Ilford Pan F 50

Erik L said:
Todd, you are a great salesman now i want to buy some Pan F 120:p
Click to expand...


Get ya' some bro ;).

I originally bought it for the chance to shoot wide open in bright sun but the grainlessness really works well when stopped down, I like it a lot.

Todd
 
>>Why the hell people insist on using 400 film in bright conditions like we have here for outdoor shooting puzzles me ...

because you go outdoors with one camera and may find yourself going inside somewhere with it... because you may shoot something in the shadows that requires deep DOF... Idunno... maybe I'm just stupid! :)

I didn't get that thrilled with Pan F myself... ISO 50 can be kind of difficult...
 
I bought a roll of Pan F to try awhile back. Haven't had the chance to shoot it yet. I thought of developing in Perceptol. Any one ever tried developing with it?
 
mh2000 said:
>>Why the hell people insist on using 400 film in bright conditions like we have here for outdoor shooting puzzles me ...

because you go outdoors with one camera and may find yourself going inside somewhere with it... because you may shoot something in the shadows that requires deep DOF... Idunno... maybe I'm just stupid! :)

I didn't get that thrilled with Pan F myself... ISO 50 can be kind of difficult...
Click to expand...


Deep shadow on a bright day shouldn't be too hard with ISO 50 ... maybe on an overcast day it could be an issue. I just find on those occasions when there is a lot of bright sky in an image with 400 film you get that strange light/bright grainy look which I personally don't like.

I tried some Adox recently but haven't quite worked out how to get the best results from the film developing wise ... but have seen some fantastic results from the CHS 50 and 100!

Is this why people go digital ... just change the ISO setting? :p
 
Back in the day...

Back in the day...

mh2000 said:
>>Why the hell people insist on using 400 film in bright conditions like we have here for outdoor shooting puzzles me ...

because you go outdoors with one camera and may find yourself going inside somewhere with it... because you may shoot something in the shadows that requires deep DOF... Idunno... maybe I'm just stupid! :)

I didn't get that thrilled with Pan F myself... ISO 50 can be kind of difficult...
Click to expand...

The world was photographed with film slower than ASA 200 prior to 1961. In 1961, the ASA people changed the rating of Tri-X from 200 to 400. Same film. New standards. Kodachome started out as an ASA 10 film. The U.S. Cival War was recorded on wet plates. ASA 1, maybe. Probably less.

The next roll of Pan F+ that I load in a camera will be rated at 25. 50 is easy.
 
Most don't...

Most don't...

Keith said:
...

Is this why people go digital ... just change the ISO setting? :p
Click to expand...

Most don't even know how to change ISO.

"You can fix anything in Photoshop" is the mantra.

Go slow works for me. Up next are 7 rolls of APX25. I think I'll expose them at 20 and slosh in Rodinal for 20 minutes.
 
It's just simpler to use the same ISO all the time. There isn't always time to meter, and you get to know your typical exposures under different conditions. Best of all you don't have to remember which film is in which camera. Pan-F gives some beautiful results though.
 
venchka said:
Most don't even know how to change ISO.

"You can fix anything in Photoshop" is the mantra.

Go slow works for me. Up next are 7 rolls of APX25. I think I'll expose them at 20 and slosh in Rodinal for 20 minutes.
Click to expand...


I find ISO 100 is pretty versatile provided you have the right camera (rangefinder or leaf shuttered) and a decent lens. Aside from moving objects hand held sharpness at 1/8 with the right camera is not so difficult.

And of course as Al will confirm ... sharpness in an image is over rated!
 
Keith & Al,

Sage advice I am sure. I just couldn't resist free and/or cheap film. Right now I'm in the slow lane with Pan-F+ & APX25 in 35mm and a bunch of 120 Efke 25. I will give Pan-F+ a go at 100.
 
It's a great film!
I agree that a 400 is more versatile but we are spoiled by using too much TriX I think:)
I shot this deep in the subway and it worked great!
2068820124_32b03365f2.jpg



http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/2068820124/
 
I love Pan 50, it's my main film. I develop it about 25% less than recommended and it scans great. It is usually very sunny where I live and I like shallow DOF so the speed is great. My only negative is that it is only available is 36 exposure rolls, wish it was 20. I hate rolling mine own - always end up with dirt or scratches.
 
>>Deep shadow on a bright day shouldn't be too hard with ISO 50 ...

I said, "shoot something in the shadows that requires deep DOF," and with ISO 50 and 4-stops down from sunny-16 you are below what I can reliably hand hold... no, I don't love carrying a tripod with me... kind of like the idea of just a small rangefinder and nothing else.

>>The world was photographed with film slower than ASA 200 prior to 1961...

My photographic history begins in the 70's... and Tri-X was still God!

>>It's just simpler to use the same ISO all the time.

Definitely! I even shoot digital at 400 so I don't have to think about what shutter/aperture to use.
 
>>The world was photographed with film slower than ASA 200 prior to 1961...

My photographic history begins in the 70's... and Tri-X was still God!
Click to expand...

Now you're being difficult! :p




A little motion blur can be fun to play with!

PanFStudio019.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hmm... I have a bunch of rolls collecting freezer burn. Maybe it's time I thaw them out.

Here's some I took with my holga

443224224_b4bd5d0d9c_o.jpg


443229345_d845275372_o.jpg


443228551_4f75999dd8_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom