Pan F + and anti-halation backing

Years ago I ran tests on Illford's Pan F, I thought the film was superb

but if you had specular highlights, like sunlight glinting off chrome,

it would spread into adjacent areas. Does anyone know if Illford has

solved this problem with the new Pan F+? This problem was with 35mm film

and may not have been true of roll or sheet film. Thanks.

Dennis

Pan F+ is different in several respects from Pan F. I never noticed the problem that you mentioned, but I think the new stuff is an excellent film. Works great with most developers, including Rodinal. I use Rodinal in 1:75 dilution for 120 format, but I would recommend 1:50 for 35mm since there is usually about twice the amount of solution per square inch of film when developing 120 film.

I deliberately ran a test roll of Pan F+ through some pretty grueling high contrast conditions because I expected a slow, fine grain film to present lots of problems handling such lighting. I was precisely wrong. It held shadow and highlight detail amazingly well.

 

Technical data: my baseline EI was 50 but I duplicated each exposure a full stop over. The roll was processed as for ISO 50 in Rodinal 1:50 at the recommended time.

 

Weasel words: I don't recall actually including any true specular highlight situations in this test roll. It just didn't occur to me. The photographs I took to test performance in high contrast situations were mostly landscapes with backlighted trees in late afternoon. I didn't see any evidence of highlights causing problems but, again, this situation isn't comparable to dealing with glinting sunlight off glass or metal.

 

The only problem I experienced was with stubborn watermarks on the non-emulsion side, despite my usually successful procedures. The watermarks came off easily with isopropyl alcohol and didn't cause any scratches that would show on prints made using my diffusion head.

 

I have a couple more rolls of Pan F+ itching to be used. I'll be certain to test the film on the harshest specular highlights I can find just out of curiosity.

 

Coincidentally, I performed this very test on FP4+ yesterday. I exposed the roll at EI 64 and souped it in ID-11 1:1 for 9 minutes, which may have been ever so slightly shy of full development. The entire roll had a distinctly different look from my usual FP4+, which I always expose and process nominally. This last roll was less dense yet with better controlled highlights and midtone gradation. One shot in particular, of harsh glare off a broken seashell with mother-of-pearl showing so bright that I could hardly see texture with my naked eyes, printed easily with appropriate texture. Neutral grade (2) on Ilford MG RC glossy, no dodging or burning, full tonal range. Dandy results, despite the fact that Ilford specifically does not recommend overexposing and pull processing FP4+.

 

Nope, I'm not planning to switch to this technique for all my FP4+ use, but it definitely encourages me to try the same technique with Pan F+, tho' with Rodinal rather than ID-11, to see how it handles really tough contrast situations. If it works out I plan to use this film and processing technique for some architectural exteriors - sunny days in Texas can be brutally contrasty and I won't always have a choice of when I can shoot. If Pan F+ can handle glints from metal gutters and drain pipes, glare from windows, etc., while delivering the resolution I'm confident it's capable of and shadow detail I'm hoping for, it may replace TMX as my film of choice for this particular project.

There is a varient floating around called Polypan F. From what I understand, it is the same emulsion as the old Panf, but without an antihalation backing. I wonder if you got some of this stuff instead? In any case, the regular Panf+ is wonderful stuff just like everyone says, give it a shot!

 

Isaac

Hi Isaac,

The film was definitely 35mm Pan F. On another thread someone had

posted images of automobiles with their headlights on, and the lights

had expanded to two to three times their linear dimensions. I'm

almost certain that this is due to the anti-halation backing of the

film. Now if you are a Dadist and into the surreal, you might like the

effect, I'll personally pass. Thanks for your response. Dennis

Do you have a link to this photo? I'd be surprised if this film was any worse than anything else out there...

 

Isaac

Hi Isaac,

I found the thread, it is in this forum, the thread is

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Rrl

As you can see, in the large blowup the cars lights have

assumed rather large proportions. This is the exact problem

that I found with Illford's earlier Pan F, and kept me from

using it. With FP4 the problem was nowhere as severe, and I

am trying to determine if Pan F + is a little better in this

regard. I think you will find it interesting, that when

dicussing optimum film grain and sharpness, we need to consider

the anti-halation backing of the film. Thanks. Dennis

Dennis, I loaded up some Pan F+ yesterday and deliberately photographed as many examples as I could find with intense highlights from various objects. I'll try to remember to include at least one nighttime shot with our bright outdoor lamp in it. I'm curious about Pan F+'s reciprocity characteristics anyway.

 

Might be next week before I have any results to report because I'm babysitting my 4 y/o grandson all week and probably won't be able to get into the darkroom. In fact, the only reason I'm up at this time of morning is because I'd planned to do some printing. My grandson caught me sneaking out of bed (he always wants to sleep in my bed) and is now up watching Teletubbies.

Hi Lex,

Delighted that you are checking this out and will share your

results with the rest of us. Take a look at the thread that I

pointed out to Isaac, and I think you will agree that the

anti-halation backing of a film can be a real problem. Thanks.