Here's a thing everybody warns against, push developing an already contrasty film. Well, I like seeing why doing a wrong thing is so wrong, so I took a spare roll of Ilford PanF+ 50, loaded it into my Minolta Maxxum STsi, locked on my 70-210mm F4 Maxxum lens (Objectively my sharpest lens), set the ISO to 400, and expected nothing for my efforts. Having rarely used PanF+, and only ever at box speed, I expected thin and messy negatives, but when I took the film out of the tank, the film looked great, with density that doesn't give away the push processing. The negatives looked contrasty, but as contrast is subjective with film, it wasn't that big of a deal to negate.
 |
Just a boring test shot, Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3 |
Right away, the first thing to jump out at me when scanning was that the grain was nearly nonexistant for such a push, comparable to the grain from Delta 400 (Albeit with less latitude). Now pushing Ilford PanF+ 50 to 400 isn't very economical, given the film is about a dollar more expensive than FP4 (Which is also similarly pushable) in 35mm and 120, and is nearly the same price as Delta 400, but I didn't shoot a roll of PanF+ 50 at 400 just to tell others not to do it, I did it to show others what to expect.
 |
"Abandoned", Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3 |
 |
Boring flowers, Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3 |
I can say that this film (@400) has a nice tonal rendition, with the film not having trouble separating the highlights and the shadows, and it keeps things punchy. Honestly, if I found a good deal on a lot of moderately in-date Ilford PanF+ 50, I'd probably mostly shoot it at 400, since it doesn't suffer like most people online say it should. Don't let random people on old forum posts dictate what you do with your film, because film photography should be fun.
 |
End of the roll, Ilford PanF+ 50 at 400, Xtol 1+3 |