Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,524   Posts: 1,543,840   Online: 887
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337

    Ilford 'PanF plus' reaction to flash light

    Does PanF+ need a special treatment when used with flash?

    With constant light conditions I get nice looking PanF negatives in rodinal 1+25, deep/rich blacks for the highlights and plenty of detail in the transparent parts of the negative.

    With the same treatment, only now with flashed exposures the negatives seem a little to transparant with little contrast in them. At first glance the negs looked underdeveloped, but looking at the prints I am reluctant to go for longer development times since the contrast actually feels a bit higher than expected. (I went to a paper with less contrast and the darkroom exposure times are about 25%/30% shorter with the flashed pictures.) I also suspect I am loosing highlight detail.

    Since I don't have this problem with other films (the late Kodak125PX, or FP4) I ask the, usually wiser than me, men of APUG if PanF+ needs a special treatment with the super short light bursts of a flash light?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    721
    Bear in mind flash is a far more contrast source of light than natural sunlight (In most cases) which is where a problem may lie. However it looks by your description that your flash source may be a little optimistic about the level of light output. Was your flash controlled by the camera, by the flashgun or by using a meter? Any of these could be giving a wrong estimation of the requirements for the film. You could try rating the Pan F Film at 25 ISO and see what the results are like then.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    VT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    576
    Images
    1
    PanF needs prompt development, any chance you've waited a bit to run this roll?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    721
    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.

    It says that on most film packs to develop promptly but that is an open argument with no time element, but to be quite honest I have never bothered with it in the 50 odd years I have been involved with photography. Being a slow emulsion, Ilford Pan F is probably more stable than say Tri X or HP5. Less susceptible to ambient temperiture fluctuations and any exterior radiation that may affect all film after a while.

    I have often used Pan F both the old and the newer Pan F plus and not been able to develop them for several days if not weeks when I am away. I personally feel that this develop 'promptly issue is largely an urban myth.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,962
    So we have a film that needs development very promptly after exposure and gives a problem with flash. Ditch this film's production is what I say Simon Galley

    Seriously as per the loss of latent image problem I have never heard of problems peculiar to flash either.

    I don't know what the cause of the OP's problem is but I very much doubt an inherent flash issue with Pan F compared to other films

    I think the OP needs to be steered towards other likely causes

    pentaxuser

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eastern Kansas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    278
    Images
    1
    I can say from experience that I have developed Pan F 6 months after the images were taken and got superb results. On the other hand, last month I found a roll of exposed Pan F that contained pictures made over a period of time from 14 months prior to 6 months prior. That roll had serious problems. This didn't make sense to me since some of the images were only 6 months old and I had previously been successful at developing Pan F that old. What I don't know is how fresh that roll of film was when the pictures were taken. It's possible that it was near or past the use date on the box.

    Dave

  7. #7
    Matthew Wagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandiacre, Nottinghamshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    Gotta admit, I had a similar problem with my negs when I used Pan f as well with flash.

    My case I used Bowens 500's in softboxes and metered for the flash as I have a thousand times before. But devving it they came out just like the OP. When I've devved using with natural light, its one of my favourite films. I gotta admit after using the 3 rolls I did at the shoot in the studio I've been turned off using Pan F in a studio setting.

    I should add that I shot digital alongside the Pan F and that was perfectly exposed, I used that method as I wanted to be sure my settings were right and not just blindly following the meter.
    Last edited by Matthew Wagg; 12-28-2012 at 06:11 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: more info added

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    544
    It sounds like underexposure to me - do the edge numbers look properly developed in comparison with the well-exposed negs? Are you using filters and forgetting to compensate? You could open up the aperture by half a stop to one stop when using flash, and check that your flash meter is giving accurate readings before blaming the film.
    testing...

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by kevs View Post
    It sounds like underexposure to me - do the edge numbers look properly developed in comparison with the well-exposed negs? Are you using filters and forgetting to compensate? You could open up the aperture by half a stop to one stop when using flash, and check that your flash meter is giving accurate readings before blaming the film.
    It is not blaming the film per se, more a question of how to use it with flash. Opening the aperture half or one stop, you mean it works better at 25? I've used some APX100 and 125PX (both exposed at 100) during the same shoot, they are spot one. The panf 50 (exposed at 50) just doesn't give the same results that's why I presume I am doing something wrong in the development stage. And yes the numbers could be a bit darker, but compared to the other films I mention the panf numbers seem a little slim so they may look less dark anyway...

    Puzzled

    But it's great film otherwise so I am not giving up on it!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by BMbikerider View Post
    Bear in mind flash is a far more contrast source of light than natural sunlight (In most cases) which is where a problem may lie. However it looks by your description that your flash source may be a little optimistic about the level of light output. Was your flash controlled by the camera, by the flashgun or by using a meter? Any of these could be giving a wrong estimation of the requirements for the film. You could try rating the Pan F Film at 25 ISO and see what the results are like then.
    I agree, reading your post and the other posts I'll try rating it at 25 for flash. (I am aware of the contrast from the light sources, I shot the same light with other film too, I really ment the contrast in the film, if I say that correctly )

    PS I used a combination of bowens 750W and a 1000W profoto head, a sekonic l-508 lightmeter, no issue with other films, (films I am very much used to)

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