Underexposed/Old PanF. What to do ?

[dpowis]

Hi all,

 

I just took out a roll of PanF out of my 1520 tank, and it was

extremely thin, all but one or two frames.

 

By the way, the other roll of Panf that was in there looked great.

 

Do any of you know what could have happened ?

 

The film was exposed towards the end of august, so could the image

have faded away ? The edge markings are very thin.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Daniel

[dpowis]

as additional information, the film leader is as dense as it gets.

[john_shriver]

Curious. Something in storage may have happened that sapped its sensitivity and/or latent image. Slow speed films are normally the most stable over time.

 

The thin edge markings could indicate that the film was manufactured with low sensitivity, but Ilford is known for fine quality control.

[dpowis]

The film storage conditions weren't great either. It basically stayed on a shelf in my room for all that time.

[dpowis]

Also, I just remembered that yesterday, I processed a roll of HP5 that I exposed around the same time (beginning of september) and it was fine. It stayed next to the PanF roll for all that time.

[lex_jenkins]

The latent image of normally exposed b&w film tends to be very stable. It's unlikely that waiting a few months would produce this problem, even with film kept at room temperature. I once waited more than a year to finish and process a roll of Provia, which was loaded in a camera left in a sock drawer (don't ask). There was no apparent difference between the first and second halves of the roll.

 

Check your exposure method and try rerating Pan F+ to 25. I find that with most developers it's nowhere near an ISO 50 film. Only with Diafine did it deliver satisfactory results at 50.

[dpowis]

Also, can the latent image of film be ruined if the film is exposed to heat. These pictures were taken in Saudi Arabia, and the camera might have stayed in the car's trunk or glove compartment.

 

And temperatures in summer can get up to 120ﾰF (about 50ﾰC), and when left in the sun, a car's interior temperature gets hotter than a sauna (i.e. litterally burning one's hands on the steering wheel).

[scott_walton2]

If there is any detail in the shadows... a little doubtful but could be... a soak in Selenium Tone @ 1:9 for about 15 minutes will add density and it is an extremely fine grain. This will add overal density so if you do have shadow detail, it will be printable with a 2.5 or a 3 filter. The reason for the underexposure could be the length of time it was kept causing loss of latent image detail or something of a bad emulsion. You could use Chromium Intensifier (Kodak) but you will usually end up with a more contrasty negative and a negative that will become VERY grainy. If you want to dive into "mixing your own"... there are recipies for proportional intensifiers...

[dpowis]

Thanks for the answer Scott. I'll see what I can do chemically, but I doubt the investment will be worth it. I'll try to scan these negs and see what happens.

 

I also noticed some very deep scratches in the film, which are probably due to the extreme heat, that eventually created thermal expansion in the all metal camera, pushing some parts closer to others.