out of the loop!
Whoa there...!! David - since when did they stop making it in 4x5??
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
Rodinal and Pan F+ is a great combo, and it can give you different results. It needs some getting-used-to, but the result you will get after some experiments with it is worth it all.
I do the film in 1+50 and 1+100.
Originally Posted by jdef
I don't understand what you mean when you predict "blocked highlights".
Ansel Adams used the term to describe the effect of a shoulder that falls low enough on the curve to give important high values sub-proportional densities. In other words, the film no longer separates Zones VII, VIII, and IX.
I also see the term "blocked highlights" used to describe the opposite condition, a film with clear separation of high zones ( whether the film / developer combination has a straight line through the high values, or an upswept curve ). The problem usually described in that case is not that film is deficient, but the scale of the scene cannot be printed by the photographer.
The term "Blocked Highlights" really describes two different effects. This is important because there are different remedies to the result.
I found an interesting case a few years ago, learning to use Pan F with FX-1. When I arrived at a development time that gave normal low and mid tone densities at EI 50, my high values ran too high, as a result of a slightly upswept curve.
By reducing the agitation from 5 seconds every minute to 5 seconds every 5th minute, and increasing the development time, a long straight line through the high values occured.
By further increasing the development time, and reducing the agitation to 5 seconds every 15 minutes, a shoulder was introduced.
Similar results occured using Rodinal ( independent of dilution). Similar results occured with TMX and TMY with either developer.
It has, therefore, been my experience that what happens in the highlights of a negative has more to do with HOW the film is handled in the developer than perceived (or legendary) characteristics of a film or developer. By using terms like "Blocked Highlights, which hold different meanings for different photographers, we often confuse issues which are otherwise capable of easy comprehension.
Pan F is a film that is very sensitive to agitation. It will respond in several common developers with either a straight line through the highlights, an upswept curve, or a slight shoulder. I think this accounts for why it is perceived differently by many photographers.
And this is why I asked how you were using the term "blocked highlights". Thanks.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Not for some time. If you check the Ilford literature, their July 2004 technical data sheet for PanF+ only lists 35mm and 120. I suppose they figured anyone who wanted a fine grain sheet film from Ilford would use Delta 100, even though they are completely different films in terms of tonality.
Originally Posted by Sparky
I've had, for me, great results using Pan-F+ for portraits.
This one, for example:
Unfortunately, I don't know how this shot was processed since it dates from when I was still getting my developing done in a lab.
Another slow fine-grained film that I have developed myself is Maco Ort25c.
This shot was done that way:
That particularly shot the highlights aren't perfect but the contrast seems tamed and the skin tones aren't bad considering it's orthochromatic.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)