Pan F PLus vs. Delta 100?

I need to make BIG enlargements in B&W off a 6x7 negative -- I'm

thinking about almost 35"x40" as the final print size. The negative

will be drum-scanned and lambda prints made to the required size.

Some of the images will be of well-lit buildings at night.

 

** I've used Delta 100 a lot, and know its characteristics. But for

these very big enlargements, I was thinking about the slowest speed

film available from Ilford, the ASA 50 Pan F Plus. Is it the Pan F

Plus noticeableably sharper and more grain free than Delta 100? Any

other characteristics of the Pan F Plus I need to take into

consideration?

 

Many thanks for your advice.

Pan F is a very contrasty film (well, more so than Delta 100), be sure that it has enough exposure latitude for your project. Also, I'd consider FP4+ in this situation. I guess the question boils down to whether you prefer traditional or T-grains (epitaxial, whatever), and what you'll do in software for grain reduction, if anything.

Question number 1: what are you shooting?

 

Pan F and Delta 100 represent 2 different film technologies and give 2 different results. The major difference is that Delta 100 produces compressed mid-tones, which makes it less suitable (not unusable, but less suitable) for portraiture. It's a great film for architecture and landscapes.

 

Pan F is extremely fine grained, and can be used for portraiture, provided you have a subject with beautiful skin (babies or children). Used with an older subject, it will render every line, wrinkle and blemish in excruciating detail.

 

Good shooting.

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

Thanks for your answers -- in response to David's Question 1, I'll be photographing typical "static" city scenes (eg, buildings, bridges, monuments). I'll be shooting some of these during the day-time. However, I also plan to photograph buildings that are well lit up by artificial light at night-time.

PanF's contrast can be tamed with reduced development. I usually rate it at 25 instead of the stated 50 and develop for around nine minutes in 1:3 Xtol. The exact time escapes me, but I have it written down somewhere. I develop for a flatter negative since I'm printing on a condenser enlarger.

 

PanF has a look that in my opinion at least is very different from anything else. Can't put my finger on it, but it just looks different. I have most of a 100' bulk roll left and I'm trying to decide if the film is a good fit for me.

 

Since you're going to be doing some night scenes as well, I'd probably stick with Delta. It's faster and has better reciprocity performance. The fact that you already have experience with it is a big plus as well.

 

Good luck, sounds like a great project!<div></div>

disclaimer-amateur hack opinion-

 

 

Pan-F is a georgous film for architecture,but is not that easy to learn.Unless you're a regular user of Pan-F,or you don't mind taking the same shots 3 or 4 times,you might be better off sticking to a film you know.IMO,grain is over vilified-the average viewer doesn't notice grain the way a photographer does.Possibly you could shoot both films and pick the best of the litter.

Good point by Don. Can you just waste a couple rolls to see what you get, or

is this a first-shot deal?

 

Delta 100 at a lower EI in a compensating developer like the dilute Xtol or

dilute Perceptol. Pan F+ at EI 32 in Perceptol 1+2 13.5 min 20c.

 

Same disclaimer as above (amateur hack) but after 40-50 rolls of the Pan F+,

this is the only developer and EI I will use.

 

Well lit buildings at night . . .don't mean to get off track, but I see sharp edges

and texture. Delta 100 EI 50 in Rodinal 1+50 8-8.5min 20c. Grain is not

necessarily a distraction! Black shadows and sharp highlights. Delta in

Rodinal is sharper than anything I have seen with Pan F. Pan F will give

better resolution, but it sounds like you are interested in sharpness.

I wouldn't call shooting both films "wasting" one or the other. I'd call it an investment. If you can do both, that would be a great way to go.

Hi Jon ,

 

For the purposes you describe I feel it would be well worth trying a roll of Fuji Acros 100 processed in Acutol 1:14 for 9 minutes or Xtol 1:2 for 8 min.

 

I like both Delta 100 and Pan F a lot but get significantly less grain, better acutance and very nice tones with the above combinations and I have a good bit of experience with all three films in 35MM. Things might be different in MF but for really big prints Acros is amazing.

 

Good Luck !

 

Jay L

Since shooting at night is a factor, then I would go with either the Delta 100 or Acros 100 (with its superior reciprocity characteristics). Some might argue that the Delta has a finer grain (depending on the developer), but my experience does not show this claim to be true. Even if it were the case, then we are really talking about the finest of margins.

 

Ciao,

Jim

If you are making a 6x7 negative, Delta 100 would do that, with correct developement and printing. If you are doing night stuff you might could use the extra 50 ISO of Delta. I don't know what the reciprocity differences are for long exposures of either one of these, but you are probably talking about multiple second shutter speeds. PanF+ is a great film. and so is Delta100.

I use PANF + 50 for portrait and I love it! No issues at all.

Birthday Photo Of My Dear Wife. Happy 43

CAMERA: Mentor Compur Reflex Model 310 - 1929

LENS: Zeiss Tessar 10.5 cm f3.5 - @ f4.5 "with a plus + 1"

FILM: Ilford Pan F Plus 50

DEVELOPMENT: XTOL - 1:2 - 68º - 10min

I think the OP might have finished his project by now, since this thread is nearly 13 years old!

I remember reading this one all those years ago. I still use and prefer Ilford Pan F. Probably burn through a few dozen rools of 35 a year.

I've learned a hard lesson with Pan-F.

 

Not too long ago, I developed some film that had been shot probably 5 years ago and set aside. The Tri-X, HP5, and TMAX-400 all looked fine. The Pan-F was barely visible.

 

Most recently, I shot a roll that was well within date, and developed it within a day or two of shooting. The images were fine, but I was surprised at how light the edge markings were.

 

Pan-F does not hold a latent image well at all in my experience.