Ilford PanF+ 50 ISO Black and White Film | All About Film
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2019
- Ilford's PanF+ is a higher-contrast film that, handled well, can deliver a nice tonal range. It has a reputation as high-contrast due, largely, to how photo labs deliver the results. This video looks at how PanF+ handles in multiple developers and discusses ways to use it well and effectively.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Video Index:
Skip the Intro: 0:30
Ilford PanF50+ Film Type and Available Formats: 1:02
Ilford PanF50+ Subjective Film Characteristics (Grain, tonality and tonal range, acutance, sharpness, gamma, additional notes, good uses [IMO], and digital conversion): 3:04
Ilford PanF50+ Spectral Sensitivity (and how to read it): 7:34
Ilford PanF50+ Characteristic Curve (and how to read it): 9:15
Ilford PanF50+ Reciprocity Failure: 12:28
Ilford PanF50+ Development Latitude: 14:34
Recommended Camera Settings (subjective): 15:48
Ilford PanF50+ Recommended Developers: 16:58
Ilford PanF50+ Developers to Avoid: 18:25
Ilford PanF50+ Sample Photos and Thoughts: 19:36
Developer Sample Index:
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+80: 0:30
Ilford PanF+ 50 in D-76 1+3 @ 25 ISO: 2:02
Ilford PanF+ 50 in D-76 1+3 @ 12 ISO: 3:31
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Kodak XTOL 1+1: 4:24
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Kodak XTOL 1+2: 4:43
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Kodak XTOL 1+3: 5:01
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Ultrafin+ 1+4: 6:48
Ilford PanF+ 50 in D-76 1+1: 7:02
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Ilfosol 3 1+14: 7:23
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Ilfosol 3 1+14 @25 ISO: 14:39
Ilford PanF+ 50 in D-76 Stock: 15:14
Ilford PanF+ 50 in LegacyPro Mic-X 1+3: 15:54
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+25 @ 100 ISO: 16:33
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+25: 17:03
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+50 @25 ISO: 18:01
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+50: 18:30
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+100 (Stand) @25 ISO: 19:41
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Rodinal 1+100 (Stand): 20:16
Ilford PanF+ 50 in Unknown: 22:46
References:
www.ilfordphoto.com/panf-135
www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/fi...
www.digitaltruth.com/devchart...
www.apug.org/forums/forum.php
www.photo.net/discuss/threads...
istillshootfilm.org/
www.filmsnotdead.com/
groups/11993...
plus.google.com/u/0/communiti...
www.sprawls.org/ppmi2/FILMCON
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
motion.kodak.com/motion/upload...
www.covingtoninnovations.com/d...
home.comcast.net/~amitphotogra...
www.nfsa.gov.au/preservation/h...
www2.optics.rochester.edu/work... - Навчання та стиль
![Insta 360 X3 video edited with DaVinci Resolve 18 [ 4K ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9m57HMazSK8/mqdefault.jpg)
You’re the best film reviewer on the web bar none.
Thank you, Helge!
Excellent presentation, as usual. RS
The "All About Film" series is the only film review series I need to watch. Every film is properly researched, results are investigated and presentation is really well made. No need for another film review as long as the film of interest already has its video. Keep it up, David!
Thanky ou, Marvin!
I love these reviews because you go just enough into the chemistry and technicality that it doesn't overwhelm a newbie, while thorough explaining the films abilities capabilities for more successful images.
Also were you in Bearizona for a few of these?
Thank you! That's exactly the fine line that I try to walk with this series.
@@africanpenguin3282 I was, but that was almost eight years ago now.
@@DavidHancock I just recognized the pasture and fence lol. Glad you enjoyed northern AZ
Nicely done; it’s been decades since I used this film.
Thank you!
You put some heart into this video. I really enjoyed it
Thank you. I try to make this video series especially good.
Doesn’t look like under-development to me, David. Your highlights look fine. I’ve seen videos with good shadow detail in the images so it can be done but I know virtually nothing about the technical issues around video production so I’ll bow out now before I show my ignorance.
Thank you and it's been a learning process for me. I was caught off guard by the video issues when my first Acros video launched and someone pointed out all the eyes in the portraits were in deep shadow. When I checked my local file copy, they weren't. Video is a world I'm never going to understand the intricacies of in regards to things like codecs and compression. I can just do trial and error and see what looks good.
I've been shooting Pan F for years and I love it. I expose it at EI 25 and develop in Rodinal 1:99 for 15 minutes at 20C or Perceptol 1:3 for 15 minutes at 20C. I generally shoot it in bright sunlight with a polarizer and it's never let me down.
Than k you! I didn't get a chance to use Perceptol with this. How does it work?
@@DavidHancock Results very similar to Rodinal (normal agitation; not stand), though Rodinal emphasizes the grain a bit more and I like that look.
Really want to thank you for your helpful videos on HP4, FP5 and this one. And learned about X-Tol too. So very helpful.
Thank you!
Excellent review David!!!
Thank you, Nat!
I am really looking forward to your Ilford HP5+ presentation. You make a great job. Thanks for that
Thank you!
I’ve only shot one roll so far, in a Zeiss Tengor box camera, developed in Diafine, and was blown away by the sharpness and tonality.
Nice! That would be a good pairing all around.
Another great video about properties of photographic films! The PanF+ film is one of my most favorite B&W films due to its wide tonal range. Film surface is always flat after development and drying which makes it easy to digitize.
Thank you! That's a good point and one that I never mention in these, this film has zero curl.
Ok , just read the community page, next week for the Double X, literally cant wait.
Thank you!
Another great review David. You certainly put a lot of effort into this one. It’s not my favorite Ilford film, but if you want some great contrasts and deep shadows in those backlit shots, it does a wonderful job. Thanks for the information and effort.
Thank you!
Great review and new subscriber, fabulous images, thanks!!!!
Thank you!
very Awesome video- amazing thank you
Thank you!
Fantastic video. These super in depth reviews are very helpful for me. I really loved my results from PanF but I didn't know why I liked them so much....Now I know. I am eager to see your next video like this.
Thank you! If all goes according to plan, the next of these will be released next Monday.
@@DavidHancock Out of curiosity, how often do you plan to release in depth content like this, where you analyze a certain stock? This is something that I am deeply interested in but on more pedestrian stocks like Fuji C200, Superia Xtr400, Pro400H and Kodak Gold 200, Porta (any ISO honestly) UMax, CPlus, etc. I really like your depth of knowledge and level of inquiry on these but I don't typically go for stocks other than C41 BWs, your more main streamC41 color films, and the occasional E6 slide film.
Been following your content for years but relatively recent sub; grew up shooting film and just got back into it about a year ago. Your content has been extremely helpful. I snagged a Maxxum 9 based on your review
Than you!
If I could afford the cost and time to do one of these every two or three weeks consistently, I would. But these reviews take a LONG time. The big hurdle is the quantity of images that I'm okay sharing. This video set a new record for me, around 240 images in the video. Most have around 150. But assuming two good images per roll, that's still 75 rolls of film. So even if I shot one per week of a stock, that's a long lead time. Typically, the image gathering for one of these lasts around three or four years. So I also have to pick stocks that I think will be in production for a long time. I have a survey up on the channel's community tab right now that shows what stocks are nearing completion and which ones I'm thinking of for the next batch. Portra 400 is going to be in the next batch for sure, which means the 2020 batch. Fuji needs to re-earn my trust (I know that's a ridiculous statement on the face of it) because I've seen them cancel so many stocks that I don't know if they'll continue making their consumer stocks or not. If I get a good feeling about their commitment to film, I'll do more Fuji videos. I also have serious concerns about Kodak's long-term viability and whether or not they can survive as a stand-alone business entity. So I'm pushing forward with Portra 400, being optimistic, but I think most of the films I'm looking at forthe next two years are Ilford, Adox, and Foma. Of all the stocks you mentioned, I think that Portra 160, 400, and 800 are the only ones I have any photos for (maybe 400H, too.) I will do some more consumer-grade stocks (like Superia and Max) in the foreseeable future, but they're not imminent.
@@DavidHancock I know these take a super long time, not just weeks or months but like in the case of this video, years. There is a wealth of information out there on really really common stocks like HP5/HP5+ (I actually think this might be my least favorite stock of all time oddly enough), Tri-X, and with the return of Ektachrome I saw a large resurgence in technical data for that stock. But things that have been around for quite some time that haven't changed a whole heck of a lot over the years yet lack in depth analysis. Kodak Gold 200 is a great example. I can find lots of 5 minute videos saying how great it is but that doesn't tell me anything.
I agree; It would behoove Fuji to have some modicum of stability when it comes to their dedication to film. I shoot a crap ton of C200 & SX400 (probably my two favorite "beater" stocks) but it's just turning into a "smoke em' if you got'em" type of thing; I find myself using it because I don't know how long I will be able to get it new for. I will almost certainly watch the video for whichever stock you release next even though I have little interest in BWs that aren't C41 (I got hooked on C41 BWs a long time ago). Maybe an Ilford XP2 video??
Thanks as always & cheers from MN
Kyle
I’m really REALLY loving your videos. You do such a great job explaining the technical, objective nature of each stock as well as the objective, “how much do I like the results” aspect. Your HP5 video is what convinced me to jump in and buy what I needed to start developing at home. XTOL+3 is going to be my go-to for starting out. If you have any tips on that developer+dilution, I’m all ears!
Nice and thank you! Developing at home is a huge game changer because you can have a lot of control over hope the negatives turn out.
This is a great film for medium format, especially for portraits.
Definitely yes. Medium format portraits with this are wonderful.
The question of why develop within 3 months... the latent image degrades. That being said, I still love this film.
Thank you!
Thank you for your comprehensive review! Very informative again. My experience is that it is a great film in 135 format. I expose it at EI 25 and develope in ID11 1:1. 20 degrees Celsius. Wonderful results. Smooth contrast. However, this might have to do with the lens as well. I use this film with a lower contrast lens from the 50s. They pair wonderfully.
Nice and thank you! That setup does sound like it would work well. I hadn't thought of the lens having an effect, but it stands to reason that lower-contrast lenses would benefit this film.
Process quality in the darkroom is a topic I'dloveto see in the video, as I'm just getting my darkroom set up.
So maybe some tips on how to improve darkroom processes and developed negative quality?
@@DavidHancock Exactly. I went thru all your negative flaw videos already & yup - except for the mechanical issues (which I've never had, btw) I've experienced every one of them. Especially first frame errors.
Got it. I just roughed out an outline for it. Next time I book studio space (probably this month) I'll include that in the to-record list.
And thank you for the suggestion.
Excellent in depth review, wow.
I develop it in Ilford DDX 1:5 and Crawley's FX-15 1:1, both with minimal agitation (but not stand). Prior to using those two developers, I was not able to control the contrast. I've not run it under a densitometer, but my sense is that the shoulder is much further up with those two developers. Most of my use is landscapes with lots of grass and trees + sky.
Thank you and those sound like good developing options.
Thanks.
Thank you!
Hi David, loved, loved this format with the developer information as well as the un-edited early pictures, this sort of presentation of information is really useful to those of us that shoot and develop all their own film. It was especially useful as while I love this film I have really only been satisfied with my results when developing it will Ilfotc DDX 1+4 20c which is a pricy way of developing film, this video has inspired to go back and experiment a bit more as you got some good results with other developers.
Hope you do Eastman Kodak Double X soon, this is my very favourite non tabular grain film stock, maybe by favourite full stop but I will have to wait to see if Across II is as good as the original as that is my baby. I only develop double x with the motion picture developer D96 which is great and available from Belinni in the UK but would love to see if you have opinions and examples of other developers.
Again, I love these videos and will keep watching as long as you keep making them :-)
Thank you! In next week'd video, D-96 is one of the developers that I did not try. I developed it exclusively as a still image negative film.
Thanks for this review, I just bought a few 120 rolls and was planning on using them for landscape, this review really helped in choosing which film to buy! Will you be doing one for Delta 100?
Thank you and I will. I forget how far out Delta 100 is, but it's going to be in my next film buy with the aim of finishing it in 2020.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for the answer! I'm very curious as to how the difference between panF and Delta will play out, I just bought both of them for my Yashica D and I'm very curious to try them both, but from your video I like very much how PanF looks. Will you also try the new Ilford Ortho Plus by any chance?
I'm glad I stumbled across your review as I am going out and shooting a roll of it this afternoon. Thanks for the review. As I have never shot with it before, I think I will stick with box speed to get an idea of the standard results, but the thought of shooting at ISO 32 does appeal since it appears to have better midtones.
Thank you! I really liked this film pulled a bit but box speed can deliver great results in the right chemistry.
Excellent video. Do you have any video with Rollei Rollei RPX 25? Thanks for your work
Thank you and not yet. I was working on that one for this year but since I'm between jobs right now all film purchasing is on hold so this series is going to be a bit slowed. I think I may only get two more of these out this year, and neither will be RPX 25, unfortunately. It's an amazing film.
Good afternoon, David!
Thanks for the video.
Do you have any plans to shoot a review on Ilford Ortho Plus 80?
Good afternoon to you, too!
Ortho is on the calendar for 2025. It's a long way out but that's mostly because next year is packed.
Amazing 35mm images. I like the exposure and detail in the first 3 minutes better than the medium format, which is kind of shocking. Did you have a metering issue with the MF?
What camera and lens did you use for the 35mm in the first 3 minutes or so? The MF images seem to greatly improve after the 4 minute mark. Have you ever considered explaining how to read film characteristic curves, gamma and density and how to use this in a practical way to improve your images? I think you have the ability to explain this to your audience in a helpful way. Excellent video! I've been sitting on some of this stock in 35mm and 120 and you've helped me to avoid blowing several rolls by using a red or even a yellow filter. Thanks.
Thank you! For the MF images, the black and white videos for this series are VERY hard to compile. The big issues is that I want to group the images by developer/ISO/dilution combination. So in this case that meant making some compromises up front. In a video like the Velvia one from a few weeks back, I generally put my best images up front since all that stock was developed in the same E-6 chemistry. With this video I put all of the Rodinal 1+80 shots up front because, on balance, that was the developer I though was the best for this stock. Then I tried to put other good results near the end in the thoughts section because people skip to that section a lot. That makes it easier for people to find the developer combo they want to use or reference good images against a developer combo they may not have thought of. The downside of course is that not all the best images are up front. Also, because I'm developing individual rolls in the same chemistry the images are grouped more. So a roll of landscapes might all be together. With my C-41 and E-6 videos I work very hard to vary the types of images throughout the video.
As for reading the C curve, I try to but I could probably put some more detail in. So with PanF, and other stocks where the inertia point is back further, my experience is that those can be underexposed WAY more easily than stocks that start to record an image instantly. Beyond a general cognizance of the overall meaning in the data, I'm not sure what other detail I can go into (I'm open to suggestions.) I worry when I go too into the weeds that I will either get too engineer-y and too boring OR mis-state something because I'm not a film engineer. Those two things hold me back more than anything else in the technical sections.
Nice video and shots, David. Where did you buy the film that was bad? They made you go to Ilford instead of taking care of you?
I bought it at Freestyle but I didn't reach out to them and went straight to Ilford instead. Mostly I was wondering what had happened to it and then Ilford explained (it had to do with the 120 paper lacquer, and I did a Negative Flaws video on it). Ilford volunteered to replace the film and send me some more.
@@DavidHancock Thanks.
Hey David, another great film review. I rarely shoot slow film but thought about trying some soon, and thanks to your reviews I think I'll order a few mixed rolls of Rollei next, they're quite affordable in Germany.
But here's a request for maybe a beginner's video - could you recommend a few "general purpose" B/W film stocks that behave best when given to filmlabs using standard developer and solutions? I probably won't ever get into developing at home, no enough space and dealing with the chemicals here is a real pain, so I'm relying on my lab. I think they're using D76, probably the most common one(?). So far most of my faster films turned out quite good with the best results maybe from Tmax 400, HP5 and FP4+, which I use almost exclusively now since I don't waste too much money on film that won't turn out that well, yet I'm eager to experiment. :)
Definitely yes. Your timing is perfect. I'm cleaning up my scripts for my next studio booking and I'm about to go book two four-hour studio blocks for next week. But for lab processing, the stocks you named are going to handle well. I'd add the Delta lineup to the Ilford list, too. Kodak's TMax and Tri-X should make the list, too. Here's the outline I just roughed out. Let me know if I missed anything or if you'd like to see anything else:
Overview different types of film and what the speeds mean
-slide and negative, color and B&W, and note that each can be had or processed each way
ISOs -- what are ultraslow (800) and note that each basically means how much light the film needs. Use the Sunny 16 rule (explain what it is) as a way to understand their relationship. Make each number a fraction, and then use that fraction as the Sunny 16 shutter speed to show how the ISO relates to the film’s use
What films behave the best in lab processing?
What films behave the best developing in a classroom or at home? (that’s basically all of them dependent on your process) note that my experience is labs return higher-contrast negatives than does home processing for black and white.
B&W -- UF, Kentmere, Foma, 100 and 400 for beginners because they're inexpensive and good for learning
Color -- Fuji Superia and Kodak ... whatever their consumer color is.
For labs: TMax and tri-X, Delta stocks, HP5+, and FP4+ in B&W and basically any color stock (due to chemical dangers, relate the story of the guy Alice knew who died.)
@@DavidHancock Oh shit, that last line...
But that looks like great beginner content, and I think my question is covered, maybe add the "for filmlab" stock's push/pull quality since that's something most labs usually offer for a small extra fee.
On the cheap film list, Agfa APX 100 and 400 is widely available here, it's basically the only B/W film you still find at drugstores and supermarkets, so for many the first B/W film they get their hands on. Don't know if you have it over there. In general, we seem to have quite different prices, usually Kodak is quite a bit more expensive in Europe than in the US, it's generally cheaper to pick Ilford when in doubt.
Got it. I can do that. Thank you!
Great Review David, As always. I never understand what is "Thin Negative" or "Thick Negative". Can you explain?
Thank you, Sharon. So a thin negative is one that has too little data, is either underexposed or underdeveloped. A thick negative is the opposite. Looking at a thin negative there is basically film base and some hint of an image. A thick negative is generaly black or has very dense and dark areas. An ideal negative, a photography professor explained once, should allow the photographer to see newsprint through the negative.
@@DavidHancock Thanks. Good Analogy with the newsprint. So a thick negative is one with a thick layer of material (emulsion) after developing and it's preferable (?) because over exposure (Thus a black negative) can be adjusted ?
This is a great video, as you mention too bas is not made in 4x5, I would have to give it a try, I wonder how it would work wit pyro cat HD.
Thank you! I wondered about Pyro with this film, too, but it's not a developer I have ever used. I have to imagine that they would pair nicely.
I've had decent luck with Pyrocat HD semi stand developed for 40 min @ 20C 1:1:250 1 min continuous then q 10 min x 1 inversion till done. The nice thing is this works for Acros shot at ISO 50 so I tend to develop these together.
Am trying to make some time for Pyro, but I don't understand the dilution1:1 200 parts 200 parts of What.
Really good and informative video!
Can you try Shanghai GP3 next? They're the cheapest 120 film i could find and i would like to hear your opinion on it.
Thank you! GP3 is in process. It's a challenge for me. When the film is good it's REALLY good. But, ShangHai has had some ongoing QC issues that have left many, many of my rolls with imprints of the paper on them (they appear not to be applying enough, or may be any, lacquer to their paper backing to protect the film.) So I've stopped using it in 120. They make a 4X5 version that I plan to use to finish the GP3 video, however. I will probably pick up a few more rolls of 120 as well to see if they've fixed the QC issue that ruined a lot of images that I took on GP3.
@@DavidHancock They claim new 220 Film on ebay 5 rolls $41. No reviews out there so not sure.
@@Zetaphotography last I heard Ilford had no ability to fix their 220 machine. If the Ilford website or a known retailer like freestyle or b&h lists it then it's probably trustworthy. If not, I'd be highly skeptical.
The latent image Ilford sort of mentioned is that the latent image fades very quickly. Ive left other films sit for over a year with no affect but I left this film sit a year and there was almost no image on the negative after development. Even after a month I have had diminishing of the image on the negative. Would shoot this film a lot if it wasn't for this problem.
Thank you!
Any possibility of doing a revisit of Ilford Pan F + 50?
Good question and something I hadn't really thought about, until this and that prompted me to consider it yesterday. I have been re-making old camera manuals, and some of them have been younger than this video. With the camera manual re-makes, it's a matter of about three or four hours of recording and editing with some minor updates to the outline, if needed. With an All About Film, it's an 18-24 month shooting period and around about $250-450 in film and chemistry. Ultimately, I don't see myself re-doing AAF videos for a long time due to the cost involved. But I think that's an idea that will sit with me for some time because a few of these old videos, this one, HP5+, and Tri-X come to mind, would benefit from a revisit.
I have a roll of Pan F 50 in my fridge but have yet to use it because I have heard so many stories of it starting to degrade after 3 days of use....
I'm very careful and very methodical when I photograph and take forever to finish a roll so terrified that by the time I finish the roll, the earlier photos will have degraded
It's a bit longer than three days, I think about 30. If you can shoot it all in a week you should be A-okay.
great video, David! I've been shooting Pan F off and on since the early 90s... off on a tangent, I notice the flower photo at 6:28 is covered in little specs, which are clearly not dust. I've gotten those specs occasionally, but only ever on 120. Last year, I thought I had the cause nailed down to Photo Flo. I stopped using it and got a new tank for 120, using the old tank for 35mm only. The problem went away. Recently, I ran a roll of 35mm, followed by two rolls of 120, in dedicated tanks as described, but using the same batch of Ilford Rapid Fix. Lo and Behold! both rolls of 120 have specs, though more on the first roll (Pan F) than the second (HP5). I suspect some sort of cross-contamination from the 35mm tank, which could still contain residual Photo Flo... or I could be completely wrong. Have you got any idea what's causing the specs, such as those on your image?
...obviously, those specs appear on a number of your 120 images, as they do on several rolls of mine; i was just singling out the image at 6:28 as a particularly good example of it. ✌
I do. Here's an explanation: ua-cam.com/video/663Q-n0GMbI/v-deo.html It has to do with a QC issue in the production runs.
Thank you, and those should only appear on 120. (I mis-labeled a couple of the 120 shots with that issue as 35mm in the video, but didn't notice it until this morning.) For the 120 frames with those issues, there's no fix except extensive retouching in post because it's part of the emulsion.
@@DavidHancock Thank you! That really cleared things up! It's funny that I was more inclined to believe that I (or my chemistry) were at fault than to suspect that Ilford might be. Thirty years of shooting their film and I've never had a problem with it before or after a few bricks of Pan F and HP5 I bought last year... it's not expired yet, but I'll probably toss it now and start into a new batch of film. THANKS, David!
A “C+”? Oof. I think that’s pretty harsh. I love Pan-F!
I totally get loving the film; mostly it's not one that I find meets my aesthetic ideas for films at this speed. At 25 ISO, I think it's spectacular. But compared to the results I get from the competing films, which I'd say are Rollei RPX 25 and Adox CMS 20 II, they're just more to my aesthetic liking. But again, I wouldn't fault anyone who rated this an A.
So what do you do if you haven´t developed the PanF50 for more then a year and a half???
If you're religious, before you develop: pray. If you aren't, before you develop: hope. In all seriousness, there isn't anything you can do that I know of other than develop and see what comes out of it.
I just got a roll and the 25 ISO sounds really like a good idea to me. How long did you use a development time relative to ilford's development time chart?
I'd check out the Massive Dev Chart for that data because time will differ based on chemistry type, dilution, and temperature.
I use Tmax 1:4 to develop it
Nice. How does it respond to TMax developer?
haha i love panf50 in 120 with ilfosol3 :)
but i will switch to ilford hc soon so ...
:D
Have u tried pyrocat hd with pan f since this video?
No. I've been working like mad to keep up with getting new film stock reviews out (I aim for seven a year) and that workload pretty much eliminates any time that I have to go back and revisit old stocks again. I have started using Pyro 1+2+100 on films in the last month and the Foma 400, Arista EDU 100 videos for later this year as well as the ones I have for next year will include photos develop in Pyro (as well as some other new chemistries that I didn't use when I made this video.)
This looks almost like pyro developed film in the more tone rich shots.
Preflashing and stand dev. would seem to be the obvious ways to tame the contrast. Ever tried that?
I've never pre-flashed film. in theory it should work, but I can't comment on actual implementation. For stand, I liked the results I got from stand developing this for both 25 and 50 ISO. The stand results contributed 38 of the 240-ish images in this video, so a hude percentage. I think the next two after that (I forget the developers) were 29 and 22 images. So the largest percentage of images in this video was stand developed.
David Hancock well, Ansel Adams has some suggestions on how to Pre-expose in “The Negative”.
Rather simple, only requirement is a double exposure switch.
Ilford Pan F Plus: I am the best slow, high acutance film of all time! (ASA 50)
Kodak Panatomic-X: Really? (ASA 32)
But Panatmic-x went out of production.
Yep, turn of this century Eastman Kodak management isn't/wasn't up to the standards set by George Eastman, eh?
Photograph in black and white and have your film developed by a laboratory without having control over the developer (chemistry, time), the result is hazardous (tonal, contrast and what else) unless you are certain that your specifications are followed at the letter. Good luck ;-! Conclusion : I think I'm going to equip myself and control the process from A to Z. I keep you busy today (2 comments) !!
Thank you and yes, that's a huge reason to develop at home. Cost is another as it's far more economical.
4 minutes seems a bit too short for Pan F+ in Kodak HC110
I was using the times in the Massive Development Chart.
"too much contrast and too much grain" sounds like you should have adjusted development time down right?
It's been a lot of years since I made this video. Which chemistry is that in reference to? This film, in general, is high contrast with low grain but in different chemicals it will perform differently. That's true of all black and white films.
I once photographed a black dog in shade on Pan F 120 with a Hasselblad 501 C/M. No matter how much exposure I gave, I could not get any detail in the dog's fur. It was just a black blob. When I tried it with FP4, no problem. Both films developed in XTOL 1:3 at room temperature 11 minutes, first minute continuous agitation, one inversion every 60 seconds thereafter. Pan F solarizes smoothly. You can turn the sun from pure white to grey to black by overexposing starting at about two stops. So, if shadow detail is your thing, Pan F is a poor choice. If you want beautiful highlights and shadows are not important to the photograph, it's an excellent choice. BTW, there was no latency issue. I developed the film immediately after exposure.
No offence but maybe you just haven't mastered the film. To many amateurs keep swooping films and not actually spending the hours to know how they work.
Sounds like a combination of underdevelopment and underexposure. I don't recall the XTOL+3 time for PanF+, but I have to imagine it's more like 17 minutes. I think D-76+3 is around 19 or so (again, memory, so I might be wrong) and XTOL is generally a bit more active than D-76.
@@DavidHancock This was several years ago. The exposure was probably 1/30 at f/3.5, the maximum EV I could get hand-held. My Sekonic L398 gives a reading in shade of 1/40 of a second at f/3.6 at ISO 50. The Universal development chart gives 12 minutes at 68º F with XTOL 1 + 3. I always developed at room temperature, about 74 degrees F. The universal developer chart gives 7 minutes 30 seconds at that temperature, so 11 minutes at 74º should have been plenty. I have numerous photographs of Galveston Bay shot on Pan F with a tripod, which yield decent shadow detail. I'll stick with my original assessment: if you want to photograph black dogs in the shade with a hand-held Hasselblad, FP4 would be a better choice if fine grain is an issue. Otherwise, Tri-X would work well.
But im bad at MATHHHH 😭
It's okay. I am, too.
Don’t let this review put you off Ilfosol 3 with Pan F. Lots of people get great results with this combination - not sure what David’s problem is. Just about all of his photos throughout this video look underexposed. User error?
Thank you and I concur. Since moving to a different state (one with MUCH better water quality) my Ilfosol 3 results have gotten better and I would rank it as a consistent and good developer now, so I suspect that either some mineral or treatment compound in the Bay Area water did not like Ilfosol. As for underexposure, sure, possible, could be under development, could be that these photos were digitized at 16-24 megapixels, compressed in an old Vegas movie editor to, I think, 1080P for this video (I think it pre-dates my shift to 4K), and then run through a UA-cam compression algo before being run through a data transmission algo and either displayed on a smart phone screen or enlarged dramatically to the size of a computer monitor or TV. All of the compression that goes into the images in these videos (across the series) are one of the big issues with the image quality in these videos. Over the last however many years I've found ways to improve the results in these despite compression at each stage, but this video pre-dates some of those improvements by a lot.
This video is reciprocity failure. I'll send you some Kentmere. Heh heh heh Just wait for some Neopan Acros 2.0
I just shot through about 100 feet of Kentmere this spring. It's never gonna be my favorite stock, but it's growing on me. Acros 2 is really exciting. If I knew when it was going to be released, I might head over to Yodobashi to pick some up. (I'd have to go to Japan for that, of course.) Tangential, have you ever visited Yodobashi in Akihabara? Holy cow that's an amazing store.
@@DavidHancock You always take the lemons I throw at you and make lemonade.
I've been to Akihabara but it was closing down for the night when I got there. I do want to go back again, though. I definitely want to check out Yodobashi. If I go before you do, I'll make sure to rub it in your face! Ha ha
I've been there, but it's been seven years. It's AMAZING. Floor after floor of gear. I bought my 77mm FA Limited lens at the Yodobashi in Okinawa, too. Tokyo has a really strong used camera scene, but a lot of it is a bit more expensive than it should be. That said, it's really easy to find rare gear there.
Okay, first and foremost it is important to understand a film. Experimenting with different developers is useful. But than if you have found a solid combination, than the hard work only begins. Testing out the real sensitivity or iso speed... adjusting the development time...
Ansel Adams ring a bell?
All those combinations tell you only so much.. panf plus is not a steep contrasty film. If you use it correctly it has tons of grayscale...
Drawback of Panf is that the latent image is not very stable... you mentioned it in the video and here is why: after a few weeks the dynamic range starts to deteriorate... shadow and highlights are getting nearer and nearer... causing contrast to suffer. This effect has it's nature in the fine grain and the effect they have upon each other.. read about the Neighbour Effect.
Learn about the zone system of Ansel Adams to make the most out of any film stock. Don't draw conclusions on lots of combinations... that is only the beginning....
Thank you. But you may have missed the point on this video. The goal of this video, and my whole channel, is to help people who are new to film learn about it and improve their work more quickly than I did over the 30 years that I've been a film photographer. I'm here to try and help people avoid mistakes and learn about film in a way that is accessible and understandable to people with an expert ship level to someone who just picked up their first film camera.
Let me address your other questions.
Ansel Adams, yes. I've heard of him. Zone system, you must have missed my video explaining how it works. PanF as a step an contrasty film, you may have missed the part of this video where I said it doesn't have to be if handled well and properly and that the typical PanF contrasty look stems from poor handling practices. And I didn't draw conclusions on combinations. I drew then based on eight years of using this film in many settings, formats, and for dozens of subjects.
This channel is not a typical slap dash UA-cam photography channel where the host makes bold proclamations about a film based on one or two rolls and a single outing with it. This video alone had something like 240 sample images. Given the low hit rate that film photography delivers and that my use of this stock spanned eight years, that ought to help illustrate the time and study that led to this video. I know that most photographers don't share their mistakes and bad images to help others learn. I'm not most photographers and a lot of the images in this video series are intended to help people prevent the mistakes I've made.
@@DavidHancock The point is that you haven't unlocked the films potential by testinng it with tonns of different developpers. To unlock a films potential you have to stick with a combo. You did just a verry Little segment on the pull to 12 ISO.
The films real speed is actually rated at 25 iso so that's where pulling just beginns.
If you shoot the film at iso 50 or 25 all the time but only change the developpers this doesn't relay provide any value co spidering it's tonality. It just helps to find a developper.
@@dimaermolenko98 real speed is developer dependent, and how many stops you expect to get into a printable range for grade 2 paper. ISO isn't wrong, it's just not the zone system standard, and it's done in d-76 stock, or very near they.
Why do you put text on the screen for three milliseconds, so no one has time to read it. What's the point? 🙄
There's a pause button.
@@DavidHancock Life's too short, and have you ever tried using it for that purpose?
@@mueslimuncher1950 Hello me understand which text flashes by too quickly.