Ooops! Pan-F shot @ 400.

[randy_samos]

Hopefully, the dumbest thing I'll do this month. Yes - you read the

subject correctly.

<p>

To make a short story long - A friend calls me up to ask me if I'd

come over, and shoot the classic Triumph he just finished rebuilding.

No problems.

<p>

I went down there, and while talking with him I pulled a roll of

Supra 400 from my bag and started to load it in my camera. Since I

continued to talk with my friend rather than pay attention to what I

was doing, I blindly pulled a roll of Pan-F out of the Supra 400 can,

and loaded it up. Did the shoot, finished the roll at another friends

house, came home, unloaded, and saw what I had done.

<p>

I know there's no real hope for these shots, but they might be

interesting all the same - then again - it might look like sandpaper.

Anyone got a developer/time recommendation I could give a shot?

<p>

Thanks. You can continue laughing now. - /r

<p>

PS - No. I'm not at all sure how the Pan-F got into the Supra 400

can. But you can be rest assured that he'll <i>never</i> do that

again.

[art_haykin]

Re-shoot it, and be thankful it wasn't a wedding. Get a high energy developer like Acufine, and "cook" it.

[mike dixon]

My Xtol data sheets indicate about a 60% increase in time over normal for PanF+ at EI 400. The grain probably won't be too bad, but you're not going to have much in the way of shadow detail. Might end up looking cool, but for normal-looking photos, you'll have to reshoot.

[Troll]

Try Diafine, 3 minutes in A and 3 minutes in B. Should give you quite usable results.

[scott walton]

I second the Diafine but I would boost the Bath B to 4.5 min. It is compensating but a little longer won't hurt.

[randy_samos]

Thanks much for the suggestions. I may try a couple of things. First, as Art pointed out, I can reshoot. The bike is still there and looking good. Besides, even if I <i>do</i> manage to save it, he wanted color shots.

<p>

Second, I may try the Diafine route for development. I think there's some on a back shelf someplace. I'd be really interested to see if I can pull something out of this.

<p>

/r

[nathanaelb]

You'll have to give us a looky when your done 'eh? :-)

[randy_samos]

"You'll have to give us a looky when your done 'eh? :-)"

 

Oh ... I think you can count on that. At least if <i>anything</i> comes of it I'll post something.

<p>

/r

[nathanaelb]

LOL .. good good ;-)

[ole_tjugen]

DON'T PUSH IT! You'll end up with no shadow detail at all - and most of the image will be shadow...

 

In "The Film Developing Cookbook", Anchell and Troop give some hints as to what can be done:

 

A: Latensification - this has about the same effect as pre-flashing, only it's done AFTER exposure. Expose the whole film to a dark green safelight. Develop as normal (using diluted developer). Fog levels will be high, contrast low, but the negatives should be printable.

 

B: Hydrogen peroxide sensitizing after development, before fixing. The film should be push-processed. The procedure is rather lengthy, so I won't reproduce it here unless someone asks me to...

 

C: Acid vapor latensification - again before development (described in "The Darkroom Cookbook", Stephen G. Anchell).

 

Good luck!