Exposing Pan F+ Under Studio Lights?

<p>Hi all. Long time lurker, but new member here.<br>

I've been shooting Pan F+ as my main film for the better part of a year now, in 35mm and 120mm. Its the only film I use in-studio for portraits, and I'll occasionally use it in daylight as well. Typically my process is to do most of the sitting in digital at 200 ISO (my Nikons don't have 100), and then make a few adjustments and shoot a roll of film or two. These adjustments usually involve using a 1 1/3 stop wider aperture, and turning the lights up 1 stop. I then develop the negatives in slightly diluted Perceptol. I find too much dilution makes for worse wet prints and no dilution makes for worse scans, so a little is a happy medium if I'm not sure how I'll be printing.<br>

The 35mm negs are shot almost entirely with the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF (worth every penny!), and the 120s are shot with a combination of Yashicamats and folders with less-than-critical sharpness, but a good portrait look about them.<br>

My question is this: much of my reading tells me to expose for shadows when under contrasty light, and I have a very contrasty lighting style. While I'm very happy with what I have been getting, I'm always open to improvement. Should I be exposing or processing my negatives differently? Would I be able to eke out even more tonal range or clarity if I did so? My instinct tells me that since I'm applying the light myself I should just use box speeds and development times, but I'm not going to turn down the possibility of larger and larger prints from my existing gear.<br>

Also, I've read that a lot of people prefir Acros for sharpness reasons. Acros is probably my favourite daylight film, but I've never had the courage to pull it to 50 or so for studio shots and possibly wreck a sitting. Any comments on this?<br>

Thanks in advance. Love the site.<br>

-Zack</p>

<p>Exposing for the shadows assumes that the dynamic range of the film can take the exposure of the highlights. Make sure you are using a film that can take that (Pan F+ can). You then have to develop accordingly.</p>

<p>To get more effective dynamic range out of your (any) film, there are two adition opetions to consider; use a staining developer or use stand developing.</p>

<p>Stand developing will reduce the burned highlights by locally exausting the developer in those regons. Not all developers lend themselves to be 'stand freindly', but that is what research is for.</p>

<p>Staining developers, like Wd2D+ PMK and Pyrocat, create a stain in porportion to the intensity of the image. Highlights automaticly get darkened and shadows left untouched. This is a world into itself.</p>

<p>I use both. When I use WD2D+, I purposly overexpose by 1 stop (I shoot ISO100 at ISO50) knowing that the stain will keep control; not pulling but overexposing. That's how I get my shadow detail out. I use Rodonal or HC110 for stand, beceause I can push. I love the tonality of Roddy, but if finer grain is required I will use HC110. Don't believe they hype of big grain when pushed. If you do it right, no one would even know.</p>

<p>This is what works for me.</p>

 

<p>PanF+ is a bit contrasty, but it's nothing that can't be tamed. I use D-76 diluted 1+3, along with Ilford's recommended development time for this film and I'm very happy with what comes out the other side. I don't scan the negatives, but the sure do print nicely.</p>

<p>Diafine is great at taming Panf+. shoot it at ISO 50-100 to decide what you want.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help guys. Peter, I'm about out of developer, so I'll look into your suggestions.</p>

<p>Just a quick word on exposure ... I've exposed for shadows before, but never using studio lights. Let me put this into my own words, to make sure I understand it. If one side of my subject's face meters at f/8 under lights, and the other side at f/16, I'll shoot at f/16. I can then either further dilute my Perceptol to reduce the highlights, or I can try a stand or stain developer. Either will slightly extend my tonal range by preventing shadows or highlights from blocking up. The end result is that my exposure has greater tonal range, and the different developing techniques will prevent me (hopefully) from going past the usable tonal range of the film.</p>

<p>Is that correct?</p>

<p>Also, I found HC 110 to be too contrasty with PanF to produce scans I liked. What dilution do you use when using it as a stand developer?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, I found HC 110 to be too contrasty with PanF to produce scans I liked. What dilution do you use when using it as a stand developer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The contrast comes from agitiation and I use 1:100, and I use dil b times x 4. The tones become milky smooth.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am not sure how much contrast you mean; could you post some examples, please.</p>

<p>I like Rodinal 1+50 with PanF+ rated at ISO 50.</p>

<p>What do you mean by Dilution B X4? Dilution H is 2x Dilution B and double the time. Do you do H x2? and quad the time of B?</p>

<p>Ditto, Diafine for Pan F+. Perfect right at the rated ISO for taming contrast even in bright sunlight. Works more easily than any dilution of Rodinal or HC-110 I tried, including with stand processing.</p>

<p>However I've seen some excellent results from other photographers who used Pan F+ at EI 25-50 in Rodinal with photos taken under studio lights, but part of the trick is carefully controlling the lights to manage contrast rather than relying on unusual developing techniques. Way back in the archives of this forum you should be able to find examples of portraiture and, if I'm recalling correctly, some musical instrument still life studies, along with tips posted by one or two photo.net members who haven't been active here for awhile.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What do you mean by Dilution B X4? Dilution H is 2x Dilution B and double the time. Do you do H x2? and quad the time of B?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Dilution H is not 1:100. Yes, take Dilution B times and multiply by four. Stand development takes longer than reg agitation and this stuff is pretty consistent.</p>