Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,300   Posts: 1,535,901   Online: 945
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11
    ozphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,116
    Images
    1
    Any chance these were from a bad batch? I've never used Pan F, so would be interesting to know.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    657
    Images
    15
    This might help, a post from another thread last week, so sooner or later...

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
    Dear MK II et al,

    Where do we start?

    Latent image stability, a real issue on papers and films, both colour and monochrome some are better than others but by and large they are all amazingly stable especially when you consider the LI performance of 50 years ago. If we talk about PAN F + when the ( all new ) plus emulsions were introduced, one major improvement was latent image stability. I should know, but I don't where PAN F + comes in LI performance compared to our other film emulsions but I will speak to our technical service, they will advise me and I will let you know in the next day or so.

    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 :
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/1...ml#post1420048

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    720
    I have not admittedly used a lot of Pan F in the past few years but I never ever had a problem such as you describe except when I inadvertently left the ISO setting on a non DX camera to 125 and not reset it to 50 This to me has all the hall marks of simple under exposure.

    Pan F has been around as long as I have been involved with photography and that is a lonnnnng time. It is in my experience so stable if it were made from concrete you could moor a boat to it.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,773
    Are you sure that the film was correctly exposed? Since you shoot Tri-X did you reset the film speed dial on the camera? Failure to do so would mean an under exposure of 3 stops. Under exposure looks a lot like under development. Also you don't mention any agitation.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,931
    You might have faint edge markings but no edge markings, as in fixer first and yet still some faint images? I don't see this as possible. The light conditions for the shots may have been different but the common element is the meter and presumably the film speed setting to name but two

    A problem with either could give you what you describe except of course no edge markings. Have a very close look at the edges. If there is an image of any kind I suspect there are edge markings

    Ilford are having a hard time with PanF+ recently on APUG. I hear on the grapevine that Simon Galley threatened the whole PanF+ production line with the firing squad if there was one more complaint.

    In case he has seen this latest thread can I ask that you consider if there might be any explanation to the problem other than defective Pan F film.

    It is right that Simon takes Ilford quality very seriously but the legal authorities will take a dim view if he actually does use the firing squad when there might be nothing wrong with the film

    pentaxuser

  6. #16
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,865
    Images
    32
    Sounds to me as though the OP grossly underexposed the film, and under developed a bit as well.Pay close attention to the film speed dial and double check developing times. Also, make danged sure of your developing temperture. It is possible to seriously under develope if your thermometer is off by a couple of degrees.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    Pan F+ Problem.. Came out almost clear!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick A View Post
    Sounds to me as though the OP grossly underexposed the film, and under developed a bit as well.Pay close attention to the film speed dial and double check developing times. Also, make danged sure of your developing temperture. It is possible to seriously under develope if your thermometer is off by a couple of degrees.
    I don't know, with pan F+ I just develop at room temp, and that goes from 66° to 72° depending on time of day and if the wood stove is burning and I've never had much deviation with B&W films, especially not almost blank film, certainly E-6 is more sensitive and I am extremely specific with temps for that. Perhaps the camera shutter is bad?


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    589
    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    I had a very unpleasant experience with five rolls of Pan-F+ that I shot in 2008. I waited almost a year (!) to develop them, in 2009. The negatives were pitifully thin, just like you describe (although they did have some edge print on them). I did the five rolls individually, not as a batch, and I changed things each time to try and improve matters. Nothing worked. At the time, I attributed the issue to incorrectly diluting the developer (Ilfosol-S or Ilfosol-3, can't remember which, but I had never used it before). But after reading your description, maybe I just waited too long. I've been working on my developing technique a lot over the past three years and I have a 100' roll of Pan-F+ in the freezer, daring me to try again.
    Odd: My experience with PanF Plus flies in the face of the experience of several others here re "alleged latent image decay." Having recently moved (20 October), I discovered, when emptying out the deep-freeze several days beforehand, several rolls (120) of my beloved PanF Plus awaiting development. Two weekends after settling into my new digs, I set up my "darkroom"
    (aka the guest bathroom) and began playing catchup. Developed in the usual Perceptol, etc. I found no issues at all. Perhaps the issue for some is post-shoot storage? In those instances when I cannot process immediately (i.e. within a week or so of shooting) I do as follows: double zip-lock bag the film, making sure to remove excess air, then place the bags of unprocessed film inside a suitably sized Tupperware container. To date, I have never had any issues. BTW: the film in question was shot in Banff National Park, in May and June of the year past...

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    Pan F+ Problem.. Came out almost clear!

    Quote Originally Posted by BradleyK View Post
    Odd: My experience with PanF Plus flies in the face of the experience of several others here re "alleged latent image decay." Having recently moved (20 October), I discovered, when emptying out the deep-freeze several days beforehand, several rolls (120) of my beloved PanF Plus awaiting development. Two weekends after settling into my new digs, I set up my "darkroom"
    (aka the guest bathroom) and began playing catchup. Developed in the usual Perceptol, etc. I found no issues at all. Perhaps the issue for some is post-shoot storage? In those instances when I cannot process immediately (i.e. within a week or so of shooting) I do as follows: double zip-lock bag the film, making sure to remove excess air, then place the bags of unprocessed film inside a suitably sized Tupperware container. To date, I have never had any issues. BTW: the film in question was shot in Banff National Park, in May and June of the year past...
    I'm as anal with my unexposed film, but only store exposed rolls open (no bag or Tupperware) on the shelf, but the shelf of the fridge, I think storing unexposed rolls out in the open at room temp or above is just inviting trouble...


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,241
    Images
    225

    Pan F+ Problem.. Came out almost clear!

    Sorry I meant EXPOSED rolls..


    ~Stone

    The Important Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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