problem

fightheheathens · Jan 8, 2007

so, this is quite odd...
i recently got stuff for developing B&W. I took a college corse on it about 1 year ago and i think that i am fairly good at developing and printing with B&W.
additionally having run a good 2,000 B&W pictures through my camera in the last year, i think i should know what im doing when it comes to correct exposure blah blah blah.

anywho, i cannot for the life of me get a good roll of Ilford Pan F + 50ISO
in college, I mostly used HP5 and some T-max and i got really good results with it.
I only did 2-3 rolls of the Pan F+ in college and all three rolls came out thin..IE it seemed like there was almost nothing there on the neg. almost clear but if held up to a dim light, or white wall you could see an image.
When i developed these i had accidently left my Developer in the car over night and it may have froze, so i chalked it up to that.

However, now that i have my own stuff, i have been developing and have run into this same problem again.
I have developed some Tri-X 400 and HP5 with Ilfosol S and gotted the expected results. IE good full density negs

however, i have done three rolls of Pan F + and gotten the same thin negs. it looks as if they were under exposed or under developed.
I developed with Ilfosol S at the recomended time, temp, and concentration.
6 min at 68 degrees with a 1+14 dilution

Additionally i know for a fact that according to my camera, all of the images are properly exposed. I also know that my light meter works. A roll shot at a similar time (but HP5) came out fine.
also my light meter gives the same exposure reading at f22 1/60 ISO 400 and f8 1/60 ISO 50

So what the heck? it must be in the developing and i dont want to ruin more of my PanF trying to fix this, I have some pan f to develope that has some great shots on it that i might want to print and hang, but i dont want to be dissipointed because of thin negs.

any suggestions or help would be awsome

ahelg · Jan 9, 2007

Have you actually tried printing any of these negs to see if they produce a good photograph?

ThomThomsk · Jan 9, 2007

I had a very similar experience with Pan F and like you I followed the instructions. I settled on FP4+ as my standard film and so didn't really pursue the matter, but from what I read on APUG (where there are a few threads on this topic) it isn't unusual, Pan F is just low contrast. A lot of people treat it as a 25 ASA film.

I suppose there are a couple of approaches you could take. First, proper film tests to determine the true film speed and development time for your equipment and method. Second, trial and error - try a roll at 25 ASA and see if you like it better, and/or try it at 50 ASA and add 20% to the development time, 25 ASA and add some development time, etc.

Thom

ahelg · Jan 9, 2007

If you are used to using HP5 and T-MAX and you are happy with the results they provide, then it's probably a good idea to stick to them. I find that it's often a good idea to find a certain film that you like and stick to that as you'll learn to know the film (hmm. learn to know it is a norwegian expression. I guess it doesn't translate well, but it basicly means that after a while you'll learn everythin there is to know about it).

fightheheathens · Jan 9, 2007

i have tried printing and it is very tricky. but in the end, i felt the results were worth the vast ammount of effort and wasted paper i spent.
I really like doing landscape in B&W and HP5 is normally too much grain for me.
I have been happy with the T-max 100 but i would like to see what the PanF gives me.
If i cant get the panF to work like i want it, ill probably stick to the T-max,
but i have always had good results with the other Ilford films i use and you'll never know if there is a better film for you out there if you dont try

Torus34 · Jan 14, 2007

Shoot the Pan-F at ISO 25 and increase the contrast a bit when you print.

Majik Imaje · Mar 4, 2007

.. .. sorta figured the problem out!

your quote: however, i have done three rolls of Pan F + and gotten the same thin negs. it looks as if they were under exposed or under developed.

well it is either one or the other.. ! or maybe neither. like one person said. or asked.. have you tried to print any of them ?

also, I am reminded of a very famous photographer who said.. concerning issues such as this.

Pick one film ! stick with it.. !

I remember the first time I saw a "correctly" exposed b&w negative. I was astonished that it wasn't THICK like mine were.

just a few tips.. ! go with what works for you and stick with it!