PanF images too contrasty, any idea?

[Roger Hicks]

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

Pan F is a short-toe film, which makes it much more sensitive to variations in development than long-toe films. Excess development goes straight to excess contrast. This is not the same as 'inherently contrasty'.

Before leaping to unusual developers, it's well worth reducing development in the developer first used, via any or all of reduced time, reduced concentration, reduced temperature or reduced agitation. It is not difficult to underdevelop Pan F and get flat, dull negatives, but it's even easier to overdevelop.

True compensating developers necessarily compress the mid-tones, so the tonality of a compensating developer may or may not be to a particular photographer's liking, depending on the subject matter.

A lot of so-called compensating developers aren't; people see what they want to see. I used to make up my own developers; I have a densitometer and can plot D/log E curves; and a lot of what's claimed is not replicable. That's not just me: friends at Ilford have told me the same story, and they're better experimentalists than I.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rhodes]

Here's 2 from my first try with Pan F and Rodinal!








The ones I consider the best from that rol! (IMHO😉)!

 

[Seele]

Roger,

I agree with what you said. However, this also means PanF demands a bit more care and sympathy in terms of exposure and processing combination. For a long time, b/w workers got somewhat spoilt by Tri-X and HP5, with higher shadow contrast and lower highlight contrast, making them in practice faster in the camera and tolerant in the tank. My point is: under some circumstances, it takes more care and discipline to use PanF to squeeze out shadow details while maintaining printable highlights, compared to a film such as Tri-X or HP5. When I was living in the UK, I had less issues with PanF compared to being here in Australia, where the light is more intense and directional; in fact I can consider films as being effectively slower here, as in down-rating slow films (and pre-exposing printing paper) is more common in my repertoire.

 

[kemal_mumcu]

Pan F is a short-toe film, which makes it much more sensitive to variations in development than long-toe films. Excess development goes straight to excess contrast. This is not the same as 'inherently contrasty'.

Before leaping to unusual developers, it's well worth reducing development in the developer first used, via any or all of reduced time, reduced concentration, reduced temperature or reduced agitation. It is not difficult to underdevelop Pan F and get flat, dull negatives, but it's even easier to overdevelop.

True compensating developers necessarily compress the mid-tones, so the tonality of a compensating developer may or may not be to a particular photographer's liking, depending on the subject matter.

A lot of so-called compensating developers aren't; people see what they want to see. I used to make up my own developers; I have a densitometer and can plot D/log E curves; and a lot of what's claimed is not replicable. That's not just me: friends at Ilford have told me the same story, and they're better experimentalists than I.

Cheers,

R.

I never knew that lower temperatures would reduce contrast. This just explained a lot to me. Here in the Mediterranean region I've been having a hard time keeping my solution temperatures lower this summer. This might partly explain my higher contrast negs coming out of the tank.

Not meaning to steer the thread, just found the info in this thread informative.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

I agree with what you said. However, this also means PanF demands a bit more care and sympathy in terms of exposure and processing combination. For a long time, b/w workers got somewhat spoilt by Tri-X and HP5, with higher shadow contrast and lower highlight contrast, making them in practice faster in the camera and tolerant in the tank. My point is: under some circumstances, it takes more care and discipline to use PanF to squeeze out shadow details while maintaining printable highlights, compared to a film such as Tri-X or HP5. When I was living in the UK, I had less issues with PanF compared to being here in Australia, where the light is more intense and directional; in fact I can consider films as being effectively slower here, as in down-rating slow films (and pre-exposing printing paper) is more common in my repertoire.

No question!

Interestingly, your point about ISO speeds was also made by the Japananese members of the ISO standards committee, who suggested a lower standard contrast: 0.55, as I recall, instead of the effective 0.62 or so of the present standard. The light in Japan is harder and contrastier than in Rochester, where the ancestor of the ISO film speed scale was developed.

Sensitometrically this makes far less difference than one would expect but in the real world this carries through ONLY if you meter the shadows and base your exposure on that. With any other form of metering, contrastier light almost always results in under-exposure. Ansel Adams himself reckoned that his exposures increased by an average of a stop, once he started spot metering.

Even with fast films, it makes a difference. Shooting in Greece, my wife and I give TriX and HP5 1/3 to 2/3 stop more exposure (except when spot metering) and develop for 10% less time than in the UK. There's more about this in the first of these two modules (on development technique), http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html, while exposure technique is covered in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html

Cheers,

Roger

 

[sepiareverb]

I shoot Pan F at 40 or at 25, and keep the agitation to a minimum during the last half of the development for the ISO40 films.

I think Pan F is a great ISO25 film.

 

[titrisol]

Overdevelopment
Most probably the lab runs of standard cycles so you have to adjust your exposure to that.

next time (if you plan to use this guys again) sacrifice a roll, bracket and over under expose to se which photos turn out better.
Then if your underexposed fotos eg.2/3 are good, set the ISo in your camera to 50+2/3 =~80

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

 

[Turtle]

Roger,

Re Greece, do you mean you give 1/3-2/3 MORE, rather than less, exposure (and reduce development) due to high contrast, compared to the UK?

In spring/autumn low cutting sunshine in Afghanistan I do the same. In winter, which can be overcast, and summer (when the light is bright as hell but overall contrast can be low) I expose less and develop more to get some separation. It took a while to get my head round developing many Afghan summer rplls of film as 'low contrast scenes'....

No question!

Interestingly, your point about ISO speeds was also made by the Japananese members of the ISO standards committee, who suggested a lower standard contrast: 0.55, as I recall, instead of the effective 0.62 or so of the present standard. The light in Japan is harder and contrastier than in Rochester, where the ancestor of the ISO film speed scale was developed.

Sensitometrically this makes far less difference than one would expect but in the real world this carries through ONLY if you meter the shadows and base your exposure on that. With any other form of metering, contrastier light almost always results in under-exposure. Ansel Adams himself reckoned that his exposures increased by an average of a stop, once he started spot metering.

Even with fast films, it makes a difference. Shooting in Greece, my wife and I give TriX and HP5 1/3 to 2/3 stop less exposure (except whjen spot metering) and develop for 10% less time than in the UK. There's more about this in the first of these two modules (on development technique), http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps neg development 1.html, while exposure technique is covered in http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,

Re Greece, do you mean you give 1/3-2/3 MORE, rather than less, exposure (and reduce development) due to high contrast, compared to the UK?

In spring/autumn low cutting sunshine in Afghanistan I do the same. In winter, which can be overcast, and summer (when the light is bright as hell but overall contrast can be low) I expose less and develop more to get some separation. It took a while to get my head round developing many Afghan summer rplls of film as 'low contrast scenes'....

Of course you're right: thanks. Post now edited.

Cheers,

R.