|
Andre Reinders
|
 |
« on: October 11, 2005, 06:23:55 AM » |
|
Well I shot and developed my first roll of Ilford PanF this past weekend. (I previously shot a roll of 120 and had a lab dev/print it. (didn't like the results- too flat)
What I noticed was that it is a very thin film, especially compared to the FP4+. It is harder to handle, especially when scanning as it curls more easily.
Another thing I noticed is that when I scanned it at my max resolution - 2800 dpi (Minolta Scan Dual II) as a colour neg, then desaturate it there are tiny white pixels randomly scattered across the entire frame. The only thing I can think of is something to do with the scan. It shows up at about 200-300% magnification, so I don't think I will see any impact on a print. I don't remember seeing this from a FP4+ scan.
BTW: Ilfosol S 1+14 for 6 min. @ 20 degrees C (I thought the 1+9 time of 4 min was too short to deal with)
I will have to post some examples but I have never posted an enlarged crop, so if anyone can give me a tip to slice out a section @ 100% or larger....
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jake
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2005, 01:58:23 PM » |
|
Yes, I have experienced white spots (very small, grain sized white spots) with PanF & Rodinal (not your developer admittedly) also. They showed up most aggresively in dark to black areas of the shadows. At the recommendation of people on the B&W forum at PNet, I changed from an acid stop to a water stop. Their idea was that the stop was harming the emulsion in some way. I think what actually may have been happening is that the stop was stopping development too hard - too abruptly - leaving undeveloped silver grains in the darks (as my brain works, undeveloped silver would appear white in a scan, yes? I could be wrong.) The water stop diluted the developer and slowed it, but it still allowed a certain amount of developing to progress. So if I had stuck with Rodinal, I might have figured a bit more development time + an acid stop as I like the control an acid stop gives on high light development. But I switched to Diafine and use that exclusively with PanF + water stop. Great combination I think. Gets the highs and lows and no white spots. ISO of about 80.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Kovacs
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2005, 02:00:14 PM » |
|
This isn't simply dust? Black spots on negative convert to white spots in positive.
Where are you drying your negs?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn Thoreson
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2005, 03:38:26 PM » |
|
Some films do not like acid stop baths. Notoriously, Kodalith and some of the other very thin emulsions. What happens is when you place the film, which is saturated with the alkaline developer, into the acid environment, basic chemistry bites you right in the butt. Gas forms, in the form of microscopic bubbles. If these bubbles form in the emulsion, voila!, pinholes. If a water bath doesn't work well for you (agitate vigorously and change water), try using a citric acid stop at half the recommended dilution. Those thin emulsion films are achingly sharp but can be picky about this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Glenn from Wyoming
"I reject your reallity and substitute my own"
( Adam Savage )
|
|
|
|
jake
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 11, 2005, 03:48:48 PM » |
|
Aha - that makes sense Glenn. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Reinders
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 11, 2005, 08:39:43 PM » |
|
Thanks for your suggestions. I am using Ilfostop - citric acid I believe, but full strength. I read about a water stop method in the "Film developing cookbook". Maybe I will try that or diluting my Ilfostop on my next roll of PanF. Here are the examples: First - 100% crop of PF4+ developed in Ilfosol by the book. Image of tree trunk and a fence.  Second - 100% crop of PanF developed in Ilfosol by the book. Image of tree tops and sky.  Originally from a 2820 dpi scan. If I do a 1 pixel 'dust and scratches' in photoshop it does help a bit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NicolasD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2005, 12:05:06 AM » |
|
I think your problem comes from either the stop bath which was a bit too acid or from your final cleaning bath which might have been a bit too cold and made a thermic hurt.
Anyway in the future you might find that the FP4 or the Delta 100 are of much interest than the PanF, being 1 stop faster, and as sharp actually.
PanF is a bit old fashioned IMO as a fine grain emulsion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jake
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2005, 05:38:40 AM » |
|
I recently saw some PanF & Efke 25 negatives developed in Pyrocat HD, a developer that stains the negatives in the developing process. It had the same effect as Diafine in balancing the shadows & highlights nicely, plus the stain appeared to reduce the grain effect. Nice. Something I will try. Pyrocat HD is now available in a liquid form from Photographer's Formulary, so using it is easier than with other pyro formulas.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Reinders
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2005, 08:39:47 AM » |
|
I think your problem comes from either the stop bath which was a bit too acid or from your final cleaning bath which might have been a bit too cold and made a thermic hurt.
Anyway in the future you might find that the FP4 or the Delta 100 are of much interest than the PanF, being 1 stop faster, and as sharp actually.
PanF is a bit old fashioned IMO as a fine grain emulsion. I am very careful about my temperatures, so I know that cannot be the problem. I will try a weaker stop bath solution next time. I am new to developing and have decided on sticking to the traditional Ilford films....I will put a little more time and effort into PanF to learn more. Although I do like FP4+.  Jake - thanks for the suggestion, but I have committed to sticking to Ilfosol S and DDX for a while. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Reinders
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2005, 10:26:57 PM » |
|
Just an update - I really do like the look of the PanF - looks crisper. I finally got some of the negs scanned, here is a shot of my son at a birthday party. I was also testing my new 430ex flash....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andre Reinders
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2005, 01:17:13 PM » |
|
Further update - I tried another roll of PanF+, with diluted stop (made with distilled water) and fresh fix made with distilled water - no white flecks!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn Thoreson
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2005, 06:37:53 PM » |
|
Wow! The picture of your son is amazing. Very snappy and sharp. Pan-F can easily produce such images, if you can get everything nailed down. Ilfosol S is supposed to produce very sharp negatives but I never could get things right with it. My favorite, I think is FP-4+ in PMK Pyro. For me, it's so easy it's almost a no brainer. Believe me, there's usually no brain around here, so anything helps. Keep working with Pan-F. You will like what it's capable of doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Glenn from Wyoming
"I reject your reallity and substitute my own"
( Adam Savage )
|
|
|
|
steveb
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2005, 01:13:40 PM » |
|
I've had white specs on the last 2 35mm PanF+ films I developed and scanned. I suspected the hard water here, that chalk particles had damaged the film. Since then I've used distilled water to mix my developer, stop bath, fixer and in my final wash. No problems with Delta 100 35mm, Delta 100 120 and FP4+ 4x5, but I haven't shot any PanF+ since. With the next roll I'll certainly try a plain distilled water stop and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Steve
|
|
|
|
