Ilford Pan F+

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by moda, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. moda

    moda Guest

    Hi

    I am using Ilford Pan F+ for portraiture and would like to boost the
    contrast in the development. Any recommendations on developers and times?
    I am using HC-110 at the time.
    Will Rodinal give me more contrast?

    Regards Moda
     
    moda, Apr 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. moda

    wkg Guest



    Why not just develop 10% longer or agitate more vigorously ? I did not try
    HC for PanF+, I used ID-11 1+1 and 1+0, the contrast was always between OK
    and high.

    Regards
    wkg
     
    wkg, Apr 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. moda

    moda Guest

    Thanks. I'll the longer development. And probably buy a pound of ID-11 and
    try it out.

    Moda
     
    moda, Apr 5, 2004
    #3
  4. moda

    John Guest

    There are four things that one can use to control contrast.

    1) Agitation - Usually number of inversions per minute
    2) Developer concentration/dilution
    3) Length of development
    4) Temperature of the processing

    To increase contrast I would start with adding 10% to the
    total time of development and increasing agitation 2X your current
    method.

    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Apr 6, 2004
    #4
  5. moda

    Dan Quinn Guest

    ID-11 is Ilford's brand of Kodak D-76. Pan F+ is already a very
    fine grain film. Check out Rodinal or one of the other high resolution
    developers. Ilford has one and there are others. Small quantities
    may be purchased.
    If very sharp, very fine grained negatives are not that much a
    factor, give a higher speed film consideration. Dan
     
    Dan Quinn, Apr 6, 2004
    #5
  6. moda

    Bruce Guest

    Check out Rodinal or one of the other high resolution developers.

    For Pan F+ @ EI 32 I use Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100 in a Jobo. Enlargements to
    11X14 from a 35mm negative has no grain! The negs have no grain that I can
    detect with a Bestwell Grain Focusing scope at that magnafacation.

    _________________
    Ready, Fire, AIM.
    Bruce
    Brooklyn, N.Y.
     
    Bruce, Apr 7, 2004
    #6
  7. moda

    moda Guest

    I will be heading for my Rodinal (the first developer I ever tried, the
    price is as low as it can be). Maybe I'll use my Jobo processor for it just
    like you do.

    Moda
     
    moda, Apr 7, 2004
    #7
  8. The contrast of Pan-F is already substantial. Why do you believe it needs a boost?
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 7, 2004
    #8
  9. moda

    moda Guest

    The contrast of Pan-F is already substantial. Why do you believe it needs
    a boost?

    I get contrastless negs...and I am a contrast lover
     
    moda, Apr 8, 2004
    #9
  10. What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What
    developer? What time? Pan-F is VERY slow and develops quite quickly.
    It is actually hard to keep the contrast down...
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 8, 2004
    #10
  11. moda

    moda Guest

    What do you mean? What camera equipment are you using? What tank? What
    I use:

    - Canon EOS 30 (aka. EOS 7E)
    - Sigma 28-105 (around f/11 or f/16)
    - Multiblitz 400w flash heads (I shoot portraits)
    - Ilford Pan F+ @ 50 iso (should I try 40, 32 or 25)
    - Rodinal Special for 4 minutes @ 20C. Agitation is continously for the
    first 30 sec. then 5 sec every 30 seconds. (Should I use Rodinal?)
    - Paterson Super System 4 Universal Tank (2 films at a time)
    - Prints are made on Agfa Premium @ grade 3 (On a Durst Colour Enlarger)

    //Moda
     
    moda, Apr 9, 2004
    #11
  12. The taking lens, being a zoom lens and being a Sigma, is not going to
    give you the best tonality. Get a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or so. Also,
    the color head is a diffusion source, which tends to reduce contrast.
    If you want, send me a scan so I can see what you're talking about.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 9, 2004
    #12
  13. moda

    moda Guest

    Ahhh. Thanks for the tip. I have a Canon 50 mm. that I have used yesterday
    and the negs are far better. Suddenly I consider sending my Sigma 28-105
    into the trash bin. My other Sigmas are actually very crisp and
    contrastboosters...weird.

    moda

    The taking lens, being a zoom lens and being a Sigma, is not going to
    give you the best tonality. Get a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or so. Also,
    the color head is a diffusion source, which tends to reduce contrast.
    If you want, send me a scan so I can see what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
     
    moda, Apr 12, 2004
    #13

  14. I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 12, 2004
    #14
  15. moda

    moda Guest

    I cannot believe people buy these crap lenses.

    We are some who are poor....but I'm saving up for a better lens. I'm happy
    with my Sigma 70-300 APO though. I use it for portraiture primarily. It's
    far better that the 28-105 (which was the standard lens for the Canon EOS
    300 I bought as my first SLR).

    Moda
     
    moda, Apr 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Huh! You say you're poor? You don't know what poor is!

    I come from a very poor country.

    My country is so poor, we have only ONE Stooge.

    My country is so poor, all the roads are one-way: OUT.

    My country is so poor, our chief export is bums.

    My country is so poor, we were forced to eat our cash cow.

    My country is so poor, our cats have only three lives.

    My country is so poor, we have to stand in line just for a chance to stand in line.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Let us guess; his intials are "MS".
     
    Frank N. Stein, Apr 12, 2004
    #17
  18. moda

    Dan Quinn Guest

    The same model lens, one lens to the next in production, can vary
    noticeably. Overall Sigma lenses score well.
    I purchased an OM 2000 four years ago. Olympus was giving them away
    with a 35-70 zoom. The zoom gives a sharp image but barrel distortion
    is very noticeable. I was disappointed. The OM 2000 was Olympus' last
    OM series camera. I also have their OM1n.
    Contrast that with their famous f2.8 constant aperature 35-80mm
    zoom. It is considered one of the finest lenses ever produced. Dan
     
    Dan Quinn, Apr 12, 2004
    #18
  19. moda

    jjs Guest

    Nobody needs a perfect lens to make a good, indeed a great photograph.
    Does it just piss you off that talent has a way of leveling economic
    differences?
     
    jjs, Apr 13, 2004
    #19
  20. moda

    John Guest

    You too ? Why must so many continue to feed the ego of this
    twit ?

    Regards,

    John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
    Please remove the "_" when replying via email
     
    John, Apr 13, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.