after receiving back my 1st roll of panf 50. The camera used : Minolta Hi-Matic F - Rokkor 38/2.7 -- I regret a lack of contrast on many photos.

Ash · 06-03-2006

JUST remembered. the contrasty shot was using a red filter. So the images of mine reflect that. sorry i should have said

sf · 06-03-2006

Pan F = smooth

http://www.shutterflower.com/landsca...e4_resizeL.htm

D76 standard process at a lab.

and another in the same process (first B&W image) :
http://www.shutterflower.com/KM%20review.htm

and one more : http://www.shutterflower.com/street%...riompheRFF.htm

I like PanF

ChrisN · 06-03-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevew

The lens is contrasty but I wouldn't call it a bad quality. The scenes I shot were very contrasty and were well handled. I would not think the lens would be the best for available light shooting where alittle bit of flare fills in the shadows. I'm very impressed with the lens.

Steve - I like contrast, and I love the little CV lens, to the point where I sometimes prefer it to my Summicron ASPH!

George - thanks for posting the linked shots. I especially like the detail retained in the distance in the landscape shot - that's true for Steve's photos too.

I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of results I can get.

RicardoD · 06-03-2006

I am thinking of trying Pan F, in a 120 roll, in my new-to-me Yashica 124 G. Expose at iso 80 and develop in Diafine. Anybody else try this? I am doing this based upon this review: click here