PanF images too contrasty, any idea?

U

ulrich.von.lich

Well-known
Local time
12:00 AM
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
292
Location
Algiers, Algeria
View My Gallery
Hi everyone,

The images coming from the roll of PanF that I recently developed at a photo lab are too contrasty. What could be the cause?

The developer was xtol according to the lab. I used Nokton 40mm Classic MC.

I was told PanF is low contrast film. If it's not the case, could you please recommend me some low contrast B&W films?

Thanks in advance!

Best Regards,
Tony
 
Pan-F has good balanced tonality in my experience, if anything it's higher contrast. The main factor is the light where you took the photos, was it really contrasty? You might want to try FP4 developed with Ilford's recommended agitation routine, which is longer times with less agitation.
 
ulrich.von.lich said:
Hi everyone,

The images coming from the roll of PanF that I recently developed at a photo lab are too contrasty. What could be the cause?

The developer was xtol according to the lab. I used Nokton 40mm Classic MC.

I was told PanF is low contrast film. If it's not the case, could you please recommend me some low contrast B&W films?

Thanks in advance!

Best Regards,
Tony
Click to expand...

round there they use to use concentrated developer to save time :/

imho the lab made a mistake, or maybe your scan

IMHO B&W should be a DIY activity 😉
 
In my experience PanF can appear contrasty when exposure is not precise, as well as being sensitive to developers. IOW, it can be pretty contrasty unless the stars are aligned. I like Rodinal for Pan F, but also am thinking of experimenting with XTol. I've also used FG-7 in the past with good results.
 
Just developed a roll of Pan F myself, shot in bright sunlight with some strong shadows (in other words, high contrast lighting). Souped in Rodinal (1:50) for 8 min. at 24 degrees C. Negs looks good, but I was shooting with an uncoated Leitz Summar, a very low contrast lens So based on this I would assume this combination is high contrast normally.

You could pull a stop or try another stock. If you want a little lower contrast, you might try FP4+ as Melvin recommended (although I have no experience with Xtol). Acros is nice too. Grain just as fine (if not finer) than what I've seen with Pan F, but with more traditional tonality - in other words, not muddy like TMax.
 
Thanks everyone for the reply! I've bookmarked the thread for future use. I forgot to mention that I'm unable to develop films myself yet. I will learn it once I have some time. The vast combinations of B&W films and developers could be great fun.

What I'm going to do is to bring my hand held meter and to try a different lab next time.


A few things that intrigue me:

JSU: you stated ..."Pan F (ASA 64)"... I believe my Pan Fs are ISO50. Are there two types of Pan F?

Le vrai rdu: I see you are located in Paris as well. The lab I used is Publimod (à St Paul) and people seem quite professional there. If they can sacrifice the image quality to save some time, I don't know who else I can trust. Do you always develop B&W films at home or else which lab do you use, if you don't mind to share?

typhillips: You mentioned to pull one stop. Could you explain me why it would bring down the contrast?

First, I need to confirm the basic concepts of pushing/pulling/underexposure/overexposure.

For an ISO50 film:
Shoot at ISO50 & Develop at ISO25: Underexpose 1 stop
Shoot at ISO50 & Develop at ISO100: Overexpose 1 stop
Shoot & Develop at ISO100: Push 1 stop
Shoot & Develop at ISO25: Pull 1 stop
Shoot at ISO100 & Develop at ISO200: Push 1 stop & Overexpose 1 stop??

Am I right until here?

I know pushing is to increase the usability of a film in poorer lighting condition, in exchange of more noises. But I've never truly understood the benefits of pulling. The only thing I can ever think of is better shadow details but worse highlight details. But why is the contrast/tone curve affacted?

Sorry for such a long post and for bringing the thread off the rail a bit. I wanted to make these basic things clear before going any further. I hope you don't mind.

I appreciate your thoughts!
 
I love Pan F+ 50 developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 11' with little agitation beyond the first 20s. Contrasty...sure it is but it has gutsy depth🙂

3675995826_d6b8fcf7c9_b.jpg
 
ulrich.von.lich said:
Thanks everyone for the reply! I've bookmarked the thread for future use. I forgot to mention that I'm unable to develop films myself yet. I will learn it once I have some time. The vast combinations of B&W films and developers could be great fun.

What I'm going to do is to bring my hand held meter and to try a different lab next time.


A few things that intrigue me:

JSU: you stated ..."Pan F (ASA 64)"... I believe my Pan Fs are ISO50. Are there two types of Pan F?

Le vrai rdu: I see you are located in Paris as well. The lab I used is Publimod (à St Paul) and people seem quite professional there. If they can sacrifice the image quality to save some time, I don't know who else I can trust. Do you always develop B&W films at home or else which lab do you use, if you don't mind to share?

typhillips: You mentioned to pull one stop. Could you explain me why it would bring down the contrast?

First, I need to confirm the basic concepts of pushing/pulling/underexposure/overexposure.

For an ISO50 film:
Shoot at ISO50 & Develop at ISO25: Underexpose 1 stop
Shoot at ISO50 & Develop at ISO100: Overexpose 1 stop
Shoot & Develop at ISO100: Push 1 stop
Shoot & Develop at ISO25: Pull 1 stop
Shoot at ISO100 & Develop at ISO200: Push 1 stop & Overexpose 1 stop??

Am I right until here?

I know pushing is to increase the usability of a film in poorer lighting condition, in exchange of more noises. But I've never truly understood the benefits of pulling. The only thing I can ever think of is better shadow details but worse highlight details. But why is the contrast/tone curve affacted?

Sorry for such a long post and for bringing the thread off the rail a bit. I wanted to make these basic things clear before going any further. I hope you don't mind.

I appreciate your thoughts!
Click to expand...

I do my B&W at home, it is not expensive compared to the crazy prices asked by the labs 😀 and I like to do it on my own, it is much more rewarding 😉
 
pour toutes tes question je conseille le "bachelier" "Noir et blanc, de la prise de vue au tirage" ca répond à tes questions, au besoin je pourrais te montrer comment dévelloper, à partir de fin septembre 🙂

si ca te dis cyrille-rabiller (at) orange.fr
 
Tom, as you correctly asserted, pulling will improve shadow detail but it will also reduce the effective contrast because the highlights will not be allowed to get as dense. Pushing has the opposite effect.

Pulling: Overexpose and underdevelop
Pushing: Underexpose and overdevelop

The general rule of thumb is to decrease (or increase, if push processing) development time by 50% per stop of exposure. So if your ISO 50 development time is, say, 10 minutes, you would expose at ISO 25 and develop 7.5 minutes for a one stop pull.

Obviously ISO 25 is getting pretty slow by today's standards, so it pretty much limits you to sunny days, shooting at wide apertures or using a tripod.

I take it you are scanning your negatives?
 
Slow black and white tends to have higher contrast than fast film. Less development may help, but it is kind of built in to a certain extent.

This is not to say the lab did not overdevelope which is why I always do my own.
 
Steve: Kodabromide has been long gone (my question was tongue-in-cheek) ... The only Kodabromide left in Rochester is either in freezers or the memories of Kodak employees who have been laid off.

I looked in my film fridge this evening, and have about 15 rolls of Kodachrome. Most are 24-exposure rolls of K64, but two are 36 exp K25. The will be shot in a blaze of glory next summer at Lake Superior.
 
Pan F is about the last film I would let lab develop. It can be a very contrasty film but can be tamed with some testing. It is likely that even with Xtol, EI 50 is possibly too high and that standard lab development times very possible too long. I find I have to rate it at 32 even in Xtol and be very careful in development time.
 
Have a look at some of the Pyro developers - they help to control the highlights. I use the Pyrocat HD. While I did develop some PanF in the past - I dit not scan much of them - so need to have a look. I will be developing PanF again in the next future - I may let you know my procedure then if you wish.
 
Being inherently comtrasty it is easy to block up highlights with PanF. If you have such issues, you can try two-bath developer such as the Stoeckler formula, or a compensating developer, such as those using catechol (aka pyrocatechol, pyrocatechin) or perhaps pyrogallol (aka pyro, pyrogallic acid). PyrocatHD is also a good starting point too, but Hand Windisch had plenty of suggestions
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

x-ray
So you want a digital Rollei?
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
7K
shawn
S
Rob-F
AI is helping me decide whether to buy a Leica M10!
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Rob-F
Rob-F
A
Panasonic, Voigtlander, and the birth of the travel film
Replies
4
Views
740
Bolo Kukus
B
Jake Mongey
Stuck In A Hole - How to find enjoyment in actually taking photos?
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
6K
PetPhoto
P
J
  • Article Article
Kodachrome: Gone Forever, Or……? What would it take to bring it back? You don’t want to know!
7 8 9
Replies
170
Views
17K
Bill Clark
Bill Clark
Back
Top Bottom