Pan F problems?

[pentaxuser]

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

[ROL]

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.

[erikg]

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.

[Rudeofus]

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.

[DF]

I develop Pan in D-76 1:1. Results are fine.

[MkII]

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...

[pentaxuser]

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

[Ian Grant]

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