Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,682   Posts: 1,548,528   Online: 860
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Is PanF a higher contrast film by nature? For instance if Kodak 125PX has 7 zones, does PanF have 6 a bit sooner. Maybe only in Rodinal? Than I might indeed under develop and need to shoot for less contrast. It might be a small diference, I've used the 125PX so much that it is hard to properly judge a film that is very different.

  2. #12
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    I may have missed something here. Where does it say that Pan F has to be developed promptly? I don't recall seeing any direct specialist instructions issued by Ilford to the effect that is must be developed sooner than other films.
    One of the members on LFPF ran into this issue. His Pan-F rolls had almost no images on them, even with a 20 minute development time. I think that he waited a year or more to develop his film, as he exposed the film and then moved. (Personally, I've only used the film when I've developed it promptly, like less than a week later, so I never had that issue.)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    One of the members on LFPF ran into this issue. His Pan-F rolls had almost no images on them, even with a 20 minute development time. I think that he waited a year or more to develop his film, as he exposed the film and then moved. (Personally, I've only used the film when I've developed it promptly, like less than a week later, so I never had that issue.)
    You seem to have a healthy curiosity, how can he wait for a year to see his pictures?! I developed them between 10 and 20 hours after exposure. (They expire June 2014)

  4. #14
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Ilford 'PanF plus' reaction to flash light

    A rep another forum post that was FROMilford says there is a latent image loss issue with Pan F and it should be developed within 3 months of exposure.

    The two "nude" shots I have in my gallery were shot on pan f+ with studio (Profoto) strobes and soft boxes.

    The earlier (butt shot) was developed, immediately, the latter shot was developed roughly 3 months later, however I DID keep the rolls in the fridge in between.

    In contrast the PXP I shot with at EI 100 were slightly under exposed and I wasn't happy with the flat contrast.

    Both developed in Ilfsol 3 in the same time. (Except the first test roll (butt shot).

    So hope that's some helpful info.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #15
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Ilford 'PanF plus' reaction to flash light

    Also OP unless I'm blind, I can't find any examples, can you show what you mean?

    Or direct us to an image like I have?

    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #16
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Quinten View Post
    You seem to have a healthy curiosity, how can he wait for a year to see his pictures?! I developed them between 10 and 20 hours after exposure. (They expire June 2014)
    The fellow said that he moved, and thus wasn't able to get to them immediately. I think it was from Taiwan to Illinois, but I'm not sure. He didn't know about the latent image problem with Pan-F. IIRC, the problem is unique to Pan-F, and the other Ilford films don't have that problem.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    @StoneNYC I've attached the example. It's hard to show the negatives as they are in a digital image, so I hope it is of any value

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinten View Post
    Is PanF a higher contrast film by nature? For instance if Kodak 125PX has 7 zones, does PanF have 6 a bit sooner. Maybe only in Rodinal? Than I might indeed under develop and need to shoot for less contrast. It might be a small diference, I've used the 125PX so much that it is hard to properly judge a film that is very different.
    Is it true that Rodinal in high concentrations (1+25) creates higher contrast negatives even if they are slightly underdeveloped? I'll put it to the test but maybe someone has experience with this.
    I a very nice pm I was told ASA 50 films might have a slightly higher contrast anyway.

    So the solutions seems rating PanF at ASA 25 to get a denser negative and develop as I did. (If developing a bit longer in rodinal 1+50 does the trick, I'll let you know)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails eva37bkl.jpg  

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Also OP unless I'm blind, I can't find any examples, can you show what you mean?

    Or direct us to an image like I have?

    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    In the attached image above you can see the lack of detail in the highlights, this was no problem with Kodak 125PX. But you guys already gave me some things I should try that might get it right next time, thanks!

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,997
    OP you must do whatever you feel is appropriate if the neg and subsequent print(NB this is the real test of the neg) isn't what you want it to be but the scan if it's a true representation of the neg does show highlight detail in my opinion. I am basing this on the white dress where except for direct sunlight there appears to be all the highlight detail I'd expect in the light conditions. The two area where there is no detail is the hip area and the forehead but both areas have direct sun on them and become close to specular highlights.

    The shadow detail in such contrasty light appears pretty good to me as well

    pentaxuser

  10. #20
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225

    Ilford 'PanF plus' reaction to flash light

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinten View Post
    @StoneNYC I've attached the example. It's hard to show the negatives as they are in a digital image, so I hope it is of any value



    Is it true that Rodinal in high concentrations (1+25) creates higher contrast negatives even if they are slightly underdeveloped? I'll put it to the test but maybe someone has experience with this.
    I a very nice pm I was told ASA 50 films might have a slightly higher contrast anyway.

    So the solutions seems rating PanF at ASA 25 to get a denser negative and develop as I did. (If developing a bit longer in rodinal 1+50 does the trick, I'll let you know)
    I would like to see an example on a different film.

    To me it just looks like you don't have enough light in the right spots but I wouldn't blame the film, I would say you should have given a SLIGHT diffusion, that the light is hitting her face "too fast" or the lamp is too close. I've never had an issue like that one, I see what you mean but I would blame the lighting first, it's not terrible but I feel like her skin is super dark and doesn't match what her complexion should be. This happens to me a a combination of if the light source is too close to the subject and the WS is too high. What brand of head/pack do you use? And what reflector did you have on?


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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