Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,535,007   Online: 1065
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Pan F problems?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sheffield, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    55
    Images
    6

    Pan F problems?

    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.

    Does anyone else have similar experiences or should I be asking more questions of the lab? They have said that this happens with (un?)reasonable frequency.

    Thanks,
    Mark

  2. #2
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    I'd start with the lab. My experiences with Pan F has been nothing short of exceptional quality and I have been dabbling with that film for about...ummm....7 years? If they are thin, sounds like a developer issue. Actually, patchy can be caused too by poor development procedure or spent/incorrectly mixed chemistry.
    K.S. Klain

  3. #3
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,220
    Images
    343
    Pan F is a beautiful film, nothing wrong with it at all, stick with it.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  4. #4
    Andre Noble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    220
    Hey MKII - the crucial thing about Pan F - which took me YEARS to learn, is that it has very poor latent image keeping properties.

    As long as you are aware of that and work within the film's poor latent image keeping timeline, then this is a great film.
    Andre Noble, Beverly Hills California http://andrenoble.com/

  5. #5
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    Is there a much longer delay between shooting and developing for some rolls than others? Pan F is well known for poor latent image keeping qualities. Many rolls will have faint edge markings for this reason. I've kept it a month or so with no apparent ill effects, but this film needs to be developed more promptly after exposure than most.

  6. #6
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,862
    Great minds think alike it seems.

  7. #7
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Thanks for bringing that up, guys. The longest I let an exposed roll of Pan F sit was about 3 months and it was thinner than expected, but still very usable in the darkroom.
    K.S. Klain

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,925
    I wonder what Ilford has to say about this alleged latent image issue with Pan F. I use "alleged" for quasi legal reasons as I don't think there is any incontrovertible proof to date.

    As others have said I seriously doubt that it misbehaves when being processed. I have used it only once when my ignorance of film in general was bliss and didn't see a problem when I processed it.

    Indeed if there was a proven issue on latent image you'd think that Ilford would have mentioned it. I can't be the only photographer not to process for several months so if I were ever to use Pan F again it would be helpful to know what the maximum time it can be left exposed but undeveloped.

    pentaxuser

  9. #9
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Correct. In my experience it could have been any number of things, but I have heard that explanation before so perhaps a test shall be performed...wonder if I have a roll lying about...
    K.S. Klain

  10. #10
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by MkII View Post
    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...
    Develop your own.

    I shoot Pan F+ and even if I could send it some place else, I wouldn't because this is one film that has to be developed "just right."
    Not to say that it's hard to develop but seemingly small changes in agitation, temperature or time can make a visible difference in the result. I just would not trust your average lab to understand that.
    (Unless it is a lab that has experience developing that film... No place around where I live has such experience.)

    Doing it yourself, you have more control over the process. If you want to push, pull or tweak the process.

    If mistakes are made you'll be able to figure out what the problem is. You won't have to worry about what somebody else did to screw up your film.
    (Because you'll be the one who screwed it up! )
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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