Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,909   Posts: 1,584,661   Online: 849
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Stoo Batchelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,237
    Images
    42
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    For the Pan-F, I'd go ID-11. This was the standard pushing dev years ago. You should be able to find a time on the MDC.
    Thanks Jim

    There is nothing on the MDC for Pan-f rated at 100 in ID11, though your suggestion regarding Thorntons two bath has got my mind thinking that way. Especially as I could control contrast with the adjustment of bath 'B' I am still at the testing stage with this developer though.


    As another poster has said it seems that Xtol is the most versatile developer for Pan F. There's an amazing range of speeds quoted - way beyond the 100 that the OP used it at.

    pentaxuser
    P.U

    Very interesting. It is allways good to go for something that is tried and tested. Thanks for your input.

    That does look very interesting

    Where did you go in Cornwall by the way ? Lousy weather down here lately.

    Bill
    Hi Bill

    I started off in Portwrinkle, had a very bad experience there with the B+B. Booked out of there after one night and moved on. I went to Seaton, Looe and Polperro before continuing my Journey to St Just. It was after seeing some of Mark Burley's photos of Portwrinkle and yours of Porth Nanven that spurred me on to make the trip. I was greeted by a Sea mist at Porth Nanven, though still managed to make a few images that day. I then moved on to Cape Cornwall and then an evening meal back in St Just. I then bedded down for the night in Porth Nanven. That was spookey. It was facinating to watch nature at its finest that night. The waves were real monsters. You could hear them rocks moving about like snooker balls! I was rewarded with a fine morning and I followed the tide out.

    My journey ended up on the Lizard at Kinance Cove. Very beautifull. The whole trip was the hardest I have ever had to work to make a photograph. On more than one occasion I was hit by waves that come up to my waste. I am sure someone up there was having a laugh with me! There was a few occasions that I was seriously asking myself 'WHY?'

    Thanks again All

    Best

    Stoo
    _____________________________________________

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    105
    Images
    14
    Because I have done this too many times myself with images I really wanted to salvage, I recommend a procedure I have tried with success. I would take another roll of Pan F, go either outdoors or indoors, whichever is more like the images you want to give your best shot at saving, find a subject that has some similarities, like foilage, rocks, etc., and shoot at a time of day or in similar light conditions in which you took those photos you want to save. Then shoot the entire roll at the EI of 100, if that is what you shot originally, all of the same sujbect, just fire off the whole roll, don't change anything between shots. Then cut the roll into 3 or more pieces in the darkroom and load each part of the roll into a separate developing tank.

    Start with ID 11 at the recommended development time for an EI of 50, see what those negatives look like after they are dry, and if you need more development, add 2 minutes or so to the next few frames. That way you have at least 3 chances of getting something usable that would probably work on the original images you want to save. I would add, if you really want to be as sure as possible, try printing those test images before you make up your mind just by looking at the negatives, don't stop developing the second or third piece if the first piece of the roll looks good. I say that because I have tried processing film in a way that was different than my normal procedure and the negatives that looked good to me didn't always print the way I expected. Also, even if you do find the first set of negatives works well, if you go ahead and develop the other pieces of film at different times and record the information, you may be able to use it in the future.

    Don't know about the other film or the other developers. But I would say that a situation like this may not be the best time to start experimenting with unfamiliar developers.
    Good luck,
    Doug Webb

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,070
    Stoo, ID-11/D-76 was the standard for pushing years ago, and seeing as you already have that dev...

    I had neglected to mention the times for you; pushing one stop in ID-11/D-76 is an increase in dev time of 1.5. A test roll is recommended. Doug has a great method above.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    [QUOTE=Stoo Batchelor;578806]

    Thanks Jim

    There is nothing on the MDC for Pan-f rated at 100 in ID11, though your suggestion regarding Thorntons two bath has got my mind thinking that way. Especially as I could control contrast with the adjustment of bath 'B' I am still at the testing stage with this developer though.




    P.U

    Very interesting. It is allways good to go for something that is tried and tested. Thanks for your input.

    That does look very interesting



    Hi Bill

    I started off in Portwrinkle, had a very bad experience there with the B+B. Booked out of there after one night and moved on. I went to Seaton, Looe and Polperro before continuing my Journey to St Just. It was after seeing some of Mark Burley's photos of Portwrinkle and yours of Porth Nanven that spurred me on to make the trip. I was greeted by a Sea mist at Porth Nanven, though still managed to make a few images that day. I then moved on to Cape Cornwall and then an evening meal back in St Just. I then bedded down for the night in Porth Nanven. That was spookey. It was facinating to watch nature at its finest that night. The waves were real monsters. You could hear them rocks moving about like snooker balls! I was rewarded with a fine morning and I followed the tide out.

    My journey ended up on the Lizard at Kinance Cove. Very beautifull. The whole trip was the hardest I have ever had to work to make a photograph. On more than one occasion I was hit by waves that come up to my waste. I am sure someone up there was having a laugh with me! There was a few occasions that I was seriously asking myself 'WHY?'

    Thanks again All

    Best

    Stoo
    When I was shooting Pan F, I developed it in 1:1 Microdol-X with excellent results (never tried pushing it though).

    If XTOL is good with Pan F, then Instant Mytol should also be good.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum223/...ant-mytol.html
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #15
    Stoo Batchelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,237
    Images
    42
    Doug, Jim and Tom

    Thanks for your input here.

    Yes the way forward is a test roll in the same(or near as) conditions. It will mean ordering the film in as I only purchased two rolls of each to start with. Perhaps I should have used them as test rolls first before I shot anything that would be a 'keeper'

    I most definately want a finer grained film as when I make a slightly larger print from a Delta 100 neg, I am seeing grain , which I personally do not like with my landscapes, yes other work, but not my landscapes. I have been offered a Toyo 5 x 4 outfit complete with polaroid back and a roll film back which frames at 6 x 9 cm. It has been so tempting, but after this recent trip I do not think it would suit the way I work, with waves chasing me up the beach etc! So a finer film is a step in the right direction me thinks.

    Thanks all

    Regards

    Stoo
    _____________________________________________

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Anscojohn View Post
    Sounds like a perfect job for Eastman D23.
    It is outstanding in giving you shadow detail but
    will not (well, hardly) block up your highlights and
    rarely gives excessive contrast. John
    I checked a roll of Acros put through an 8-80 D23.
    That's 8 grams metol and 80 grams sulfite. Using a
    densitometer zone 1 measured 0.12. So a full ISO
    100. Very pleased. May or may not help the OP
    with his ISO 50 shot at 100.

    FWIW, that slightly modified D23 at 1:7 dilution,
    500ml, inversion agitation at start and each 2
    minutes, 16 minutes. A little soft, a hard
    Grade 2 or Soft 3. Dan

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    According to an Ilford chart I obtained somewhere, the only two developers listed for Pan F+ shot at an E.I. of 100 is full strength Microphen and Xtol. Both are listed as 8 minutes at 68 degrees. For an E.I. of 200, Microphen for 12 minutes, Xtol 9 minutes. I always cut Ilford's times a bit for my purposes but I would use their recommendations as a starting point.

  8. #18
    Stoo Batchelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,237
    Images
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Shively View Post
    According to an Ilford chart I obtained somewhere, the only two developers listed for Pan F+ shot at an E.I. of 100 is full strength Microphen and Xtol. Both are listed as 8 minutes at 68 degrees. For an E.I. of 200, Microphen for 12 minutes, Xtol 9 minutes. I always cut Ilford's times a bit for my purposes but I would use their recommendations as a starting point.
    Thanks lee

    It is in the pdf for Ilfords Panf plus that you would have read it. It reads like this...

    PAN F Plus
    DEVELOPMENT TIMES
    If PAN F Plus has been inadvertently exposed at
    settings below EI 25/15 or above EI 64/19, the
    following guide will ensure usable negatives are
    obtained. Obviously, the quality of negatives
    processed in this way will not be so high as
    conventionally processed ones.
    Manual processing (min/20oC/68oF) –
    accidental exposure only
    ILFORD Dilution Meter setting
    developer
    EI EI EI
    12/12 100/21 200/24
    and and
    below above
    MICROPHEN stock – 8 12
    ID-11 stock 4 – –

    Something to consider along with the Xtol that had been mentioned earlier. What I find interesting is the Eastman D23 that Dan has mentioned.This keeps cropping up alot lately. Whats interesting about it is tha fact that it is almost identicle to the 'A' bath of Thorntons two bath, which is a modified Stoeckler formula. I imagine that I will never understand the chemical side of photography, I mean, why no 'B' bath? This is why I am allways eternally greatful for those that do and have had the time to test such formulas. I have even got a headache just thinking about it!

    This formula is most definately going to be the one that I test as soon as my film arrives, especially with the Adox chs25 Art.

    Thanks again to both yourself and Dan for your input

    Regards

    Stoo
    _____________________________________________

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    "It is in the pdf for Ilfords Panf plus that you would have read it."

    No, actually it is a large cardboard information chart. It has information on all Ilford B&W films with developers and suggested development times. It's been hanging on my darkroom wall for about 10-12 years.

    Comes in handy.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoo Batchelor View Post
    What I find interesting is the Eastman D23 that Dan has mentioned.
    Whats interesting about it is the fact that it is almost identicle to
    the 'A' bath of Thorntons two bath, which is a modified Stoeckler
    Thanks again to both yourself and Dan for your input...Stoo
    Thornton's A of two baths. Likely the 80 grams of sulfite.

    Headache? I'll explain. Two bath developers, Diafine,
    divided D23, Stockler's, etc, all have developing agent
    and alkali, activator, in A bath. A thorough soaking of the
    emulsion and shorted development there then to the B bath
    for continued development in that alkaline solution.

    The developing agent within the emulsion is depleted
    rapidly as it tackles the more exposed areas. The less
    exposed areas continue to develop depleting the carry
    forward developing agent only slowly. Of course the
    developer is washed and diffuses from the emulsion.
    Two or three minutes in B I'd think about it. Dan

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