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: 1,544,244   Online: 686
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,277
    Images
    21

    Pan F+ times in HC-110

    I just developed my first roll of Pan F+ in HC-110, using a time from the MDC: dilution E, 5 1/2 minutes at 20 C. Box speed. The results look thin; not totally unusable, but probably off by a stop or more, and on most frames the highlights don't really look as dense as I'd like. There are a couple of frames where the light was especially contrasty, and in those frames the densest highlights look like a good black, so I don't think the developer was incapable of getting there, but the edge markings are decidedly thin---all in all, it just looks underdeveloped.

    It's always possible that I was having a bad exposure day, but the meter in that camera has always been an oracle, and that wouldn't explain the edge markings. The batch of developer has been performing fine, I'm using distilled water as usual, etc. Have others found that the MDC times are short, and does anyone have known good times for this combination---maybe with dilution H, to stretch out the time a little bit?

    (If there are other developers that are OMG THE GREATEST THING EVER with this film, I'm sure people will let me know, but my current options are limited to HC-110, PC-TEA, Diafine, and Caffenol, and I'm not really interested in expanding that set at this time.)

    Thanks.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  2. #2

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    506
    I think PanF+ is just an outstanding film period! It's a little tricky in the contrast department, at least for me anyway, but I've found a couple of solutions that seem to help me with taming it a little. My two favorite developers for PanF+ are Ilford Perceptol diluted 1:3 and Rodinal diluted 1:100 semi-stand for 50 minutes with a total of two inversions, one at 20min. at the other at 40min.. With the Rodinal I do a 45 sec. series of gentle rolls and inversions then rap the tank. Works very well with taming highlights. I rate it at ISO/ASA 32. Now, I do believe it should also work very well in a diluted HC-110 also, but I've never used it. JohnW

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,834
    Quote Originally Posted by JW PHOTO View Post
    It's a little tricky in the contrast department, ... I rate it at ISO/ASA 32. Now, I do believe it should also work very well in a diluted HC-110 also, but I've never used it. JohnW
    I agree, Pan-F+ seems to build contrast very quickly. To compensate I do as John does and overexpose it (EI 32) and reduce the recommend development times a bit. I also use a soft working developer D-23 1+1.
    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

  4. #4
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,406
    I rate this film at 32. I can't help you with your developers of choice but I do know this film can't tolerate under exposure, you have to meter carefully. Ignore the edge markings they are almost always very light on Pan-f.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    506
    I should have said, I've never used HC-110 on PanF+, but cut my teeth using HC-110 Dil. B with 35mm Kodak Tri-X many moons ago. Also, some here, myself included, have had latent image stability problems with PanF+ so don't let the exposed PanF+ set around very long before you process it. It's a funny film this way since I've used very old and not really properly stored PanF (before the +) and it seemed fine. Well, maybe a tad slow, but still very useable, but once exposed it doesn't seem to hold up as well. That's just my experience anyway. Still a very good film with excellent mid-tones. JohnW

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,277
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by erikg View Post
    Ignore the edge markings they are almost always very light on Pan-f.
    Thanks, that's very helpful to know. In that case it seems more believable that underexposure was involved.

    For those downrating this film, are you using the recommended dev times for box speed? I'm trying to find something to fill the void left by Efke 25, so I don't mind the slower speed in principle.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,820
    try 25 ISO
    read the PDF datasheet
    http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=5
    if the sun is out and you have not burnt highlights you are underexposing.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    715
    Ilfosol-3 gave me absolutely gorgeous results.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    Thanks, that's very helpful to know. In that case it seems more believable that underexposure was involved.

    For those downrating this film, are you using the recommended dev times for box speed? I'm trying to find something to fill the void left by Efke 25, so I don't mind the slower speed in principle.

    -NT
    You can use the recommended times as a starting point and you might just hit it right on the first try. When I try something new, without going through a series of test, I'll usually error on the lite side. I find that if I develop my new roll/developer about 10% less than recommended I am more apt to be close. I find it easier to build contrast by guessing then it is to start out the other way with to much contrast and try to scale back my time/agitation scheme. That's just me of course and you might find it easier the other way around. The developers you list should be fine, but I only have used one of yours with PanF+ and that's Diafine. It worked just fine, but for me it wasn't as nice as Rodinal or Perceptol. Diafine is super with Tri-X and not bad with even Fuji Acros, but is just average for some other films I tried in it. Diafine does seem to help hold the highlights, but sometimes the mid-tones look different in it. I always keep it on the shelf in the darkroom 'cause it's really nice when you need it. You just might find you like the combo Diafine/PanF+? JohnW



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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