"I push TriX to 3200 to give my photos a crude feeling of realism and to show the brutality of the scenes I documented". Kawaii beta male Magnum war photographer from the '60s. "Yeah, I could shoot a rock concert with PanF if I had to, I guess". Attic Darkroom, probably.
Gotta say I'm amazed by your results here! I've long been curious about Pan F's limits for pushing, and the forums are always like NOOO DON'T PUSH IT YOU'LL CAUSE A RUPTURE IN SPACETIME and show all these doom and gloom results of what happens if you even dare to try a 1 stop push. Meanwhile you've said screw you to spacetime and went for it, and I now need to try Pan F at 400. It looks stunning!
Dude just to let you know I found your channel a few days ago and it's gold, it's not hipster squarespace bait and that already makes it special. thanks for the videos man even though you are doing a sort of niche please continue doing these kind of niche videos they are very creative!!! cheers mate
Yeah, I'm definitely going to try PanF at 800 for some really contrasty Black Metal album cover type stuff. Great video, both informative and entertaining!
Was just wondering the other day when we'd be blessed with another upload and, here we are. Wild to see the results of pushing Pan F so far, you're a maniac. Keep it coming :)
I have a bulk roll of this stuff that's well and truly expired, but it's developed fine at box speed and pulling it to 25. I've been curious about pushing it to 3200. Thanks for doing a test! I actually really like the 1600 results you got. And thanks for posting the dev times!
Pan F is my favorite landscape film. For mountains, bodies of water, and rocks, it has a deep, chocolatey rich contrast that I don't see as much in other films. It breaks my heart that it's not available in 4x5. FP4 is the only one that comes close.
@@atticdarkroom Don't forget to do it on 35mm so you have more samples to prove your point. And just imagine how much time would you save on development times.
it's a very interesting experiment and I love the results you got even with 1600. Thank you for posting here your developing info. Not much information about this film and pushing even on the Massive Chart site there is nothing more than 100 only for the Xtol.
The old Ansel Adams rule is to meter/shoot for shadows and develop for highlights. It looks like you did something like average metering and then exposing. So the shadows are multiple stops underexposed and just go to pure black.
from the few pan f rolls I've shot, I'd say it's really not that much different from delta 100. also... you'd probably have a blast with rollei rpx 25...
If you want to tame Pan F contrast try Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand development with 30 seconds agitation at the start, 3 inversions at 30 minute mark and 3 inversions at the end of the hour... or go 1:200 for 2 hours with 30 sec at the start, 3 inversions every 1/2 hour. I have never pushed Pan F, and shoot at an ei of 32 ASA and use it frequently for portraits where I want a slow enough shutter speed wide open to sync with my fill flash. Of course with my Mamiya I only need to slow it down to 1/500 to sync with the leaf shutter. I just wish Pan F were available in sheet film formats
Re not being able to see with the ND filter on: I recently bought a "rapid nd filter mount bracket" from Ulanzi (it seems to be available from many different manufacturers though) which acts like flip up sunglasses for your camera. I have the issue that sometimes 400 ISO film doesn't let me get the backgrounds I want so I use an ND filter, but then I can't see clearly enough to focus with the split prism. This seemed to be the perfect solution: focus, flip the filter down, take the shot.
I would be interested to see, though I think I know what would happen, if you developed some pushed Pan F in something like adox's developer for CMSII. Meant to turn line films into something traditionally usable, it might just pull a tad more mid-tones out of this at higher speeds.
This is super intersecting. I've pushed Pan F to 800 via Gavin Lyons video. His development was like yours: DDX 1:4, 68f/20c, but for 18:00 vs your 20:00. They came out pretty well. What was your agitation cadence, if I could ask? Like a doofus I grabbed a roll last weekend, midshoot, and it was Pan F instead of HP5. Exposure? 1600asa. At least there is one person, you, who has tried that so I've got a little bit of hope to pull it off!
I did inversions for the first 30 seconds and then 4 inversions at the top of every minute. If I were to try this again I would probably stand develop it. It might do a better job.
I’ve never shot Pan F - and I think I’d like to! I honestly prefer slower films (I consider 100 to be “fast”) but Pan F supposedly has pretty poor image latency and knowing the rate I go through film, where I may leave a roll in the camera for months at a time if life is *that* uneventful… (most of the last 2 years, fwiw) I think it would go pretty poorly for me. Maybe sometime there’ll be an appropriately sunny event where I know I can blow through a roll in a day and I’ll finally get to try this out.
There are two films I can live with forever, the Pan F and the HP5. Pan F for fine work and HP5 general purpose any speed. I would never need anything else.
Nice to know I can get a cheaper Kodak Tri-X alternative in the UK since it's shot up in price. It might become my new default! Tri-X 400, 35mm: £9 (?!) Tri-X 400, 120: £9.50 (!!) PanF @200 or 400, 35mm: £6 (The old Tri-X price, like, 6 years ago) PanF " ", 120: £5 (The old HP5 price in shops 6 years ago) Now, everyone *shhh*, or Big Ilford will catch on.
oh yeah! here we have a proper review. showing the film at box speed is a useless review. well done is showing the limits and exposing the whole "truth" about what we are studying/testing.