Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,553   Online: 1068
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,172
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by jdef
    I find Pan F+ an excellent film for portraiture. With appropriate handling, I get creamy, super-smooth skin tones.
    It's as good a film as has ever been made by anyone. What a shame that they don't make it in sheet film.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    It's as good a film as has ever been made by anyone. What a shame that they don't make it in sheet film.
    I can think of a good reason it's not made in sheet film sizes. It's too darned slow! Don't get me wrong. I really like this film. You can make some really nice images with it from 35mm and medium format negatives, but for large format it would be overkill. I doubt that you'd be able to to notice a difference in apparent grain on same sized prints viewed at normal distances between a print made from a PanF+ negative vs. the same scene photographed on something faster like FP4+.

    Consider that with large format cameras, typical lens aperture settings are usually in the f/16 to f/32 range and sometimes even smaller. On a clear bright day that will give you shutter speeds anywhere from 1/30 to 1/8 second. So far everything is cool and there is no reciprocity failure. OK, so now the light changes and you are down a couple of stops and you need slower shutter speeds. According to Ilford, reciprocity failure for this film starts to rear its ugly head at anything slower than 1/2 second. "So what," you say, I'll just extend my exposure times even more to compensate. But that's not the end of the story. To compensate for increased contrast, you have to cut back your development time, lowering your effective film speed even more meaning you need to add more exposure... and so it goes.

    To be fair, Ilford makes no mention of adjusting development times for extra long exposures in their technical publication for PanF+. Kodak does mention the technique for Plus-X and Tri-X though not for the TMax line of films. PanF+ is a conventional grain film with reciprocity failure characteristics not all that different Plus-X and I'd be surprised if you didn't need to make the same sort of adjustment for PanF+.

    You can look this stuff up for yourself. The Ilford document for PanF+ is here:
    http://www.ilford.com/html/us_englis...Pan_F_Plus.pdf
    Kodaks document for Plus-X is here:
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4018/f4018.pdf

  3. #13
    mmcclellan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan (USA)
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    463
    I've been using Pan F with Rodinal 1:50 for years and think it's probably the best combo there is for 35mm. Great stuff! Actually, I'm using the "old" Rodinal -- J&C's R09 developer. Either way, the results are superb. However, I rate the film at EI 25, not 50 and in so doing have great shadows and highlights, smooth gradations, invisible grain, etc.

    Usually bulk films have a much higher fb+f, so that may affect the final results, but I cannot speak from experience on Pan F in bulk. IN any case, Pan F and Rodinal is a killer combo that can't be beat -- just be sure to test for film speed and Zone VIII density to get the right time.
    Michael McClellan
    Documentary Photographer
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    http://www.MichaelMcClellan.com

  4. #14
    abeku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    426
    Images
    53
    It was Pan F that got me on the hook when I started out making prints in the early eighties. I exposed it at iso 32 and developed it in Perceptol (1+3, 17 minutes at 20C). I still go back to those negatives and enjoy the great quality of them.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by mmcclellan
    Usually bulk films have a much higher fb+f
    I have never heard this before. Does anyone have any data on this?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano
    I can think of a good reason it's not made in sheet film sizes. It's too darned slow!

    Hi Frank, I hear what your're saying, but doesn't Efke make their ISO 25 film in sheets? Perhaps there just isn't room in the market for more than one.
    Last edited by David A. Goldfarb; 09-09-2005 at 03:40 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: open quote tag

  7. #17
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,215
    Images
    20
    Slow, fine grained traditional films in Rodinal are a classic combination. Definitely worth giving it a go, and seeing how you like it.

    I'd try PanF+ in sheet sizes if it existed. I'm not sure I like the spectral response of Efke 25, but I do like the look of PanF+. In the studio with strobes, slow can be a good thing, and fast can be a problem ("can we gel down those lights three stops?").
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    David:

    Good point, and one that I didn't think of.

  9. #19
    gnashings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,376
    Images
    17
    Another vote for Rodinal 1:50, with moderate agitation (I swirled my Paterson tank like a glass of ice cubes for 10 seconds every minute). And yes, I used it for portraits - lovely skin tones - creamy smooth yet sharp. But you have to be careful about skin blemishes - but I would say, you really always do, unless you think a Delta 3200 priotrait is a good thing!

  10. #20
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    I choose slow films for LF for their contrast characteristics. I have always had trouble with low SBR images with fast film. My negs fall flat and the scene needs too much added contrast. I always carry some FP4 with my view camera for images that will need expansion. And likewise I always carry LF TRI-X for scenes that have SBR of 7 or greater.

    I used my last roll of Pan F last year on a client who wanted 16x20 portraits of himself and his wife. I shot it in 6x6 and developed them in MicrodolX. The tonality at 16x20 was very nice. Very sharp as well with very little grain ... all things considered. I have stayed with FP4 at EI 80 since then. It does for me what Pan F did and I can keep my familiarity between LF and MF emulsions.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

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