Because I have the memory of a gnat...

Lenscap · 08-11-2017, 05:19 PM

I loaded a Yashicamat 124G with a 120 roll of Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50). I shot 4 or 5 frames, and then, because I am a genius, I shot the rest of the roll metering for 100-speed film.

I'm a Tri-X guy, and not familiar with Pan F, but I would expect it to be less forgiving than Tri-X.

In your opinion, would I be better to A) develop per box speed and hope for the best; B)push one stop and hope for the best; C)split the difference and hope for the best; or D)something else entirely?

I use Ilford chemicals, if that matters.

Thanks for your input.

**Digitalis** · 08-11-2017, 05:46 PM

It has been years since I have used Ilford pan F, but from what I recall it really hates underexposure, shadows block up really badly. You can try pushing it, grain shouldn't be a problem but the tonality of the images would suffer. I would go with box speed. Though I used to shoot it at ISO25 to reduce the aforementioned issue with the shadows.

**Pentax Syntax** · 08-11-2017, 05:59 PM

I would split the difference particularly if you plan to scan the negatives. If printing, you could develop at box speed and push the print. I had many photo students who made a similar "mistake" but salvaged some outstanding prints.

Bophoto · 08-11-2017, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Lenscap

I loaded a Yashicamat 124G with a 120 roll of Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50). I shot 4 or 5 frames, and then, because I am a genius, I shot the rest of the roll metering for 100-speed film.

I'm a Tri-X guy, and not familiar with Pan F, but I would expect it to be less forgiving than Tri-X.

In your opinion, would I be better to A) develop per box speed and hope for the best; B)push one stop and hope for the best; C)split the difference and hope for the best; or D)something else entirely?

I use Ilford chemicals, if that matters.

Thanks for your input.

You use iso 50 to get good sharpness and small grain. But when you push the film into iso100, you need to push developing to avoid underexposed negatives. The first exposure gets harder, but hopefully works OK.
My opinion is to induce those underexposed exposures (iso100) so you get ~ drawing in the low days. So my opinion is to avoid undercutting film.
Hope it appears what I mean despite some vodka on Friday's quarters...

Lenscap · 08-11-2017, 06:24 PM

Ok, it seems that pushing may be the way to go, considering that this film tolerates overexposure better than under. Am I getting that right?

I should point out that, while I don't like wasting frames, none of these shots are once in a lifetime, Elvis and Bigfoot on a UFO type shots. If I choose wrong on development, life goes on. Still, I'd like to salvage them if I can.

**pentaxus** · 08-11-2017, 07:23 PM

Pushing is underexposing. My experience is the same as Digitalis. Overexpose by shooting at 25. Develop 15-20% less. Get shadow detail.

AquaDome · 08-11-2017, 08:35 PM

Don't wait too long. PanF+ hates to be kept waiting. Quality of the latent image seems to degrade over a matter of weeks between exposure and development.

Lenscap · 08-12-2017, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by AquaDome

Don't wait too long. PanF+ hates to be kept waiting. Quality of the latent image seems to degrade over a matter of weeks between exposure and development.

I didn't know that. Thanks.

**Alex645** · 08-12-2017, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by AquaDome

Don't wait too long. PanF+ hates to be kept waiting. Quality of the latent image seems to degrade over a matter of weeks between exposure and development.

I would definitely recommend pushing the Pan F+ one stop. The lower the ISO, the less exposure latitude, so not pushing 50 ISO shot at 100 ISO is going to produce thin negs=lower contrast and lost detail in the shadows and mid tones.

AquaDome: Is your statement anecdotal or is there documentation on this? Generally the opposite is true; with higher ISO films, the "expiration" dates are shortened and the latent image degrades in less time than low ISO emulsions.

AquaDome · 08-12-2017, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Alex645

AquaDome: Is your statement anecdotal or is there documentation on this? Generally the opposite is true; with higher ISO films, the "expiration" dates are shortened and the latent image degrades in less time than low ISO emulsions.

It has been my experience and the reported experience of others. I have let many rolls of black & white film languish for weeks or even months before developing and they turned out fine. PanF+ is another matter. I try to process it within a week. A quick search of "PanF+ loses image over time" brings up plenty of tales of woe.

08-11-2017, 05:19 PM	#1
Lenscap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 145	Because I have the memory of a gnat... I loaded a Yashicamat 124G with a 120 roll of Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50). I shot 4 or 5 frames, and then, because I am a genius, I shot the rest of the roll metering for 100-speed film. I'm a Tri-X guy, and not familiar with Pan F, but I would expect it to be less forgiving than Tri-X. In your opinion, would I be better to A) develop per box speed and hope for the best; B)push one stop and hope for the best; C)split the difference and hope for the best; or D)something else entirely? I use Ilford chemicals, if that matters. Thanks for your input.

08-11-2017, 06:24 PM	#5
Lenscap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 145 Original Poster	Ok, it seems that pushing may be the way to go, considering that this film tolerates overexposure better than under. Am I getting that right? I should point out that, while I don't like wasting frames, none of these shots are once in a lifetime, Elvis and Bigfoot on a UFO type shots. If I choose wrong on development, life goes on. Still, I'd like to salvage them if I can. Last edited by Lenscap; 08-11-2017 at 06:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SanDisk memory card works on PC but says 'memory card error' in K-S2	kudzx	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	9	02-15-2017 09:03 AM
Nature Because you can never see enough squirrels..... And Birds...	Ian.morgan	Post Your Photos!	7	10-08-2016 01:18 AM
Buy New Lenses Just because you have an adapter?	cali92rs	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	06-04-2013 03:38 AM
Appreciating a photo because its good, or because of a technicality	Gooshin	General Talk	19	08-20-2008 01:59 AM
#24 Griffith's Gnat	Eaglerapids	Post Your Photos!	3	11-05-2007 06:09 PM

08-11-2017, 05:46 PM	#2
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	It has been years since I have used Ilford pan F, but from what I recall it really hates underexposure, shadows block up really badly. You can try pushing it, grain shouldn't be a problem but the tonality of the images would suffer. I would go with box speed. Though I used to shoot it at ISO25 to reduce the aforementioned issue with the shadows.

08-11-2017, 05:59 PM	#3
Pentax Syntax Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Maryland Posts: 595	I would split the difference particularly if you plan to scan the negatives. If printing, you could develop at box speed and push the print. I had many photo students who made a similar "mistake" but salvaged some outstanding prints.

08-11-2017, 06:12 PM	#4
Bophoto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 429	Originally posted by Lenscap I loaded a Yashicamat 124G with a 120 roll of Ilford Pan F Plus (ISO 50). I shot 4 or 5 frames, and then, because I am a genius, I shot the rest of the roll metering for 100-speed film. I'm a Tri-X guy, and not familiar with Pan F, but I would expect it to be less forgiving than Tri-X. In your opinion, would I be better to A) develop per box speed and hope for the best; B)push one stop and hope for the best; C)split the difference and hope for the best; or D)something else entirely? I use Ilford chemicals, if that matters. Thanks for your input. You use iso 50 to get good sharpness and small grain. But when you push the film into iso100, you need to push developing to avoid underexposed negatives. The first exposure gets harder, but hopefully works OK. My opinion is to induce those underexposed exposures (iso100) so you get ~ drawing in the low days. So my opinion is to avoid undercutting film. Hope it appears what I mean despite some vodka on Friday's quarters...

08-11-2017, 07:23 PM	#6
pentaxus Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Central Coast, CA Posts: 1,313	Pushing is underexposing. My experience is the same as Digitalis. Overexpose by shooting at 25. Develop 15-20% less. Get shadow detail.

08-11-2017, 08:35 PM	#7
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	Don't wait too long. PanF+ hates to be kept waiting. Quality of the latent image seems to degrade over a matter of weeks between exposure and development.

08-12-2017, 06:19 AM	#8
Lenscap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 145 Original Poster	Originally posted by AquaDome Don't wait too long. PanF+ hates to be kept waiting. Quality of the latent image seems to degrade over a matter of weeks between exposure and development. I didn't know that. Thanks.

08-12-2017, 10:21 AM	#9
Alex645 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Kaneohe, HI Photos: Albums Posts: 3,526	Originally posted by AquaDome Don't wait too long. PanF+ hates to be kept waiting. Quality of the latent image seems to degrade over a matter of weeks between exposure and development. I would definitely recommend pushing the Pan F+ one stop. The lower the ISO, the less exposure latitude, so not pushing 50 ISO shot at 100 ISO is going to produce thin negs=lower contrast and lost detail in the shadows and mid tones. AquaDome: Is your statement anecdotal or is there documentation on this? Generally the opposite is true; with higher ISO films, the "expiration" dates are shortened and the latent image degrades in less time than low ISO emulsions.

08-12-2017, 05:06 PM	#10
AquaDome Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: New Carlisle, IN Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,475	Originally posted by Alex645 AquaDome: Is your statement anecdotal or is there documentation on this? Generally the opposite is true; with higher ISO films, the "expiration" dates are shortened and the latent image degrades in less time than low ISO emulsions. It has been my experience and the reported experience of others. I have let many rolls of black & white film languish for weeks or even months before developing and they turned out fine. PanF+ is another matter. I try to process it within a week. A quick search of "PanF+ loses image over time" brings up plenty of tales of woe.