Pan F & Rodinol...no thanks

css9450 said:
I like Acros 100 and have gotten good results, but was surprised when I watched a video about Acros and the narrator said with Rodinal 1:50 there would be "more grain than a wheat field", which wasn't my experience at all. Must be VERY sensitive to different agitations, I am thinking?
Click to expand...


I agreed, that statement is definitely wrong indeed.

Acros is so clean that the little larger grain from Rodinal doesn't make it grainy add all, just makes it bite a bit more.

Although not a high-res version, here's one shot at 100, developed in 1:25 (35mm format).
Grainier than a wheat field? Haha nope :)

IMO, scanning can enhance grain, at least my non-flatbed Nikon V enhance grain a lot, big difference between scans and wet-prints.

Ghost city by Ole-Henrik Helin, on Flickr
 
In regards to getting results from film, I was really disappointed when I purchased Fomapan 200. I used D-76 to develop. When I had a look at the negs I was excited, but on scanning, I was so disappointed. Grain was huge. Too big - what did I do wrong. Then I said to myself, stuff this film. I'm going back to Foma 100. But then someone in this forum and in Flickr showed me how they were getting great tonality and grain from Foma 200. I've got 36 rolls left. Well, I've decided I'm going to exhaust all the rolls until I get it developed correctly with D-76.

What I'm trying to say is don't just say - this film and dev combo sucks. How can you say that when in this hobby - you may not have real proof to back your assertion. Developing 2 rolls isn't enough proof that a combination of developer, temperature, agitation etc, etc is adequate. I must have done something wrong - there must have been something in the chain that accumulated the results in development to get it wrong before. Any ways, you can't make people do something even with proof. It's all fun.
 
If you try a new film, shoot and develop two rolls, and see results that are worse than what you are already shooting, what possible motivation do you have to go further? Are you really going to shoot more rolls, try new developers, alter your agitation regimen. Probably not.
 
noeyedear said:
What both rolls have is grain so large it defeats the point of using Pan F, FP4 in Ilfosol is way better, smaller grain and better gradation.
Click to expand...

Come on... half frame in Rodinal and you expected something different? How could you miss that this is a bad combo for anything but crazy grain?
 
ah, the great developer wars again. yawn.

all i can say about Pan F: i never got acceptable results. maybe i didn't try hard enough, but it was easier for me to use different emulsions (APX100, FP4, PAN 100, Fomapan 100, Kentmere 100, RPX 100 ...).

anyway, life is too short to get upset about something like this.
 
I don't get along with Pan F no matter what developer I try. Can I get good results if I fiddle around? Sure. But I can get better results with TMAX100 @ EI50 without fiddling.

Hmmm. Whatever should I do??
 
PanF is an old fashioned film destined for (old fashioned) studio work under controlled lightning conditions.
Of course can be used outdoors, but in this case it is difficult to expose and develop, no matter the developer and developing technique.

It is good to experiment but if you want to make a good job, better choose the right tool ;)
 
It's baffling to me how a film that's been in production and in regular use by photographers for decades can be considered inferior and old fashioned. While some may not be able to obtain good results from it, obviously others can and are happy using it.

When I was a film user I despised TMax but I never thought it was a bad film. It just didn't fit my working methods. I could work with PanF, HP5, FP4 or TriX and consistently get good negatives whereas all the TMax films looked like crap when I processed them. Still didn't make TMax inferior, it just meant my processing methods were inferior and incompatible with it.
 
I liked Pan-F enough that I bought a bulk roll or two. Exposed at EI 50, I developed in Diafine... yes, even for half-frame negs! Looked good to me. :)
 
I'll jump in and recommend Xtol (specifically, Xtol replenished). While Pan-F is not my favorite film, I've souped a few rolls in Xtol and liked what I saw. Plus, you can shoot at box speed. Unlike Rodinal.
Rodinal requires VERY gentle agitation in my experience. Like, almost none at all.
 
J enea said:
pan f+ shot in a pentax 67, developed in pyro-MC. sorry, could never get the images to show in posts, no matter how many times i follow directions, so hope the link is ok



half dome by John Enea, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Yes, I did see. Very satisfactory image. Pyro is subtle in scan but I like it.
Pentax 67 lenses are amazing.
 
oldwino said:
I'll jump in and recommend Xtol (specifically, Xtol replenished). While Pan-F is not my favorite film, I've souped a few rolls in Xtol and liked what I saw. Plus, you can shoot at box speed. Unlike Rodinal.
Rodinal requires VERY gentle agitation in my experience. Like, almost none at all.
Click to expand...

I agree about agitation with Rodinal and Pan F 50. Even before I developed my first ever film, which was Pan F 50 in 35mm format, I read lots of info before I began. My agitation with Rodinal with every film is very VERY gentle. Ok, sometimes I have rushed because of circumstances - but it has always worked. I even do Stand Development in Rodinal every 15 mins for an hour. Works well. Xtol is very good also. Adds a modern look to films.
 
To throw in my two cents: 3-4 years ago as an experiment I bought two slower speed films - Pan F+ and Rollei Retro 80. I developed them both in Rodinal or actually Foma R09 at 1:40. I have had no experience with stand development, nor am I adept at deciding what constitutes "gentle" or moderate or harsh agitation. I followed my normal routines learned with D-76 and Tri-X. No practising and the Rollei Retro produced excellent results, while Pan F was, well, rather disappointing. I must say these judgements are based on scanning the negatives. I am not now likely to ever repeat the Rodinal-Pan F combo. Wish I could get some more Rollei Retro, now that I think about it.
 
charjohncarter said:
I've used Rodinal and it does bigger grain than I like, BUT there also many characteristics in which it excels. I've never used it with Pan F, but recently I used it with Technical Pan (Kodak). I thought about grain but because I only have a few rolls I didn't feel like buying a new developer. I was surprised how little grain showed. Maybe it was the emulsion. The point is some films work with Rodinal and some don't: taste is a big factor.
Click to expand...

Hey,
Would you mind sharing with us your recipe for tech pan in rodinal? Also, what speed did you use the film at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom