Waterfall

Image

One of many in Stickle Ghyll as it tummbles down the hillside from Stickle Tarn below Pavey Ark in the Langdale Valley, Lake District, UK

I’d been shooting Ilford FP4+ (125iso) in this camera and then changed to Ilford Pan F+ (50iso) film. Unfortunately, I forgot to change the meter settings and kept exposing for 125iso. Meaning the film was effectively get one and a third stops less light (underexposed) than it needed. I realised this before I developed the film and compensated by giving it extra time in the developer (i.e I ‘pushed’ the film by one and third stops). With a lot of black and white emulsions this is common practice – you can get more speed in low light at the expense of a little more grain and an increase in contrast. Ilford HP5+ is great for this and can be pushed at least three stops without losing detail in the shadows.

Pan F isn’t so good for pushing. As you can see the shadows are pretty murky in this shot and even worse in the one below.

Pan F+ is a very ‘contrasty’ film to start with and pushing it does it no favours.

The next roll of Pan F I shoot I’ll expose at EI 40 (instead of 50). I think a little overexposure would work well with this film.

Anyone else have any experience with this film?

Olympus OM2(n)/Om Zuiko 24/f2.8

Ilford Pan F+ @100/D76 1:1 12mins @20c

6 Replies to “Waterfall”

  1. B. says:

    I exposed two rolls of Pan F at ISO 100 this summer, not by mistake, but Pan F was the only film I had left after three weeks at sea. I needed the extra speed to be able to shoot from a rolling boat. I haven’t developed it yet, but I suspected that this wouldn’t be the best film to push. You got great results, though, even with a bit murky shadows. Thanks for posting!

    Like

  2. Russ says:

    I love Pavey Arc, I think it is my favorite walk in the lakes.

    Like

  3. Agree with B. Wonderful result though some murky shadows…
    Just keep thinking what this stunning photo would have looked like if you had exposed it at 50….. Or with the FP4+ …….
    I have recently exposed and developed a couple of rolls with the PanF, and as you said, I think it can be good with some overexposure.
    I did a series of really long exposures with a NDx10 filter on, and unfortunately I forgot everything about reciprocity effects….. So my negatives are thin and underexposed. Some are quite good, and in “normal” conditions it seems to be an absolutely fantastic film! I’m definitely gonna use more of PanF, and the other Ilford films too!
    My looooooong exposures gonna show up in a soon coming post, I just have a “scanning marathon” to go through first… 😉

    Like

    • John Pickles says:

      I was using a 9 stop filter and best guessing the reciprocity compensation. Ilfords chart isn’t that helpful. I have a couple of shots on FP4 from this day to post. FP4 is more forgiving than Pan F. Also, I’m thinking about exposing Pan F at 32 and under sunny conditions developing for less time. I’ll post results when I get the chance.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com