Ilford Pan F 50 - what to expect

[darkkavenger]

My humble contribution after receiving back my 1st roll of panf 50. The camera used : Minolta Hi-Matic F - Rokkor 38/2.7 -- I regret a lack of contrast on many photos.

 

[Ash]

JUST remembered. the contrasty shot was using a red filter. So the images of mine reflect that. sorry i should have said

 

[sf]

Pan F = smooth

http://www.shutterflower.com/landscape gallery/pages/landscape4_resizeL.htm

D76 standard process at a lab.

and another in the same process (first B&W image) :
http://www.shutterflower.com/KM review.htm

and one more : http://www.shutterflower.com/street scene gallery/pages/arch-d-triompheRFF.htm


I like PanF

 

[ChrisN]

The lens is contrasty but I wouldn't call it a bad quality. The scenes I shot were very contrasty and were well handled. I would not think the lens would be the best for available light shooting where alittle bit of flare fills in the shadows. I'm very impressed with the lens.

Steve - I like contrast, and I love the little CV lens, to the point where I sometimes prefer it to my Summicron ASPH!

George - thanks for posting the linked shots. I especially like the detail retained in the distance in the landscape shot - that's true for Steve's photos too.

I'm looking forward to seeing what sort of results I can get.

 

[RicardoD]

I am thinking of trying Pan F, in a 120 roll, in my new-to-me Yashica 124 G. Expose at iso 80 and develop in Diafine. Anybody else try this? I am doing this based upon this review: click here

 

[stevew]

Diafine!!!

Diafine!!!

Doesn't make sense to me. Pan F is thin emulsion and doesn't hold enough developer in the emulsion for the second bath. I'm not against Diafine, it's great for available light, but Pan F is not the film for it.

 

[BudGreen]

I've had pretty good luck with Pan-F in Xtol 1:1 for 7 1/2 minutes. Here's an example...

 

[ChrisN]

I've had pretty good luck with Pan-F in Xtol 1:1 for 7 1/2 minutes. Here's an example...

Hi Bud - nothing wrong with that, is there? Nice!

 

[Dougg]

Diafine works well with Pan-F in my experience... I set the meter to EI=50. No scans as yet, but the negs look great.

 

[ChrisN]

Completed the first roll today and developed in DD-X per the spec sheet. I've posted a few in my gallery. I like it.

 

[ScottH]

Interesting base color... Last PM I developed a test roll to work out an EI for myself. I developed it with a roll of FP4 (close enough in time), and was very surprised to see how purple the base was. The FP4 was light grey as usual, but I was concerned nonetheless. I made up a small amount of fresh fixer and cut out a portion of the developed leader, fixed an additional 5 minutes without any notable change in color. I've not yet had a chance to really evaluate the contrast/density, but they looked pretty good by eyeballing the strips while wet. Just suprised at the color.

 

[jdef]

Steve,

all modern films are thin emulsion films, but that'a another discussion.

Chris,

PF+ is an excellent film, but if you're used to films with short toes and straight curves, it might take some getting used to. Adequate exposure is essential, and overdevelopment can mean bullet-proof highlights. That being said, I shoot it at box speed, even in direct sunlight, when developed in 510-Pyro or Hypercat. These staining developers do wonders for this film, keeping highlights under control, keeping shadows open, and maintaining that beautiful midtone glow this film is known for.

Grain can be very fine; not like TMX, Acros, or even Delta 100, but finer than 100 speed K-grain films like Plus-X, or FP4+. With a bulk roll to play with, you should have ample opportunity to make it work for you. Enjoy.

Jay

 

[Ash]

Yea shameless plug for my gallery. But there you can see a whole variety from PF+, you can get a huge variation from how long you develop it, and whether you under/over-expose.

Maybe I just dont use the film properly 🙂

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Kaiyen

I find that Pan F loses speed in most developers, meaning that you will not get the desired shadow detail if you shoot it at 50 unless you develop it in a speed-enhancing developer. I shoot Pan f at 30 if I'm spot metering and 25 if I'm average metering.

Roger Hicks says he rates his like this as well. I haven't played with it enough to see how it works at 30 yet but it seems well enough at ISO50.

For what it's worth, these first two were taken heavy, cloudy conditions, incident metered and developed in 510 Pyro (very fine grain developer) 120 film and taken with a Rollieflex 2.8 E, Pan F + @ ISO50.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

I shoot alot of Acros rated at ISO 50 and 100 using a slower film like Pan F hasn't been much of a problem for me in my RF's.

Here are a couple of Pan F in D76 1:1 for 8.5 min @ 68* F. These are 35mm, in camera metering (M6, VC 35/1.2 Nokton)

 

[ChrisN]

Very nice Todd. I'd say they show pretty good contrast for the conditions. That's an interesting decorated panel on the wall of the control tower, too.

 

[dadsm3]

Here's a few of my first attempt.....shot at 50ISO, Rodinal 1+25, 6 minutes. I sure underexposed quite a few though, think I'll try the next roll at 30ISO, and try Rodinal 1+50 at 11 minutes.

 

[Dougg]

After developing this roll of Pan F+ in Diafine, I sleeved it in a leftover sleeve from the lab and took it in for scanning. I expected they could just slide it into their normal routine and it would be economical... but it ended up costing an arm and a leg, charged per frame. Won't do that again, but it does give me samples to upload. Film shot at EI 50 in a Leica M2. First shot in the Yakima River canyon at the old highway tunnel with 75mm Heliar, forgot to take my meter so just winged it. Second shot of freshly resurfaced and restriped parking lot with 25mm Skopar.

 

[kaiyen]

Kaiyen

Roger Hicks says he rates his like this as well. I haven't played with it enough to see how it works at 30 yet but it seems well enough at ISO50.

For what it's worth, these first two were taken heavy, cloudy conditions, incident metered and developed in 510 Pyro (very fine grain developer) 120 film and taken with a Rollieflex 2.8 E, Pan F + @ ISO50.

Todd,
Nice work on both these shots and the next ones. As always, it's hard to say if you have "enough" shadow detail unless I know what you are metering. And lighting conditions certainly affect things. The airplane, for instance, has nice shadows presumably because of light bouncing off the concrete below.

So, regardless, good photos. However, I generally find that if you spot meter a shadow and then stop down 2 stops (Zone III in ZS-ese) at EI 50 in, say, Rodinal, you'll find you won't get as much detail in that area as you thought.

But when metering with center-weighted or incident, it is a lot less controlled and depends on the overall scene. I think that the airplane scene is actually relatively low contrast due to reflection from the ground. But you got some _deep_ blacks on the motorcycles. Maybe you wanted them that deep. Maybe you wanted more detail there. I don't know 🙂

allan

 

[kaiyen]

Here's a few of my first attempt.....shot at 50ISO, Rodinal 1+25, 6 minutes. I sure underexposed quite a few though, think I'll try the next roll at 30ISO, and try Rodinal 1+50 at 11 minutes.

Well, even on these - how did you want those trees on the sides to look? Pitch black or with detail? If with detail, then underexposed, and I'd recommend you drop your EI, as you intend to do so.

allan

ps- you're shooting at an EI or 30, not an ISO of 30.