Ilford Pan F coming to large format?

A couple of years ago I reported in a PM a conversation I had at the Photography Show. In the light of this post, it may be relevant to repeat it here.

StephenM said:
We've just arrived back from the Photography Show. There is one snippet of information gleaned from a chat with the speaker after a talk on "how to choose a black and white film" by someone from Harman.

In the talk, she had said that PanF was only really suitable in very bright light, such as was scarcely found in the UK. I queried this afterwards and one thing lead to another. On her bringing up hand holding at slow shutter speeds, I brought up being a LF user who normally had a camera tripod mounted. She said that Harman had received many requests for PanF Plus in sheet film; I mentioned that I understood it couldn't be done because of the film base.

I was then countered by two remarks: "it used to be" followed by "keep a watch on the web site".

I take this to be a pretty clear hint that Harman are intending to make PanF Plus available in sheet film sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure if I would shoot Pan F as a sheet film, I've been more than happy with 5x4 Delta 100, and amazed at HP5 in Pyrocat HD, which I've been using for hand held LF work for around 19 years.

A lot depends on how large you print, here in the UK few photographers print larger than 16"x12" or 20"x16". In the past I printed much larger for work,

In the US some photographers are making very large prints, Clyde Butcher is printing up to 52"x76", so shooting Pan F would make sense, especially if it was added to the annual ULF run.

I have a few 120 rolls of Pan F and plan to start shooting it in my 6x17 camera, So will be interested in the resulting print quality, particularly now I have a Centre ND filter for the 75mm Super Angulon lens.

My favourite Ultra Fine Grain film was Agfa AP25/APX25, I used it in a 6x9 roll film back with my Wista 45DX. I also use EKE PL25 in 5x4 & 10x8, it's actually a 50 ISO film in daylight, 25 is the Tungsten light ISO. So I'm not adverse to UFG slow films, where I can use a tripod.

So perhaps I would try a box of 5x4 Pan F as I've almost finished my 5x4 PL25m 2 boxes of 10x8 left :D

Let's see.

Ian
 
I thought the same but then I wondered if some of the Kentmere line of products in LF would make more sense commercially? We shall see! Exciting for sure.
 
I'm pretty sure @Woodsy was besotted by the idea of Pan-F in 4x5!
 
It might be a slow Delta film, not Pan F, maybe Delta 25.

Remember FP4 & Delta 100 use blue, and HP5 & Delta 400 Green.

Ian
 
Hopefully it will appear in the UK soon, although as I've said before even after duty and shipping, I have saved money by buying Ilford film from B&H in New York. Perhaps a look at their Web site. If 10x8 and 5x4 are in stock at Freestyle, perhaps I can get some 5x7. If I can, I definitely will.
 
StephenM said:
Hopefully it will appear in the UK soon, although as I've said before even after duty and shipping, I have saved money by buying Ilford film from B&H in New York. Perhaps a look at their Web site. If 10x8 and 5x4 are in stock at Freestyle, perhaps I can get some 5x7. If I can, I definitely will.
Click to expand...

That's funny you should say that as I often look at B&H to see if I can get Kodak colour film cheaper after shipping and duty. 8x10 is still way out of my price range, especially given my lack of subjects currently.
 
A bunch of YouTube videos have appeared today. Here are a few (although I've only watched the Matt Marrash video so far).

View: https://youtu.be/ZF4Cvsf4JAg?si=ocIzWmJtIdRN1r5k


View: https://youtu.be/iScm1Yey95U?si=Ums2A2lILe5IdUYb


youtu.be

My LARGE FORMAT PROCESS. Trying ILFORDS NEW Pan F50 4x5.

Hi all!Thanks for watching. If you enjoy my videos please hit the subscribe button, it's totally free! Pan F Video 35mm & 120 (Chasing Shadows)https://youtu....
youtu.be youtu.be

youtu.be

Ilford Pan F Plus - Exceptional quality on a Pangaean scale

Ilford's Pan F Plus is my favourite "normal" B&W film for landscapes, as I discovered in 2024. I find the tradeoff in resolution and tonality to be well wort...
youtu.be youtu.be
 
Last edited:
I've just found a UK source - Nik and Trick.

Only 5x4 and 10x8, so I now have to decide whether to go for both sizes or not... I am finding 5x4 negatives seem rather small these days.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible (and relatively easy!) to cut 10x8 down to 4 sheets of 5x4 (or a couple of 5x7s, as mentioned above)?
 
Nod said:
Is it possible (and relatively easy!) to cut 10x8 down to 4 sheets of 5x4 (or a couple of 5x7s, as mentioned above)?
Click to expand...
Yes, with a but, the issue is only one of 4 would have the notch code if 5x4, and when loading you use that notch code to ensure you load with the emulsion side up.

Ian
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Kevin Allan said:
F

Firstcall Photographic also have it listed
Click to expand...

Thanks. I didn't find it there on Tuesday. B&H have the lowest price for 10x8 at just under £203. Nik and Trick £217, Firstcall and Ilford themselves have a price around the £230 mark.

I need to decide which size, since 5x7 isn't available. Or whether to get both.
 
StephenM said:
Thanks. I didn't find it there on Tuesday. B&H have the lowest price for 10x8 at just under £203. Nik and Trick £217, Firstcall and Ilford themselves have a price around the £230 mark.

I need to decide which size, since 5x7 isn't available. Or whether to get both.
Click to expand...
Get Both !
 
I think the second link Nige gave explains it well. Caveat - PanF divides people. If Marmite was a film, it would be called PanF. It's slightly slower than FP4 but in my experience gives a "brighter" image out of the box, and a tonal range I prefer. I've become more used to FP4 since it was the only option in sheet film, and I have warmed to it, but it's outperformed by PanF in 35mm and 120 in my opinion. At least, for giving negatives I like.

The big drawback is the need to process rapidly after exposure - almost back to wet plate in that respect.
 
Ilford/Harman set a three month limit. Someone somewhere was more cautious and gave a half hour! The consequences are probably not too bad - a thinner negative etc. All film suffers from latent image degradation over time so PanF isn't unique. Just more susceptible.
 
I may have to try some although I'm not much of a landscapist and have just got a box of HP5 in 8x10 and quite a few boxes of 4x5 to use first.
 
Barney said:
What difference can we expect between Pan F and FP4+ ?
Click to expand...

A tiny bit until you make large enlargements, enough to be discernible, but Delta 100 would fall in between the two, and that would be a more valid comparison along with Tmax 100.

There have been no proper comparison of Pan F sheet film, to other films, at all. All the testers have used their film with no direct side by side comparison, so that isn't helpful. There's a need for proper qualitative testing, now the sheet film has been released that might happen.

It is also odd that Ilford themselves have not made any effort to market the benefits of Pan F as a sheet film, It seems they now rely on YouTube content creator, and influencers, for their marketing.

When Kodak test new films they use world respected photographers, like John Sexton for instance for Tmax films, and he was critical about Tmax 100 only having an EI of 50. Kodak had the ASA test revised so Tmax 100 just passed then rushed out Tmax 100.

Now that is not to knock Pan F as a sheet film, or 35mm & 120, I have a large stock of 5x4 film, over 850 sheets, so I won't rush to buy and 5x4 or 10x8 Pan F, I still have quite a bit of EFKE 25.

Personally I always test films I've not really used before in smaller formats first, before using them for LF, and I'm predominantly an LF shooter. I have 36mm & 120 Pan F (which I was given), and it could be the ideal B&W film for my 6x17 camera. That's where i might see a serious improvement in terms of sharpness & fine grain, and fine tune for tonality.

What you have to remember is how good 5x4 HP5 is, enlarged to about 20x16, and Delta 100 to a bit larger, it's similar in a loose way to a Post card size print off a 35mm negative, in terms of the degree of enlargement.

Why would I shoot a 50 ISO film? Well I do with EFKE 25, 25 is the Tungsten light ISO, Daylight speed is ISO 50, oh and in the past Tmax 100 @ 50 EI. it's because I like to shoot f22 and slow or longer shutter speeds, that captures movements in grasses trees, clouds, etc.

Bottom line test differences in films with smaller formats :D

Ian
 
I must be a mind reader or its the mystic Tye.

I have just logged on to pose a question and then this appears. :)

My question, or assumption is this.

Experienced photographers say that 5x4 or 10x 8 producer finer grain, yet that is not possible as the grain is the same for both size of films and I suspect the emulsion will be the same as well. If a 35mm negative is enlarged four times to 140x 100 that would be equivalent to a 10x8 at 40" x 32" the grain wont be any finer, I think that's impossible.

Perception of finer grain may be enhanced by a reduction in enlargement multiplication factor available to most home print makers.

If the pan F in 35mm would be enlarged six, seven or eight times then the grain would be the same as 8x10 enlarged likewise.

Or have I got it all wrong?
 
You are correct in part. The same emulsion is the same emulsion regardless of the surface it covers. Given the same degree of enlargement the appearance of grain will be the same. Sofa, so good, as the furniture adverts say.

BUT a 10x8 print from 35mm is an 8 times enlargement. A 10x8 print from a 20x8 negative is not enlarged at all. Lens have a maximum resolution limited by the laws of physics, not optical design. Enlargement makes this more obvious. Resolution of fine detail will drop.

The same degree of enlargement will simply produce a bigger print, and that might be what you want.
 
StephenM said:
You are correct in part. The same emulsion is the same emulsion regardless of the surface it covers. Given the same degree of enlargement the appearance of grain will be the same. Sofa, so good, as the furniture adverts say.

BUT a 10x8 print from 35mm is an 8 times enlargement. A 10x8 print from a 20x8 negative is not enlarged at all. Lens have a maximum resolution limited by the laws of physics, not optical design. Enlargement makes this more obvious. Resolution of fine detail will drop.

The same degree of enlargement will simply produce a bigger print, and that might be what you want.
Click to expand...
Is there any real difference at normal viewing distance of a 20x16 print made fro a 4x5 negative or an 8x10 negative, or are we grain peeping rather than pixel peeping
 
Think about psychology rather than physics. That's a hint, by the way.

You might find Ctein's book Post Exposure illuminating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top