Ilford Pan F50 doesnt impress me like C41.

S

spicoli

Established
Local time
4:59 PM
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
64
Somethings wrong here. Common logic I would think would tell me a professionally developed "true" black and white film, especially one rated at iso 50 would stomp all over a C41 film like 400 XP2. I would think that, but I just got another roll of Ilford Pan F50 developed and the results do not impress me. Ive got 16x20 posters hanging in 3 different residences of shots Ive taken with lowly C41 Ilford XP2. The XP2 is consistently sharper (?!) and contrastier than the F50, and I cannot explain why. Maybe the F50 just isnt a good film, or XP2 just that good?

And Im shooting decent glass, new 50 and 90 'crons, 29mm 1.9CV and a 135 hektor (ok- except for the latter its mostly decent). Also having the F50 developed professionally in DC, as opposed to "the chick at Sams Club" doing my XP2.

While Id like to spend money, doing so isnt proving its merit.
 
If printed properly, I like the C41 stuff. In fact, I might just go all C41 (XP2 Super) for 135 - save if I want to push to 1000+ with Tri-X, and only do my own printing and processing for 120. It's just too much to scan and print all those negs - 36 on a single roll. I'd be willing to do it if the C41 stuff wasn't so good. But I've been pleased with it.
 
Funny, I just ordered 10 rolls of the Pan F today. I'm a big fan of the C41 B&W, too, so the Ilford will have to work a bit to impress me.
 
Hard to say-I really don't care for the C41 B&W look. I've never used the film you tried, but I'd take Acros, or Shantou Era 100 over any of the C41 films.
 
i hate all ilford products, they are exceptionally inconsistent with their emulsions, so one batch could be superb and the next abysmal.
 
PanF 50 is a finicky film. It doesn't like underexposure at all. And depending on what developer they used, it can be wonderfully smooth, or make you wish you'd just gone and shot something faster.

The reason I like to use it, is it's easier if I'm specifically wanting a wider open aperture in daylight, than stacking ND filters.

But it doesn't hold up to some of the other slow BW films, in my opinion.

I miss APX 25.
 
Ive been shooting XP2 for years, and only shot Pan F50 as logic would tell me the latter would be a better film. Ive probably shot 8 rolls with F50 vs over 100 with XP2. For whatever reason the XP2 has more of what I want (less grain and more contrast) vs the F50 (muddy and flat).

Maybe its just me. I have no formal training so I really dont know what to look for, nor do I sell my stuff or associate with anyone that does. So Im a bit in the dark here. Just my own experience tell me I wont be buying anything but XP2 from now on.

FYI: The only "quality control" I do with my XP2 is take my film to the same individual every time. Its always shot and processed at iso 400, nothing weird mind you.
 
I don't shoot C-41 because I can't process it myself. I've shot Pan F+ only twice and I was happy with the results both times. ISO 50 takes some getting used to however, and is useless indoors.
 
How do you know the people who developed and printed it did it "right"? And how did you expose it? There's no reason it should necessarily "stomp all over a C41 film like 400 XP2" but it should not be as unexciting and bad as you are finding. It sounds like the lab you're using simply does a better job with XP2, which is not surprising if it's a lab without much experience in traditional B&W films. What paper are they printing it on? What kind of printing are they doing? How did they develop it? What developer? Are the negs good, or over-developed like most labs too often do.
 
Processed correctly Pan F50 is a beautiful film. It is NOT a 50 asa film. It is at its best at ASA 25-32, and developed in D76. Rich deep shadows and controlled highlights. Underexpose and the shadows are lost. For really fine grain you should try Fuji Acros or Tmax 100, both in D 76.

Best wishes
Dan
 
I have never seen any inconsistancy in Ilford products. Like Kodak and Fuji, I have found Ilford's films (and their papers back when I did wet printing) to be very consistant in quality. I've used Ilford for 18 years with no problems.

I like Pan-F in Rodinal, it isn't that fine grained but has gorgeous tonality. In D76 1+1, grain is much finer and tonality is still good but I like Rodinal better.
 
I've also been quite pleased with the consistency of Ilford's products.
Traditional B+W films don't scan very well, by the way. So in a comparison between scans of Pan F and XP-2 I can maybe see how a person might be a little let down with the slower film.
Printed wet however, the difference is hugely in favor of Pan F.
spicoli, are you comparing images scanned directly from the negatives?
 
rogue_designer said:
PanF 50 is a finicky film..
Click to expand...
Very true, Get EVERYTHING right -- including choice of subject matter -- and it's gorgeous. But it is fussy about exposure and development, and the tonality doesn't suit every subject. There's also pure personal preference and 'alchemy' -- the way some films suit some people and not others.

I am always puzzled when someone refers to a particular film as 'too contrasty' or 'lacking in contrast'. CHANGE THE DEV TIME!

If I were troubled by lack of consistency in materials I'd look at my own technique first, followed by developer age, rather than blaming Ilford (or anyone else). Like others who have posted, I have certainly had no such problems in 50+ years of shooting Ilford film.

There is however a funny story from a good few years ago about a batch of Delta 400 that was oit of spec (on speed, nothing else) and was sold in South America as 'Delta 200'. Reports of this filtered back elsewhere and there were (of course) those who pronounced it the finest film Ilford had ever made -- mostly because they hadn't tried it and couldn't get it, but had heard from a friend of a friend...

Finally, yes, if you're scanning, chromogenics (especially XP2) scan better than conventional films, because of the Callier effect (or rather, the absence of it, in chromogenics).

Cheers,

Roger
 
I find this quite an odd initial post. Why on earth would one film be 'better' than another, more or less completely different, type of film? That's a bit like saying 'my tennis racquet is better than my baseball bat'.

As an aside, I've never been entirely happy with the results I've had from 'professional' b&w processing services. When I process my b&w stuff, I know what I've been shooting and I can compensate in the development accordingly: you won't get that from a pro-lab unless you're prepared to pay them an awful lot of money.
 
tmfabian said:
My technique is precisely consistent every time I enter the darkroom, however after noticing the differing levels of gloss, base whiteness, and selenium toning differences with ilford paper and multiple defects in 4x5 fp4 and witnessing severe consistency issues with their warm tone papers my friend had been printing on, defects in hp5 4x5 from another friend, i find them inconsistent. Perhaps it's all the ilford coming into boston that's bad as it has been only since moving here that my batches of ilford products have been sub-par but that's been my experience with them as of late, now I shoot efke and print on kentmere paper, couldn't be happier.
Click to expand...

Have you contacted Ilford about this? If the material is suffering in shipping they need to know about it.

I note that two of your complaints -- warmtone and 4x5 HP5 -- are from friends; are you confident that their technique is as consistent as yours?

I am also much intrigued that you are happy with Kentmere but not Ilford, having toured both factories. Ilford is 'state of the art' while Kentmere is quite 'artisanal' and would seem to me likelier to have batch-to-batch variations -- though that's merely a passing observation, not worth much.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Have you contacted Ilford about this? If the material is suffering in shipping they need to know about it.

I note that two of your complaints -- warmtone and 4x5 HP5 -- are from friends; are you confident that their technique is as consistent as yours?

I am also much intrigued that you are happy with Kentmere but not Ilford, having toured both factories. Ilford is 'state of the art' while Kentmere is quite 'artisanal' and would seem to me likelier to have batch-to-batch variations -- though that's merely a passing observation, not worth much.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Hmm...my other post went bye bye, second time that's happened(different forums) when posting from my phone. I'm certain my other two friends were consistent with developing as we were all trained extensively in zone system techniques during college. I e-mailed ilford and only got back the standard business response of thank you for your concern message, not sure about buddies efforts in contacting them.

Now, on the other hand, I wouldn't discourage use of ilford, especially due to their unmatched commitment to preserving the production of film and paper.

edit: I also must add that the paper wasn't standard 8x10 or even 11x14 sizes either, it was 16x20, 20x24 and the film issues were in 4x5 and 8x10, so perhaps their problems lie production of not so common sizes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom