Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,245   Online: 727
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1
    Ambar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    104

    Pan F+ Problem.. Came out almost clear!

    I shot a roll of 135 Pan F+ and got abysmal/unusable results.
    The negatives came out thin as can be with most shots simply nonexistent and others had nothing but the most extreme highlights.
    Here's what I did: I processed the film by itself in Adox Adonal (Rodinal) in 1+50 for 11min at 20ºC as per MDC. Solution was 245ml water + 5ml adonal. Plain water stop and Fix with Ilford Rapid fixer.
    Now I know for a fact that this was processed right, as in, I did it with a lot of care and attention. It was cooked for 11min, the temp was 20ºC, there was 5ml of adonal in there.
    The fact that the ENTIRE film was bad even though there were many different scenes and lighting conditions in there, makes me rule out the camera and it's meter. I've also taken other pictures with it since and those worked out wonderfully.

    So my suspects are the following:
    5ml of Adonal is simply below the minimum necessary to process a roll? or..
    I did keep the roll of Pan F+ on my desk for a couple of months at room temp before processing it. This has never been an issue before but I suspect that this was the first time it happened with Pan F+ (I normally shoot Tri-X). (I live in Rio de Janeiro so by room temp one should read anything between 24º-29º).
    I've read around that Pan F+ has some latent image keeping problems. Could this be it?
    BTW, there were absolutely NO signs of any number markings left on the roll. Totally clear edges.

    Does anybody have any other ideas?

  2. #2
    ozphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,119
    Images
    1
    No edge/number markings usually means fixed first - are you sure you didn't fix first by mistake?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,104
    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    655
    How dense is the leader?
    If it has a little density, then the problem could be dead developer. (Although Rodinal is reputed to keep forever)

    Good luck,

    Mark Overton

  5. #5
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    526
    The first few rolls of Pan F were also the first rolls of black and white that I have ever shot (earlier this year). For me it produced some really thin negatives. I'm able to scan them easily enough but they are tough to print in the darkroom. I attribute my problems mostly to inexperience and underexposure. I've been using ID-11 at Ilford's recommended times for 1+1.

    Lately I've been using Ilford Delta 400 and that has been coming out really well. I've also been getting better with exposure and have gotten some nice negatives out of it. So, I have one last roll of Pan F that I just loaded in my camera, I'm going to try rating it at ISO 32 and see how that goes.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,349
    Images
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Ambar View Post
    So my suspects are the following:
    5ml of Adonal is simply below the minimum necessary to process a roll? or..
    I have read that the minimum amount of Adonal, Rodinal etc should be 10ml per roll. In recent times I have done a lot of Pan F 120 in Rodinal 1+50 and I use 12ml in 600 water in a two roll Paterson tank. I would do exactly the same if it was one roll of 35mm. I process for about 13 minutes and get good density.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    681
    Images
    15
    Depending on what You are after You can use down to 2.5ml Rodinal, I have done it several times with various films and/or contrast scenes.
    5ml is supposedly safety precaution if You don't know what You are doing or how Your temps, inversion cycle should go.

    Ilford Pan F+ works great with Rodinal, most folks should do their own tests for times and dilutions.
    imho, 1+50 for 12 minutes, 1 slow inversion every 30 sec or 2 slow inversions every minute is the bare minimum, except when You shot it @25 and normally You should for the most scenes.
    I usually give 16min for 1+50, You can leave it for 20 min if You reduce the inversions.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    681
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ambar View Post
    ..
    I did keep the roll of Pan F+ on my desk for a couple of months at room temp before processing it. This has never been an issue before but I suspect that this was the first time it happened with Pan F+ (I normally shoot Tri-X). (I live in Rio de Janeiro so by room temp one should read anything between 24º-29º).
    I've read around that Pan F+ has some latent image keeping problems. Could this be it?
    BTW, there were absolutely NO signs of any number markings left on the roll. Totally clear edges.

    Does anybody have any other ideas?
    Make a note that storing photographic materials @ max 25°C, max RH 60% should cut it for up to 1 month.
    That is, if there are no harmful gases present in the storage area and there are reasonable radiation levels - 0,129 ~ 1,29 × 10−4 C/kg
    Kodak go a bit further than the ISO standard in one of their docs and if my memory is correct, they say You should be OK if film is processed between 6 to 24 hours after exposure.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    27
    Ambar, did you mix the developer and used it right away, or did you let the solution sit for some time (a couple of hours)?
    It is true that the Rodinal concentrate lasts pretty much forever, but the diluted solution lasts only a few hours before it goes bad.

    I remember a post where a member was getting very thin negatives with Rodinal, because he kept the diluted solution for too long. I can not remember if that post was here on APUG or in some other forum...

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    228
    I really love Pan F, have shot many rolls over the years. I've become quite consistent with my resulting prints.
    Still, last year I had exactly the same problem with a single roll of 35mm - almost clear. Absolutely no idea why, could never figure it out.

    Pan F is reputed to not keep for very long after exposure (latent image stability), though up to 3 months have not caused me any particular problems.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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