Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,353   Online: 823
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77
  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,157
    Images
    46
    I agree with Thomas Bertilsson to expose it at EI 25.

    I don't know if anyone else does this but I went to the Wikipedia page for DX codes and scraped and taped the speed code of a roll to make it a different speed. That worked great and I didn't have to worry about the override. It was a pretty easy job.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John Wiegerink View Post
    I should have added that I would look into the film canister or DX code contacts in the camera(if it has them) as a possible cause. Many cameras will default to ISO/ASA 100 if there is no DX code on the canister. My speed for PanF in Perceptol 1+3 is ISO 32 and ISO 50 is max, but useable. I personally think DX coding was a step backwards in cameras, but that's just me and I'm from the old school anyway. JohnW
    Whoops! I didn't read fully again and see you have DX coding and have checked it. Tom is right on slight over exposurefor PanF. You're using Perceptol1+1, which isn't as "speedy" as 1+3 and if the camera defaulted to ISO 100 you would then be well over a stop less. Perceptol stock is, for me anyway, about a stop slower on box speed to begin with, but if you dilute and lengthen times you can get some of that back.

  3. #13
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,134
    I recently shot and processed some PanF that someone gave me. I found I needed to almost double the indicated development times. Also, even at an exposure index of one-half box speed, the shadow detail was weak.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I agree with Thomas Bertilsson to expose it at EI 25.

    I don't know if anyone else does this but I went to the Wikipedia page for DX codes and scraped and taped the speed code of a roll to make it a different speed. That worked great and I didn't have to worry about the override. It was a pretty easy job.
    Yup, but it's still a pain in the butt. Of course it's the only way to have control. It's along way from the +2 to -2 ASA dials on the ancient 35mm cameras. Ahhhh, progress! Porters Camera Store used to sell DX code stickers, which made life a little easier.

  5. #15
    hdeyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Canada and Southern France
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    271
    Yup. I exposed a roll at 25, but it took about six months to finish it, and then it sat for a month before I developed it, and then it came out thin enough to be almost useless.
    I did find a solution, though.
    Stick to FP4+.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I recently shot and processed some PanF that someone gave me. I found I needed to almost double the indicated development times. Also, even at an exposure index of one-half box speed, the shadow detail was weak.
    The old PanF I bought and used was cold stored and really pretty good. This stuff was so old it predated the + by about four years and was just plain PanF.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,034
    I've had thin negatives several times, PanF just one of the many. I find that I need to be careful when working with diluted developer or old developer. I use Xtol exclusively. Lately I've been using it fresh, 1+1, and then being a bit generous with dev time and temp. Developing at 72 degrees Fahrenheit, 10 minutes, for 400 speed Tmax is my normal Summer trick. I've been happy with the results.
    In life you only get one great dog, one great car, and one great woman. Pet the dog. Drive the car. Make love to the woman. Don't mix them up.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfeye View Post
    I've had thin negatives several times, PanF just one of the many. I find that I need to be careful when working with diluted developer or old developer. I use Xtol exclusively. Lately I've been using it fresh, 1+1, and then being a bit generous with dev time and temp. Developing at 72 degrees Fahrenheit, 10 minutes, for 400 speed Tmax is my normal Summer trick. I've been happy with the results.
    Yes, I forgot to add that when I develop PanF 120 using Perceptol 1+3 I always use a two reel tank with one roll of film. That way I know I have enough developing agent per sq. in. of film and the Perceptol won't poop out on me.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,876
    It was a fresh film and was shot between April and July. It is now the beginning of Sept so some frames only had to retain their latent image for maybe 5-6 weeks. The OP seems to be saying that the film is so thin as to be almost blank. If the latent image problem of PanF is that bad and somehow I doubt this, then one wonders why it doesn't come with a very clear warning from Ilford that no more than say 3 weeks should elapse between the earliest exposed frame and development.

    His development time in the Ilford specs is covered by EI 50. Would a one stop underexposure result in what the OP describes to us? Again I doubt it

    It sounds as if the tank holds 500ml and he has filled it with 300ml but except during an inversion the film on the bottom reel should be covered with developer and even during inversion of a second or so will still have some developer on the film's surface.Besides which, if it was too little developer which failed to cover all of the bottom reel then wouldn't we have a portion of each frame properly or nearly properly developed and the rest blank?

    I still cannot make it add up to a problem of the magnitude described, given what he has done

    pentaxuser

  10. #20
    mr rusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    lancashire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    610
    Images
    95
    My experience with Pan-F which I use in 120 only is it is a nice slow film with really fine grain. I rate at 25, develop in perceptol 1+1 at the time given by Ilford for 25. Works fine for me. Agree the edge markings are quite faint.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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