Pan F+ w Rodinal vs. Diafine

[kq6up]

I have been looking at images shot w/ Pan F+ and Diafine. Amazing combo. It seems to give very consistent results w/ Diafine. Good tone -- sharp, smooth grain. I have been trying to work out Rodinal w/ Pan F+. It has been a bit of a challenge to try to nail down a good procedure to get good results with Rodinal and Pan F+. I would like to match the Diafine quality with this film using Rodinal for economic and practical reasons.

I would like to try 1 hour stand developing with 1+100 Rodinal. The results look seem similar to that of Diafine, but I have read mixed opinions.

I would also try a batch at 15 minutes with VERY minimal agitation (2 inversions every two minutes) @ 1+50.

My research seems to consistently indicate that increased agitation increases grain w/ Rodinal.

Someone also indicated that it is better to control contrast w/ solution strength instead of developing time (with Rodinal). I am of the opinion these two developing parameters form a reciprocal relationship whence either one could be adjust with consideration of the other without any difference in developing quality. Any one have an opinion here?

If I can't get close to Diafine, I guess I will have to shell out for it. However, I was wondering if anyone has wondered down this path before and could spare me the test rolls and chemistry.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

[John Wiegerink]

Chris, This is just my opinion, but I think every darkroom should have a container each of A and B Diafine. I tried it many years ago with Kodak TRI-X and found I could rate TRI-X at ASA1000 and it worked as good or better than anything I had used when rating TRI-X at asa400(320). I have also used it with Fuji Acros rated at asa160 and it is great with that. The stuff lasts forever and has almost no negative points to it. I also use it as a "go to" when testing a lens/camera combo to make sure everything is "cool" either before I sell one or before buy one. I have also used Rodinal 1:100 and 1:200 with Across and Foma 100 with very good results, but, like I said, it's just my opinion. JohnW

[Michael R 1974]

Are you shooting 4x5 or small format? Unless you are making extremely large prints even medium format PanF won't look materially different in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50, particularly since PanF is inherently a fine-grained film. Rodinal is not a solvent developer, so with the right amount of extended time and increased agitation, 1+50 can look pretty much the same as 1+25, if that is your goal. If you wish to decrease macro contrast, or introduce a shoulder to control highlights, the more dilute the formulation, the easier it will be to accomplish. So if you are looking for the results of reduced agitation, 1+50 makes more sense than 1+25.

[kq6up]

Thanks John. I have been restocking my darkroom, and I was one of those guys that always used D-76 and stuck to the same film. I was using HP5 w/ D-76, and I picked a winner from the first combo I ever used, and I did not change. I was shooting mostly 6x6cm w/ my Roleiflex, and not too worried about grain. I have some tonally beautiful negs w/ that combo.

Now I am going on motorcycle trips, and I am going to pack minimal gear, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality. I am looking at Delta 100 in D-76 vs. Pan F+ in Diafine or Rodinal (if I can get it to behave). It looks like Pan F+ wins in Diafine. It has VERY nice tonality and has an edge in sharpness/clarity. However, I am not sure if I can say the same for Rodinal/Pan F+.

Since I have the Rodinal, I looked for some films on flickr that played well with it. I think Fomapan 100 has BEAUTIFUL tonality in Rodinal, probably the best combo I have seen period. However, I think it is better suited for MF because grain is evident in small 35mm enlargements. However, it is not an unpleasant grain. I bought two 120 rolls to play with. I skipped the hardener in my current batch of fixer, so I am going to wait till I kill that bottle before I shoot it. I have some FP4 too, and it has a similar look to the Foma.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

[kq6up]

Are you shooting 4x5 or small format? Unless you are making extremely large prints even medium format PanF won't look materially different in Rodinal 1+25 or 1+50, particularly since PanF is inherently a fine-grained film. Rodinal is not a solvent developer, so with the right amount of extended time and increased agitation, 1+50 can look pretty much the same as 1+25, if that is your goal. If you wish to decrease macro contrast, or introduce a shoulder to control highlights, the more dilute the formulation, the easier it will be to accomplish. So if you are looking for the results of reduced agitation, 1+50 makes more sense than 1+25.

Sorry, I should update my profile to include what I am shooting currently. I was only shooting digital and VERY occasionally shooting 4x5. However, I completely quit shooting digital except for weddings and portrait shoots. All of my personal work is now on film.

I do like VERY large prints. I would print as large as the negative would allow. My first 35mm test w/ Pan F+ gave ugly tonality. The grain had a look to it that I am not used to. It has a very hard edge to the grain, it looked like salt in pepper at close inspection. I believe that might have been what contributed to a very unsmooth tonality in the macro scale. However, after looking at other people negs souped by stand development, I can see that stand development gives better tone and grain. However, I would also like to have a second option that affords me more control than stand developement (for low contrast scenes that need N+1). That is why I tossed in the every other minute agitation for you guys/gals to comment on as well.

After reading the second post on this thread, I might just have to spring for the diafine. Especially since looking at what it can do for tri-x/arista premium, at VERY high speeds. I would not be enlarging these beyond 8x10", but @ei1600 it looks pretty good. W/ Pan F+ /w Diafine is beautiful and VERY high res. Just expensive. Oh well.

Chris

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks John. I have been restocking my darkroom, and I was one of those guys that always used D-76 and stuck to the same film. I was using HP5 w/ D-76, and I picked a winner from the first combo I ever used, and I did not change. I was shooting mostly 6x6cm w/ my Roleiflex, and not too worried about grain. I have some tonally beautiful negs w/ that combo.

Now I am going on motorcycle trips, and I am going to pack minimal gear, but I don't want to sacrifice image quality. I am looking at Delta 100 in D-76 vs. Pan F+ in Diafine or Rodinal (if I can get it to behave). It looks like Pan F+ wins in Diafine. It has VERY nice tonality and has an edge in sharpness/clarity. However, I am not sure if I can say the same for Rodinal/Pan F+.




Since I have the Rodinal, I looked for some films on flickr that played well with it. I think Fomapan 100 has BEAUTIFUL tonality in Rodinal, probably the best combo I have seen period. However, I think it is better suited for MF because grain is evident in small 35mm enlargements. However, it is not an unpleasant grain. I bought two 120 rolls to play with. I skipped the hardener in my current batch of fixer, so I am going to wait till I kill that bottle before I shoot it. I have some FP4 too, and it has a similar look to the Foma.



Thanks,
Chris Maness

I must confess that I'm not a big fan of PanF, but that's probably because I don't shoot much, if any, 35mm. 6x6 is about as small as I go and I actually like Acros 100, Delta 100 for most everything on the slower side. This might sound strange, but I liked FP4+ in Perceptol 1:3 rated at ISO 50 much better than PanF rated at ISO 50 in D76, DD-X or Rodinal. Of course, that's just me, but it gave me some of the best, cleanest negatives.
JohnW

[Michael R 1974]

I have not used Diafine myself but I would say if you like how it looks go with it even if it costs a little more.

By the way regarding N+1 for 35mm, I suggest trying N development and then toning the negative in Selenium. With most films it effectively gives you an N+1 expansion without the increase in grain associated with N+1 development. It works very well in my experience.

[kq6up]

Thanks John. I guess Pan F+ is just a no go w/ Rodinal save maybe stand development. I don't really care for it D-76 either. I gave the test roll to my son to shoot, and I would say that maybe two or three really came out nice. Albeit, a couple of frames were a little over exposed, but not by much. The strait part of the curve is very short, and rounds off to a very flat image if over exposed by one stop in D-76. Resolution was outstanding in D-76 though. Much better than Rodinal for this film so far. I could see the lug nuts on a car that was far away w/ a 50mm lens.

After reading a little more about diafine on Flickr, it looks like I can just keep using the stuff over and over for a year. Pretty cool, I guess it is economical after all.

Thanks,
Chris Maness

[kq6up]

I have not used Diafine myself but I would say if you like how it looks go with it even if it costs a little more.

I just found out you can just use the stock over and over again for a year even if it grows mold. Just filter the mold out, and keep rockin'

[QUOTE=By the way regarding N+1 for 35mm, I suggest trying N development and then toning the negative in Selenium. With most films it effectively gives you an N+1 expansion without the increase in grain associated with N+1 development. It works very well in my experience.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I think I have some ancient Selenium. Does the stuff go bad?

Thanks,
Chris Maness

[Michael R 1974]

This might sound strange, but I liked FP4+ in Perceptol 1:3 rated at ISO 50 much better than PanF rated at ISO 50 in D76, DD-X or Rodinal. Of course, that's just me, but it gave me some of the best, cleanest negatives.
JohnW

I agree with this assessment. In fact I'd add I now generally prefer FP4 in Perceptol 1+3 to Delta 100 in DDX, D76 or Perceptol. For a long time Delta 100 was my primary film but I'm now switching back to FP4, although I also use alot of Acros in Perceptol as well for its outstanding reciprocity characteristics for night/high contrast work.