Pan F+ vs APX 25 : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

Now that APX 25 is getting harder to find and will soon be impossible, can anyone comment on the similarities and differences with Pan F+. I've not shot any Pan F+ and I'm wondering whether to get out there and buy up and freze a bunch of APX 25 if I can find it, or whether to make the switch to Pan F+. I know only I can decide that and I have some Pan F on order to test, but I'd be interested in other people's experience.

T really don't think I want to go to Tech Pan. I've never been that happy with it (probably my fault, I think it's a film you have to work with for a while to get the best out of it), plus it's significantly more expensive than Pan F.

I'm working in 35mm BTW, so issues of grain and sharpness are important for the applications I'd put APX25/PanF to. I'd guess in MF and LF they would be less so.

-- Bob Atkins (, December 19, 2000


If you want APX 25, you better order it fast, it is going fast. On another thread here, Calumet is out, B&H has been out for a while.

-- Terry Carraway (, December 20, 2000.

I played with Pan F+ for a while in my Rolleicord and wasn't exactly taken with it. The grain isn't THAT small that I'd speak of it in the same breath with Tech Pan, as folks did with APX 25.

Pan F+ seems to EI at 40 (condenser), its curve seems to be S-shaped with a pronounced shoulder, and I wouldn't say that it's less grainy than TMX. I ended up switching to TMX myself for the few low-grain uses I have.

Tech Pan is what it is. Expensive, time-consuming, and possessing the tonal range of David Spade. I've had some good results with it in the past but I think it's better suited to being a portrait film than a general purpose film.

I think Efke might make a 25/50 B&W film you could look into.

-- John O'Connell (, December 20, 2000.


Pan F+ is an exceptional film. But it does take some practice and testing. The tonal range is very long and you can make grainless 11x 14 prints from 35mm negatives. The best developer for it is PMK pyro. It will five the longest tonal range and sharpness is about equal to results from Rodinal. Rodinal is the next best developer for it but you need to do some testing to avoid blown out highlights and a shortened tonal range. Its advantage over PMK is convenience and cost. I've done a lot of testing with Pan F+ using PMK, Rodinal, and Xtol and that is my order of preferrence in developers. PMK gives such fabulous results that you will have a heightened excitement about your photographic work. I just wish Pan F+ were available in 4x5 format. If you have questions about times, dilutions, and costs, let me know. You can order this film from as a reload for about $2/roll. Good luck.

-- Greg Rust (, December 20, 2000.

I think Pan F+ is excellent film. You will be well satisfied with it once you get calibrated with a good developer. I get excellent results with PMK, rating Pan F+ at 32 and developing for 9 minutes at 70 degrees.

-- Ed Buffaloe (, December 20, 2000.

I use bulk APX 25 and Ilford PanF+ in my Minox subminiature cameras, usually enlarnged about 25x. PanF+ is grainer and not as good tonal range as APX25. After Agfa announced the intention to discontue APX25, I have stock up on bulk APX25. For 35mm, if enlargement to <12, the grain is not evident.

-- martin tai (, December 21, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ