Pan F & Rodinol...no thanks

[BLKRCAT]

Looking for some obligatory samples. Stumbled across this. OP maybe your Pan F is too fast. Here's some Kodalith at iso 6 in Rodinal.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I like Pan-F in Rodinal. It is grainier than Pan-F in D-76, but it is not bad, and the tonality is gorgeous.

Pan-F in Rodinal

Pan-F in Rodinal


Rodinal has always been one of my favorite developers. I even use it for films like Tri-X with beautiful results. Tri-X in Rodinal has a gritty look, but with nice tonality and sharpness.

Tri-X in Rodinal


Tmax 400 is nice in Rodinal, too.

Tmax 400 in Rodinal

Tmax 400 in Rodinal

I develop in Rodinal 1+50; its my favorite dilution, and seems to give the nicest tonality.

Tmax 100, Ilford FP-4, and Fuji Acros 100 are beautiful in Rodinal too.

Here are my Rodinal Developing Times

 

[zuiko85]

This is interesting. I have a very old 100ft. bulk roll of Pan F, plus a partial bulk roll in a Aden loader. Both expired July/2006 and the only developer I have on hand is HC-110.
Loading a couple of short loads and developing in HC-110 (1:60 @ 70F @ 11 min. agitation every 3 min. as a one shot) leads me to believe the ISO of my expired film is now about 20. I like HC-110 because of the keeping qualities of the syrup and would like to be able to use it with the expired Pan F.
This film has been refrigerator stored for the last 10-12 years. And yes, I know the latent image fades, thus the short loads and develop within a couple of weeks.

 

[noeyedear]

Many years ago a Kodak rep told me, as long as film isn't left to get extremly hot, if it is kept in it's sealed packet (MF) thats more important than keeping it in the fridge or freezer and it would last well past the sell by date.

 

[brbo]

I wanted to try Pan-F for some time now. And if I didn't read this thread I would surely go for Rodinal since I'm very pleased with how it develops Ferrania P30 (@ISO50):


(full res here, scanned with Minolta 5400 which can really show grain if you don't use the "grain dissolver" option at scanning (didn't use it with this scan))

 

[f16sunshine]

Many years ago a Kodak rep told me, as long as film isn't left to get extremly hot, if it is kept in it's sealed packet (MF) thats more important than keeping it in the fridge or freezer and it would last well past the sell by date.

Slightly OT....I believe that Kodak rep.
Have had film frozen for 10,12,15 years and still have box speeds achieved without fogging.
The thing is, unless it's not getting speed or has become fogged, one does not know what you might be missing from old film vs fresh unless you expose/develop both in the exact same circumstance.
So far, I've mostly been very successful/lucky with my film storage regimen.
Big old deep freeze with thick steel walls probably have helped keep radiation from fogging film while keeping the emulation "fresh".
It's sealed up tight in it's foil until it's ready to load.
Foma and others use actual paper backed foil while Ilford uses Mylar. I wonder if there is much difference?

OK back on topic

 

[rfaspen]

Count me among those who've had poor luck with Pan-F and Rodinall (note the spelling?). Usually Rodin-all is my go-to developer for nearly any film to get adequate results. Not with Pan-F. I've had a bit better luck with HC-110 (very dilute).

I have yet to try diafine with any film. I think I'll give that 2-bath stuff a try....with Pan-F. Good idea or terrible?

 

[Bill Clark]

I like using Rodinal as I find, with stand development, it works especially well with low speed films like Pan F Plus.

For me, temp. is not as critical as compared to developers like D-76 or Mic-X as these have shorter developing times compared to stand with Rodinal.

As an added bonus it’s cheap.

 

[stompyq]

Scanning or printing? IMO scanning sure, wet printing not so much.

Scanning. I haven't wet printed in almost 15 years

 

[stompyq]

Count me among those who've had poor luck with Pan-F and Rodinall (note the spelling?). Usually Rodin-all is my go-to developer for nearly any film to get adequate results. Not with Pan-F. I've had a bit better luck with HC-110 (very dilute).

I have yet to try diafine with any film. I think I'll give that 2-bath stuff a try....with Pan-F. Good idea or terrible?

PanF is awesome with Diafine. I've found that ilford films don't play as nice with it as the others. PanF though is really nice

 

[x-ray]

How many of you that don't like it have spent any time trying to dial it in. With Ordinal it's really EI 32 to 25 and recommended development needs to be worked out for your agitation and system, enlarger or scanner. Like I said I wet print and there's nothing grainy about it. Even examining the negs through a loupe it's not grainy. Ordinal produces a sharp edged grain but it's pretty fine with PanF. If you want fine grain try Freestyle Mic-x and rate it at 20-25.

Do some testing and work out a scheme to get the best out of your film. I's a beautiful film with amazing tonality if done right.

 

[Keith]

You're not going to learn much about any film with two rolls. I get gorgeous results with fine grain and a full scale of tones including nice shadow detail and I'm using Rodinal.

Recommended ISO and development times and dilutions are only starting points. You need to buy 10 rolls and start testing for your own ISO and your correct development time. Everyone's technique for processing is different and people have different expectations of what they want plus how critical you are is most likely different than how critical I am.

Are you scanning or wet printing? Films are designed to wet print not scan and the results will be different. I wet print using an Ilford multigrade diffusion head. My system will give different results than a condenser enlarger and most certainly than a scanner.

If you're scanning what kind? My Imacon 848 will give different looking scans than a plustek or Epson. Using canned profiles or custom or scanning linear?

Get the idea? To get good results it's an individual thing where you need to start with recommendations and refine the exposture and process for you. My technique won't necessarily guarantee good results for you.

Two rolls won't tell you much other than you didn't do things right.

For my taste, I'm not a huge fan of FP4 although Ive tuned it in and get good results but like other films better.

I agree with this. I haven't developed any Pan F for a long time but do remember that I liked it in Rodinal once I tuned my procedure which certainly took more than a couple of rolls.

 

[f16sunshine]

Maybe try a stronger mix ratio OP.
Rodinal at 1:25 is a different beast from 1:50.
I'm not a super Rodinal expert but, I have alway found a combination that produced a result I had a use for.
Maybe PanF is better with other developers for your purpose and scanning.
If I want less grain, I generally choose Tmax Dev 1:4.
In my workflow I use only two developers. Rodinal and Tmax dev.
The rodinal for sharpness and moodiness. Tmax dev for a cleaner more modren look or for pushing films.
The few times I've used PanF it was souped in Tmax 1:4 and had that fine sharp PanF look I imagine the OP was seeking.
I don't have the Darkroom Chops that Don and some others do but I can say with confidence, Rodinal gives predictable results at whatever given ratios.
It just takes a few goes to understand where a combinations limits lie.
1:50 is not where I would start for finer grain with a slowish film like PanF.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Well, as one of those who tried PanF 50 in Rodinal and pointedly didn't like it, I thought I would weigh in again as there has been the subtle implication here that I and others who don't like the combination just must not know how to process film. (i.e. "Ur doin' it wrong.") Okay, granted, that's always a possibility, though, having spent a good deal,of time considering that possibility, I am tending to go with 'I think I know more or less what I'm doing, I just didn't personally like the combination of Pan F 50+ and Rodinal, no matter how I rated the film, or which dilution or processing regimen I used.'
The combination just never gave me what I was looking for from Pan F, which was fairly specific. Nothing I have seen here has made me change my mind. One man's "gorgeous tonality" is another man's "not really what I was looking for from PanF," perhaps that's possible. As someone else mentioned, taste probably plays a role in deciding whether PanF and Rodinal is one's preferred combo or not, as much as right or wrong does.
I have a fair amount of Tmax 3200 ferreted away so it's not that I have anything against grain in certain situations, and I happily use Rodinal with other slow speed films, so it's not that I don't think Rodinal is a good developer. I just don't like the results from the combination as much as some people here obviously do, much preferring results with Perceptol or even DD-X, for this particular film. Tried Rodinal + PanF enough, not going back.
This thread reminds me of a mom saying, "You're going to eat it. You're going to eat it, and you're going to like it!"
I've eaten a lot of it, cooked every whichaway. I don't like it.

 

[Corran]

Rodinal was my preferred developer for PanF, but ultimately it was too nitpicky of a film to bother. Also I had continuous issues with tiny spots all over the negative - in discussing with others, this may be an issue with the paper backing and humidity, which is just a fact of life when living in the deep south, so I don't bother. I didn't find it any higher resolution or lower grain than T-Max 100 in a good developer.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I normally did semi-stand developer in dilute Rodinal (1:100). Here's one of my better negs (6x17):

 

[znapper]

Come on, be a little kind to all of us that has not been in the darkroom for a long time. It's been 20 years for me. Instead tell us witch films Rodinal is good for so we can educate from you a bit. Ok, I can google, but share your knowledge it's more fun to read.

Try Fuji acros@80 to 100, Rodinal 1:50, or 1:25 for smoother results

 

[teddy]

I agree with x-ray, I've had great results with Rodinal and Pan F 50. It's not all bad news. It was the first film I ever developed when I began with film photography. Practice, practice, practice!!! I disagree that you cannot get good results with Rodinal and Pan F. I got results in my first try! Refining your skills is part of the fun!

My first film development. I have finally gone to the "dark side".
Ilford Pan F+ 50, Rolleiflex 75/3.5 Xenotar at 5.6. Development with Rodinal S, 9mins @ 22 C'. 60, 10 and 10 secs agitation.

Olympus OM1n, Zuiko 50/1.8 MC @ f4. Ilford Pan F 50 and scanned with an Epson 3170. Adjusted with Photoshop. Natural light and shadows on the banks of the Murray River, Renmark. Exposure taken around 5pm on a sunny day. I took advantage of the shadows from the gum tree behind the Pelican.

Rolleiflex 75/3.5 Xenotar, Ilford Pan F 50, wide open, Adonal 1/100 Stand Developement for 60 mins

 

[css9450]

Try Fuji acros@80 to 100, Rodinal 1:50, or 1:25 for smoother results

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?

 

[noeyedear]

I've got 5 rolls of Pan F left, dd x is next on the list, if it looks like it can give gradation and fine grain I'll work with that to dial it in. Rodinal or Rodinol or Anilrod or however you want to spell it is off the list.
Cheers all.

Kev.

 

[Shab]

I have tried the pan F+ with HC110 at 1:79 dilution. here you have some examples:

All with M5 and 35mm Ultron VM.