Kentmere Pan 400

Kentmere Pan 400

When I bought a few rolls of Ilford Pan 400 earlier this year to test the film, following up my use of Pan 100, I'd been informed that Pan 400 was to be discontinued, and that the Kentmere films, made by Harman, Ilford's parent company, were to fill their budget niche. The Kentmere films had been introduced around a decade ago after Ilford had acquired the old Kentmere brand; in their recent rebranding the Kentmere films had been given a rather prominent 'Pan' to the name (I imagine that photographers are supposed to refer to the film colloquially as 'K-Pan 400'). There have long been discussions online as to whether or not the Kentmere 100/400 emulsions are the same as the Rollei RPX and the (new) Agfaphoto APX films in those speeds (not to forget the Fotoimpex CHM Universal films as well; but these seem to be less widely available). I have used Rollei RPX 400 quite frequently, but particularly in medium format. Kentmere Pan 400, like the Ilford Pan films is only available in 35mm currently, and, having been around for many years is unlikely to suddenly be offered in medium and large format, although this is not impossible: Ilford's Ortho Plus film, a niche sheet film emulsion for decades, has just been introduced in 35mm and 120.

I had used a few rolls of Kentmere 400 (as it had been known) before, but my experience with the film was limited  - and I hadn't tested it in any way. The relatively recent rebranding of the film, with the addition of 'Pan' to its name and the new packaging, as well as the rumour of Ilford Pan 400 being discontinued, suggests that Kentmere Pan 400 is a brand of film to be supported by Harman for the foreseeable future; this seemed to be a good opportunity to write a post about the film, as much as anything as a comparison to Ilford Pan 400.

For a first test with Kentmere Pan 400, as with other films, I shot a range of exposures for latitude, then developed the film as for box speed. On the contact sheet below, the first and second rows are rated, from left to right, 100/200/400/800/1600/3200; the third row is at box speed. This film was developed in R09 One Shot diluted 1+25 for 6m45s at 21ºC.

Kentmere Pan 400 latitude test

My immediate impressions, which the contact sheet displays to some degree, is that Kentmere Pan 400 has better latitude than Ilford Pan 400, possibly with lower inherent contrast - to me, the two latitude tests certainly don't look the same. Although there would be some variability in the tests, both were shot with the same Canon A-1, of similar subjects, and developed in R09 at 1+25; the Kentmere Pan 400 was developed at a slightly higher temperature, as this was done on a warm day, which would be more likely to increase contrast, which must have a bearing on latitude.

Kentmere Pan 400 rated 100, i.e. two stops overexposed

Kentmere Pan 400 rated 1600, i.e. two stops underexposed

At two stops overexposed, some tonal compression was evident but possibly acceptable; two stops underexposed also scanned well enough. Rated 3200, three stops under, shadow detail was clearly being lost to a greater degree at this point. This latitude test gave me some parameters for push processing; the current data sheet for the film only lists times for 400 and 800 (and 320 for Perceptol). The Massive Dev Chart has very few times listed for Kentmere 400 at 1600 - and none with developers I habitually use. Previously, when rating Kentmere 400 at 1600, I'd used stand development with R09 at a dilution of 1+150 for 3 hours, which had been successful enough.

Kentmere 400 rated 1600, stand developed in R09 1+150 for 3 hours

Obviously, three-hour stand development isn't always ideal. For this post, I used the Massive Dev Chart formulation for pushing two stops: multiply the given time at box speed by a factor of two-and-a-half. In Ilfotec LC29 at a dilution of 1+19, this gave a result of 18 minutes at 20ºC - long, but not too long (a shorter result would have been achieved at a dilution of 1+9 of course). The results demonstrated that the film was easily capable of a two-stop push - which the latitude test appeared to show would be the case.

Kentmere Pan 400 rated 1600, developed in Ilfotec LC29 1+19, 18m at 20ºC

It was logical to test the film with a three-stop push, rating it at 3200 to shoot - as with rating it at 1600, without any development times listed for this, I again used the Massive Dev Chart push-processing factors, which give four-and-a-half times for three stops. As the timings were in danger of getting rather long, I used Ilfotec LC29 at a dilution of 1+9, and a time of 19m30s at 20ºC, only later realising that my multiplication had been a little off, and it should have been 20m15s; I doubt an extra 45 seconds would have made much difference to the end result. The negatives showed a marked difference from those rated 1600 - with one further stop, in many of the frames, the shadow detail simply wasn't there any more. This was something that the latitude test bears out: at 3200, there isn't sufficient shadow detail to overdevelop. With scenes such as the one below, overexposure and underdevelopment would help to counteract the inherent contrast present in most urban night scenes; of course, it would not then be possible to take the shot handheld, as I did here. The second image below, taken in daylight, provides a better range of tones, but is still high in contrast with little shadow detail (mostly obscured by the choice of subject matter: the busy frame makes this less noticeable).

Kentmere Pan 400, rated 3200, developed in Ilfotec LC29 1+9, 9m30s at 20ºC

Kentmere Pan 400, rated 3200, developed in Ilfotec LC29 1+9, 9m30s at 20ºC

As I was following the same set of parameters as my post for Ilford Pan 400, I did also shoot some Kentmere Pan 400 at 200, as I had done with the Ilford Pan film, although I would very rarely pull film one stop (the one difference with this particular test was that I'd shot the Ilford Pan 400 with a Kiev-4 and the Kentmere Pan 400 with the Canon A-1 again). Here there were development times on the Massive Dev Chart which I did follow: 8 minutes in Ilfotec LC29 at a dilution of 1+19; the effect of pull-processing does appear to show a lessening of contrast in the frames. In the image below, with the near tree and foliage in shadow, and brighter highlights beyond, pulling the negative appears to have given the image more luminosity - although much of this might be through use of a yellow filter.

Kentmere Pan 400 rated 200, developed in Ilfotec LC29, 1+19, 8m at 20ºC

As a general comparison with Ilford Pan 400, despite looking as though it has better latitude, Kentmere Pan 400 does not appear to push quite so well when rated at higher speeds, although the subjects shot with both films on each post aren't strictly comparable. I would however, broadly echo my conclusions on Ilford Pan 400 on my post about that film: there's nothing about Kentmere Pan 400 which is distinctively characteristic to distinguish it from other similar films at the same speed and price range; at the same time it's a perfectly good, competitively priced, all-round 35mm black and white film with a certain flexibility in exposure and development.

Kentmere Pan 400 rated 200, developed in Ilfotec LC29, 1+19, 8m at 20ºC

Kentmere Pan 400 at box speed, developed in R09 One Shot

Kentmere Pan 400 at 1600, developed in Ilfotec LC29 1+19

Kentmere 400 rated 1600, stand developed in R09 1+150 for 3 hours

Kentmere Pan 400, rated 3200, developed in Ilfotec LC29 1+9, 9m30s at 20ºC

Kentmere Pan 400 data sheet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1922/product/697/

Ilford XP2 Super - Part One

Ilford XP2 Super, shot on XP2 Super, 35mm and medium format 

WHY XP2 SUPER IS DIFFERENT 
XP2 SUPER is a chromogenic film. This means that the dyes which make up the image are formed during development rather than being present in the film or added later. The extremely wide exposure latitude of XP2 SUPER is the result of the unique relationship between exposure and grain in chromogenic films. The best balance of sharpness and grain is obtained when XP2 SUPER is exposed at EI 400/27. However, down-rated or overexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have finer grain, the opposite of that expected and obtained with conventional films. Up-rated or underexposed XP2 SUPER negatives have only a slight loss in quality. Furthermore, standard C41 processing is recommended for the whole of the exposure range.

Ilford XP2 Super data sheet

At some point over the last four decades, all the big four film manufacturers marketed chromogenic black and white films: Agfapan Vario XL was the first such film, followed by Ilford with XP1; Kodak produced BW400CN and Fuji had Neopan 400CN (although this film itself is made in Europe with  Ilford being involved in its manufacture). The reasons that chromogenic black and white films were developed surround the simple logistics of standardised C41 negative processing: once this infrastructure was established - the typical high street one hour photo - the rationale for a black and white film which could be processed in this way was clear. Chromogenic films had an appeal to two distinct types of customers: for the amateur, wanting to use black and white but unwilling to either pay the premium for black and white processing or endure the wait while the film to sent to a specialist lab; for professionals, the film could be developed alongside colour negative film and lab prints from chromogenic film could be treated as proofs for later bespoke printing by hand in a darkroom. In some respects, XP2 Super's distinct features - C41 processing and wide latitude - make it an ideal choice for someone wanting to shoot black and white film for the first time. Ilford XP1 400 was announced at Photokina in 1980, a year after Agfapan Vario XL, and a year after Ilford's centenary. The first version had its own chemistry as well as being able to be processed in standard C41 chemicals. XP2 succeeded XP1 in 1991; the film was "updated" with no name change in 1996; and it reached the current iteration of Ilford XP2 Super twenty years ago this year in 1998. The Super suffix for XP2 would appear to be the equivalent of the 'Plus' versions of HP5 and FP4.

Although of any particular film stock HP5 Plus is almost certainly the film I've used more than any other, Ilford XP2 Super may be the one film I used most intensely, for a number of years when I didn't have access to a darkroom and did not develop at home: I used it as my standard black and white film, mostly through the early 2000s. Since returning to developing negatives myself, I've not used XP2 very much, but, at the end of last year, I bought a brick of 10 24-exposure rolls of 35mm XP2 Super at a clearance price due to being out-dated. The films were dated September 2016 - and as it was then only a year out of date, I've made no adjustments in exposure to compensate for age - and these films were priced at £1.50 per roll, and even though this was closer to £2 each with postage, this was still very economical, and I had no doubt that the age of the film would be as close as negligible in terms of its results.

Ilford XP2 Super latitude test contact sheet (C41 process)

One of Ilford's claims for XP2 Super is that it has exceptional latitude and can be exposed at a range of exposure indexes with no adjustment in processing times:

XP2 SUPER film has a speed rating of ISO 400/27° (400ASA, 27DIN, EI 400/27) to daylight. [...] Although rated at ISO 400/27°, XP2 SUPER can be exposed over the range EI 50/18–800/30. When higher speed is needed, XP2 SUPER can be rated at up to EI 800/30. For finer grain, when speed is less important, rate the film at EI 200/24, although for finest grain it can be rated as low as EI 50/18 if required.

Although I had used XP2 Super a great deal in the past, I hadn't made any kind of systematic tests at the time. Like other films written about on this blog, for this post, I wanted to make some tests as to the film's capabilities, and I began with a latitude test. I shot a roll of XP2 Super with two sequences of six frames rated at exposure indexes rated 50/100/200/400/800/1600. The rest of the roll was rated at 200 and this was processed professionally with C41 development. The results of the tests on this post were scanned; a more comprehensive set of tests would include darkroom printing, but the scanned negatives should provide some relatively comparable results.

Ilford XP2 Super rated EI 50

The suggestion from Ilford's data sheet with regards to the relationship of density to fineness of grain does appear to hold true: I've never had a reason to rate XP2 as low as EI 50 before, but the frames so rated have a smoothness to them that might seem surprising for a 400 ISO film. This is apparently due to the way that the dye clouds which replace the silver in processing overlap. In practice, however XP2 Super is rated, this does have the effect that the grain is finer in overexposed areas, while the grain is more pronounced in the shadow areas, the opposite effect to the case with traditional black and white negative film, where denser areas provide more visible grain. One aspect of this unique peculiarity makes XP2 Super particularly good at rendering skies in landscapes with much smoother tones than one might achieve with a similar speed conventional black and white film, for example. However, when rated at an exposure index of 50 or 100 it appears there is some compression of the tonal range; the date sheet has a curve with a very shallow shoulder. In addition, it would appear that rating the film for 'finest grain' is at the expense of sharpness; this may seem counter-intuitive, but, on consideration, a denser negative would logically be less sharp than a thinner one, though how great a difference one might perceive in a print or scan is not something I've tested for here.

Ilford XP2 Super rated EI 800

At the other end of the exposure scale, grain appears to become apparent in the mid-tones through to the shadows when rated at EI 800, but squeezing an extra stop from the film in low light conditions without any change to processing - and on the same roll as frames exposed at different ratings - is potentially very useful. Ilford do not recommend push processing with Ilford XP2 Super, and I have not test the feasibility of this with C41 processing. However the frames rated EI 1600 displayed quite a pronounced grain, which my tests, looks quite visually unappealing - unlike some traditional black and white films, where the visual texture of the film grain adds something to the image, rather than detracts.

Ilford XP2 Super rated EI 1600

The remainder of this test roll I shot at EI 200, and this became my standard practice when available light allowed while shooting a number of rolls of XP2 Super subsequent to making the latitude test.

Ilford XP2 Super, rated EI 200

One aspect of the film that I was keen to test for this post was the difference between processing XP2 Super as intended by C41, and compare this to XP2 Super developed using traditional black and white chemicals. For this second latitude test, I used the same camera (a Canon A-1) and the same ratings of 50/100/200/400/800/1600 for two successive series of six shots. Again, the remainder of the roll was shot at a rating of EI 200. Ilford does not recommend using black and white chemicals to process XP2, but, like any film, it's based on a silver negative: as with a colour negative film, the developed silver is then bleached and replaced by dyes; unlike a colour negative, of course, there's only one layer. Therefore, there's no reason that it cannot be developed as a black and white negative, but it is not intended for this and so it may not necessarily give the best results - which was something I wanted to test (and unless otherwise stated all the images on this post were from C41 processed negatives). I have previously used stand development with Rodinal with XP2, a good all-round method for developing almost any film, but there are listings on the Massive Dev Chart for a standard small tank development routine with intermittent agitation. The listing for Rodinal is given as 18 minutes at 20ºC at a dilution of 1+25.

Ilford XP2 Super latitude test contact sheet (developed in R09)

In the event, for the test roll in black and white chemicals, I developed the film for two minutes longer at a degree cooler in temperature. With the two latitude tests, I printed contact sheets on variable contrast paper without a contrast filter, with the result that these would be the equivalent of using grade 2 paper. The difference between the use of black and white chemicals and C41 processing was immediately clear: with black and white chemicals the film's contrast is notably greater, and its latitude appears less. In both tests, the frames rated 1600, two stops underexposed, shadow detail appears to dramatically drop off, but this was even more marked with the film developed in R09. One final note on the differences, interestingly, is that there appears to be less base fog with black and white chemicals, which may increase the overall contrast. Further, I did not try push-processing in black and white chemicals (as with C41 development) due in part to the already long development times.

Ilford XP2 Super, rated EI 50, developed with R09

Scanning the negatives developed in RO9, one issue I had was that the density in the highlight areas resulted in noise, which, while distinct from the grain itself, made it difficult to assess the appearance of grain when developed in traditional black and white chemicals. It was immediately obvious that the particular characteristics of XP2 Super are as a direct result of being developed by the C41 process: in black and white chemicals the results are fairly unremarkable. However, some of the images that were rated at EI 200 rather than box speed still had a relatively smooth, fine-grained appearance, and possibly, if not developing XP2 Super as colour negative, this procedure might give the best results.

Ilford XP2 Super, rated EI 200, developed with R09

Other black and white developers will also work with XP2 Super: the Massive Dev Chart has a limited list. One developer that I use frequently not on the list is Ilfotec LC29; I've only used this for one roll of Ilford XP2 (not Super, it had a 'develop before' date of Nov 1996) and made a calculated guess of a dilution of 1+29 with a time of 14 minutes at 18ºC. This worked well enough but I would want to make more tests with Ilfotec LC29 before recommending it with these times and dilutions.

Voigtländer Avus with Ilford XP2 (6x9 medium format) developed in Ilfotec LC29

In terms of XP2 Super's specific characteristics with C41 processing, its latitude can sometimes produce images which appear 'flat' with a fairly straight print or scan, that is without increasing the contrast - or other manipulation such as dodging and burning. The contact sheet of the C41-processed  latitude test film above shows this, especially when compared to the black and white processed film. This latitude is a benefit when shooting scenes with a wide range subject brightness range: it's especially good for maintaining detail in skies for example. The image below has fairly good modelling in the clouds, which, although obscuring the sun, were brightly lit against the overcast landscape of burnt grass, and, with a small amount of digital burning in (only useful if the detail is there to begin with), has the sort of effect one might perhaps achieve with a light yellow filter. In low-light scenes like night time urban settings, which often have isolated highlights and deep shadow areas, XP2 Super does seem to be quite good at managing these wide variations in illumination (it does suffer reciprocity law failure, but the night shots on this post were taken handheld, without long exposures; also, I haven't made accurate comparisons between C41 and R09 processing for such subjects).

Voigtländer Bessa RF (6x9 medium format) with Ilford XP2 Super

Zenit 11 with Ilford XP2 Super

When Kodak announced that BW400CN was to be discontinued in 2014, Ilford took the opportunity to produce a comparison sheet. One of the obvious advantages of Ilford's chromogenic film over Kodak's always was that it was available in medium format as well as 35mm (it is also now available in single use cameras; XP2 was once available in sheet film but this was one format I have neither seen or used). The other notable points of comparison are XP2 Super's wide exposure range: the sheet gives BW400CN as "400 – Not specified in technical data". In addition, BW400CN was coated onto a standard colour negative orange base, which one might imagine to be less than ideal for printing on black and white variable contrast paper, as well as for scanning. Ilford's film has a pink base, which varies in intensity depending on wash times - some of my negatives look almost clear or at least a light grey without much discernible colour, while others are quite pink. Ilford XP2 Super has a fairly distinct place in the film market now, a niche which it shares with Fuji Neopan 400CN (which, although not confirmed by Ilford, is, according to some, the same emulsion). One would hope that its distinct characteristics should mean that XP2 Super has a place in Ilford's range of films for the foreseeable future.

Belomo Agat 18K with Ilford XP2 Super

Praktica nova I with Ilford XP2 Super developed in R09 One Shot

Lomo LCA with Ilford XP2 Super

Zenit 11 with Ilford XP2 Super

Kiev-4 with Ilford XP2 Super

Kiev-4 with Ilford XP2 Super developed in Fomadon R09

Canon A-1 with Ilford XP2 Super (scan from lab print)

Canon A-1 with Ilford XP2 Super

Canon A-1 with Ilford XP2 Super developed in Fomadon R09

Wallace Heaton Zodel camera (rollfilm back with 6x4.5 mask), Ilford XP2 Super

Voigtländer Bessa RF (6x9 medium format) with Ilford XP2 Super

Ilford XP2 Super - part two

Sources/further reading
Ilford XP2 Super data sheet
XP2 Super/BW400CN comparison sheet
In Praise of XP2 Super - Richard Pickup
Ilford XP2 - an under-appreciated film - The Web Darkroom
How to shoot Ilford XP2 Super - The Online Photographer
Ilford XP2 Super in Black & White Chemistry - Christopher Moss

Ilford Pan 100

Ilford Pan 100 35mm film

Ilford Pan 100 is a traditional cubic-type emulsion medium-speed black and white panchromatic film from Harman under the Ilford brand, which is complemented with a fast Ilford Pan 400 film. Ilford FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus are Ilford's well-known traditional emulsion films in the same (or similar; see comments below) speed ratings; however, the Ilford Pan films have not been generally available in the UK. The data sheet states:

The ILFORD range of PAN 100 and PAN 400 black and white camera films are not generally distributed and sold worldwide, they are only made available in selected markets.

The name, 'Pan', simply standing for panchromatic, is indicative of the basic nature of these films (panchromatic is, of course, the 'P' in FP4 and HP5). Recently a number of UK retailers have been stocking the films, which may represent a change of policy by Ilford in terms of market strategy for their particular products. I bought a number of rolls of Ilford Pan 100 at Process Supplies Ltd - now my 'drop-in' shop in central London (on the closure of film photography shops, see my post Seven Years On), where I noticed a display under the glass counter of the Pan films - despite these not being listed on their website.

There are some suggestions online that the Pan 100 and 400 films currently available are the old formulas of FP4 and HP5; there's an unattributed 'Ilford employee' quoted on a thread on the Amateur Photographer forum given as stating: "They are based on FP4+ and HP5+ technology, but are produced to lower specifications and tolorances [sic]. While the quality is acceptable, these films are lower in quality than other ILFORD films." Having used the older version of FP4, before the 'Plus' iteration, I was able to compare times from the leaflet inside the box of FP4 with times given for Ilford Pan 100, and the times are different in all developers, some are close, but not the same. However, in some developers the times are the same for the current version of FP4 Plus and Ilford Pan 100 (notably for the developers I used for this post, R09/Rodinal and Ilfotec LC29), with the important caveat that FP4 Plus is of course rated 125 ISO at box speed, one-third of a stop faster than the box speed of Pan 100 - not a great difference in sensitivity, but worth noting. It's also worth remarking that the Kentmere films, made by Ilford's parent company Harman, have been their low-price traditional films available in recent years, but these have different times from the Pan films. The data sheet referenced earlier states that the Pan 100 and 400 are available in 35mm and 120, but the sheet itself is dated March 2002; there are a few posts online suggesting that the Pan films were discontinued some years ago; it may be that the production ceased for a period, and was then restarted for 35mm film only.

When researching Ilford Pan 100, I did not find any in-depth, serious reviews of the film online - there are, however, plenty of forum posts along the line of 'what is this film?' Incidentally, Pan 400 appears to be a bit more popular, or at least seems to come up more often than Pan 100, and in searches, there's a lot of results for Ilford Pan F - which is quite a different film altogether. Developing times for Pan 100 (and Pan 400) are not listed on Ilford's standard development chart listing their other Ilford-branded films (except Ortho Copy Plus); for this post I used the times printed inside the box, which are the same as those on the Massive Dev Chart.

Ilford Pan 100 latitude test contact sheet

For a latitude test, I shot a half roll of Ilford Pan 100 with the Canon A-1. The first two rows on the contact sheet above were rated at exposure indexes of 25/50/100/200/400/800; the last row was shot at box speed, but with some bracketing. I developed the film in R09 One Shot, diluted 1+25 for 9 minutes at 20ºC. The contact sheet appears to show a swift falling off with underexposure; with scanning, it was possible to pull detail from the shadows (likewise with the highlights with overexposure) for a stop under without any difficulty, but with three stops there was very little detail there.

Ilford Pan 100 one stop underexposed

Ilford Pan 100 three stops underexposed

With overexposure, the compression of the tonal range is problematic: the detail is all present, but the flattened tones are perhaps unattractive, and makes scanning more difficult.

Ilford Pan 100 two stops overexposed

Departing from box speed, I shot some Ilford Pan 100 at 50, a one-stop pull. Developed in Ilfotec LC29, diluted 1+19 for 6m30s at 20ºC, the results may show a slightly reduced contrast, although for most conditions, pull-processing is a compromise relied on less often, and so as a general rule, less critical than push-processing - I very rarely pull-process. However, in high-contrast situations, it may well be a useful corrective.

Kiev-4 with Ilford Pan 100 at 50

Ilford's developing chart in the box also has times for a one-stop push to an exposure index of 200. I shot a roll with the Kiev-4; however on the day I shot the film, I was not really shooting in 'normal' lighting conditions - the snow made for relatively high-contrast subjects, but the lighting was heavily overcast and grey. In addition, this one-stop test was mostly shot at end of afternoon as the light itself was fading. I developed this roll in Ilfotec LC29 diluted 1+19 for 9 minutes at 20ºC.

Kiev-4 with Ilford Pan 100, rated 200

The results from the latitude test were not as good as other films I've tested (my benchmark for a film that demonstrates especially good latitude is Adox Silvermax 100), but I did want to try a two-stop push with Ilford Pan 100; rating it at 400 is not recommended by Ilford themselves. On the Massive Dev Chart there are a couple of results for rating it at 400 (as well as 800 and 1600), but none in developers I habitually use. For a first test, I used Ilfotec LC29 diluted 1+19, and made an estimate at 14 minutes (in retrospect, this probably should have been more like 18 minutes, using a rule of thumb of a two-stop push needing 2.25x normal development). The results were mixed; with good, diffused light, as in the image below, this developing regime worked well enough.

Ilford Pan 100 at 400, developed in Ilfotec LC29, 1+19 for 14m at 20ºC

However, with high contrast subjects, the lack of shadow detail was clear. In the first of the two images below, this matters less, but the landscape image underneath suffers: the bright but low angle of the sunlight casts deep shadows that are nearly featureless. Highlight detail (as in the clouds) is also difficult to retrieve (I also shot some of this roll at night, further adding to the contrast).

Ilford Pan 100 at 400, developed in Ilfotec LC29, 1+19 for 14m at 20ºC

Ilford Pan 100 at 400, developed in Ilfotec LC29, 1+19 for 14m at 20ºC

In either case, I doubt that extending the development time to a full 18 minutes would have helped. Rather than assume that pushing Pan 100 to 400 to be a compromise hardly worth attempting, I tried a different tack: stand development. Using R09 One Shot diluted to 1+150, I stand developed another roll of Pan 100 rated 400 for 3 hours (agitating on each hour interval). It's a method I have used with Ilford HP5 Plus previously and I've liked the results. The theory behind using such a high dilution of R09 is to reduce the contrast that accompanies push-processing; no doubt most of the development has occurred by the one-hour stage, but I wanted to give the shadow areas as much opportunity to develop as possible. The grain in the photographs developed in this way appears smoother than the push-processing in Ilfotec LC29, although of course the subject matter is not entirely comparable. Incidentally, both rolls shot at an exposure index of 400 were taken with the Canon A-1, which should eliminate the vagaries of metering, although lighting conditions were quite varied; further tests might be taken to refine this approach, but, in a pinch, a two-stop push with Pan 100 can produce acceptable results.

Ilford Pan 100 rated 400, stand developed in RO9 diluted 1+150 for 3 hours

Ilford Pan 100 is certainly not a good substitute for FP4 Plus - but it may be for Kentmere 100, if one is looking for a budget black and white film. The grain of Pan 100 does not appear as smooth as FP4 Plus, and, to my eye, it also has a different look: something about it reminds me somewhat of the Fomapan films, the pattern of the grain being more random and less evenly dispersed. The price, of course, is what is attractive about the Ilford Pan films: I bought my 36-exposure rolls of Pan 100 at £3.99 apiece, which is admittedly a little more expensive than Kentmere 100 (perhaps the extra twenty-something pence is for the Ilford name) - and it may of course be possible to find the film even cheaper elsewhere online.

Ilford Pan 100 shot with Agat 18K (half frame)

Ilford Pan 100 shot with Halina 35X

Ilford Pan 100 shot with Praktica nova I

Ilford Pan 100 shot with Voigtländer Vito IIa

Ilford Pan 100 shot with Canon A-1

Ilford Pan 100 shot with Kiev-4, rated 200

Ilford Pan 100, rated 400, shot with Canon A-1

Ilford Pan 100 and Pan 400 data sheet (PDF)