Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,677   Posts: 1,482,053   Online: 888
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20

    Royal Pan and other experiments in film archaeology

    Okay, this is my latest experiment in film archaeology. I got a sealed box of 25 sheets of Royal Pan 4x5, exp. 1965.

    Is Royal Pan the same emulsion as Royal-X Pan?

    Anyone have any favorite developer combos/speed recommendations for this one.

    I found an old recommendation for Royal-X Pan in Acufine, EI 1600, 10 min at 21 deg. C, and I'm tempted to test the first two sheets at EI 1250 and 800, figuring it has to have lost some speed.

    The instruction sheet has times for Polydol (what was that?), DK-50, D-76, Microdol-X, and even Dektol (1:1) at EI 400.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    David, I believe that Howard Bond shot this film at one time. At least I recall that film as attributed to some of his images. You might contact Howard he lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I am sure that he will have the information that you are seeking.
    Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed.

    Visit my website at http://www.donaldmillerphotography.com

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    132
    You should find this film listed in an old copy of the Photo Lab Index. I vaguely recall that Royal Pan was a 400 speed film, while Royal-X was rated at 1000 (or possibly 1200). I remember using some Royal-X 120 roll film once--it was quite grainy.

  4. #4
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    In retrospect, I think you've got that right, Ed. I drop my ratings a bit more for Acufine for the first test, maybe 800 and 640.
    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

  5. #5
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    I thought I'd revive this old thread since Randy Libersky sent me gratis a few 6x9 film packs circa 1952-54. I've got Plus-X and Ansco Superpan Press in packs, and some Super Panchro-Press B in loose sheets.

    Yesterday I shot some of the Plus-X, rated at EI 50, processed in Acufine, 2.5 minutes at 75 deg. (room temp.) in trays. I tried a couple of sheets in the Yankee tank rack in a deep tank, but I ended up fishing them out of the tank (fortunately, I was wearing gloves, and I realized what had happened before development time was up). Base fog was heavy, but they look printable, maybe on grade 4. I was shooting the Busch Pressman C with a 105/2.8 Xenotar. I'm still getting used to the finder, so I overcompensated a little for parallax error on this one.

    I didn't add a restrainer to the developer, because I don't want to mess up the rest of the developer in the tank, but once I get enough negs, I think I'll try some Farmer's reducer to clear some of the fog and that should increase the contrast.

    My first experience with pack film--an interesting idea, but I don't know if I would feel really compelled to advocate for a film pack revival. I only lost one sheet due to pulling the tab too hard so that the film pack adapter came out of the camera without the darkslide in place. The film base is thin, like rollfilm, so I don't think film flatness would be much better than rollfilm. The tabs and interleaving sheets aren't quite as bad as all the extra trash generated by Polaroid, but I could do without them. It's also not easy to get the interleaving sheets cleanly separated from the film in the dark, so little bits of paper end up in the developer. I think I'm content with rollfilm, traditional holders, and Grafmatics.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails N,RiversidePark,17Dec2005,PlusX1952a.jpg  
    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

  6. #6
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    And here's the old Royal Pan test. I originally posted this in the gallery.

    I think I settled on Acufine and Edwal Liquid Orthazite, but it was still really foggy and grainy. First attachment is a full 4x5" sheet, second is a detail showing the grain structure. I think I did this test with the Linhof Tech V and 135/3.5 Planar.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails RoyalPanTest.jpg   RoyalPanGrain.jpg  
    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

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    527
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    .My first experience with pack film--an interesting idea, but I don't know if I would feel really compelled to advocate for a film pack revival. .
    They're a lot more useful in 4x5, since there is rollfilm in 6x9. Also, they'll really save weight and bulk for more extended shoots. They don't have to be loaded in the dark like sheet film, and, like Quickloads, there is no dust problem. After doing a couple of them, they're as easy to manage in the darkroom as rollfilm.
    Oh, I miss filmpacks!

  8. #8
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,708
    Images
    65
    David, Royal Pan and Royal X Pan are two different films with two different speeds and two different dates of issue.

    Royal X Pan was not out until the late 70s or early 80s IIRC. I have several 120 rolls of it in the freezer. It is fast, grainy and foggy even though frozen. Want some? It is the 1000+ ISO film. Royal Pan was 400 IIRC.

    PE

  9. #9
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20
    Thanks, PE. I think I finished my Royal Pan experiments from a couple of years ago, but maybe there are some other takers. It was interesting enough to try a few sheets, but not interesting enough to shoot the whole box.
    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

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Western Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    425
    The film placks were a great idea for anyone that needed to carry a lot of film and couldn't handle the weight of the film holders. I use a Nikkor 4x5 tank for processing them because it is adjustable to accommodate the little larger size of the pack. I still have about 12 - 3x4 and 6-4x5 packs of Tri X frozen.

    Gord

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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