Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,639   Online: 719
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Pan F problems?

  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    Dear Pentax user....deeply appreciate the 'allegedly' in the sort of 'Have I got news for you' context, you do not have to worry, ever, I believe in people saying what they think about us and our products, I will always robustly defend, or on occasion agree to differ, but a healthy and positive honest debate is always to be encouraged...

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
    Simon thanks for this reply and I look forward to hearing about the tech dept's findings. Allegedly was a tongue in cheek use of the word but my sentiments would have been better expressed if I had said that I was attempting to take an impartial position and "sit on the fence" until the evidence was much clearer.

    For others interested in this matter, I have just done a quick search of APUG on the subject and roughly for every person claiming that there is an issue with PanF+ compared to other Ilford films there is one who has had no such issue. The numbers involved was small on both sides

    You learn a lot in a search, including now a healthy doubt on my part, based on your response, about those saying things such as "from Ilford sources" in this context.

    pentaxuser

  2. #22
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by MkII View Post
    Hi,
    I've stopped using Pan F as I was getting patchy results. I tend to send them off for developing and sometimes they come back with all the vitality that you would expect but at other times they come back bad ('noisy', thin etc.). I am now using FP4 instead but would like to change back to Pan F if it is reliable enough.
    I apologize if this has already been said, but if you're interested in controllable consistency (reliability), you should be developing yourself. All the materials can be sourced on the net, if not locally, and a simple dark space will enable you to control your film destiny. Most, if not all, amateurs (i.e., those not engaged in commercial photography) find this quickly learned and accomplished activity to be beyond gratifying.

  3. #23
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,408
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Simon thanks for this reply and I look forward to hearing about the tech dept's findings. Allegedly was a tongue in cheek use of the word but my sentiments would have been better expressed if I had said that I was attempting to take an impartial position and "sit on the fence" until the evidence was much clearer.

    For others interested in this matter, I have just done a quick search of APUG on the subject and roughly for every person claiming that there is an issue with PanF+ compared to other Ilford films there is one who has had no such issue. The numbers involved was small on both sides

    You learn a lot in a search, including now a healthy doubt on my part, based on your response, about those saying things such as "from Ilford sources" in this context.

    pentaxuser
    I stand corrected. Trusting to memory is rarely a good approach, certainly not in my case. I look forward to hearing the official word.

  4. #24
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,653
    Images
    10
    One thing: Mark, do you know or can you find out which developer was used by the lab? I am not aware of this issue with common commercial developer formulas, but there are some formulas out there (e.g. Ryuji Suzuki's DS-10) which warn of poor results with slow, fine grained films.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  5. #25
    DF
    DF is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    87
    I develop Pan in D-76 1:1. Results are fine.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sheffield, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    55
    Images
    6
    Thanks for your reply Simon, and everyone.

    I've had a look at dates and there can't have been more than a month and a half between exposure and development of the attached picture, though the film had been in the camera for at least a month before that. All of the frames show the same grubbiness, even the last one taken just before development. I'm not sure this is a simple latency issue as it affects all exposures, not just the old ones. Storing in the camera for too long? Crap development?

    I agree that developing films myself is the only way to be sure of what is going on, but I've found it best to send them off because [insert multiple reasons here, including time, chemicals going off, baby, time, baby, baby etc.]. Maybe next year...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Untitled-1.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	76.4 KB 
ID:	59844

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,964
    So the film had been in the camera for only two and a half months? Unless the camera was in the sun or otherwise exposed to a lot of heat for that period then I cannot see that time in camera is the cause.

    If two and a half months in a camera results in a problem like this then I think Simon Galley and his company have a real problem with PanF+ and I do not think they do for a moment.

    The problem lies elsewhere

    pentaxuser

  8. #28
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,270
    Images
    148
    I agree with Pentaxuser. I don't use Pan F very often but it does need careful exposure and development, by that I mean you need to do some tests to find the optimum EI and development time to give you the best results.

    I'd suggest sending your next Pan F films to Ilfords own lab for processing and do some bracketing to see which exposures give you the best results.

    Ian

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin