Technical Pan Film

[Jehu]

A friend just gave me an unopened box of 4x5 Kodak Technical Pan film. She had it in her freezer since 1992. I've been trying to find information on this stuff because I've heard that it was an impressive film. As usual, after a few minutes of Googling, I'm more inclined to seek advice from those who have experience. I only have 25 sheets. That doesn't leave much room for trial and error.

My questions:
What is this stuff good for?
What kind of chemistry is best for it? (I normally use ID-11)
Any tips for shooting and processing?

[Eric Woodbury]

I think it is best used for very high contrast, N+4 or more. Combine this with its high red sensitivity and it is very interesting to use. I used a developer that was similar to POTA, but used metol instead. It is a very mild developer that I mixed myself, but it sure made for some unusual contrast with some control. Lately, I've tried PMK and I'm encouraged by this combo.

Much of the info you will find on the net is from folks trying to make roll film Tech Pan behave like normal film with hi-res, so that they can make 35mm look like 4x5. If you are starting with 4x5, then I don't see any need for that approach.

I would give more details, but even with those, it is a crap shoot. At high contrast, getting exposure correct is difficult. ASA is variable depending on how much red you have in the scene. Probably 6 or 12ASA is fine for starters.

[Don7x17]

A friend just gave me an unopened box of 4x5 Kodak Technical Pan film. She had it in her freezer since 1992. I've been trying to find information on this stuff because I've heard that it was an impressive film. As usual, after a few minutes of Googling, I'm more inclined to seek advice from those who have experience. I only have 25 sheets. That doesn't leave much room for trial and error.

My questions:
What is this stuff good for?
What kind of chemistry is best for it? (I normally use ID-11)
Any tips for shooting and processing?

One usage was for extremely low contrast subjects (example: petroglyphs on sandstone). Image made at ISO 100. Develop in rotary jobo processor along with your TMX100 using dilute TMAX RS oneshot. Works very well (this was from a Sexton workshop) - I used this for a number of petroglyph images in the southwest on 8x10. I still have a little tech pan in cold storage.....

this method easily gave equivalent of N+5 development.

YMMV
Don

[nolindan]

A friend just gave me an unopened box of 4x5 Kodak Technical Pan film. She had it in her freezer since 1992.

It is probably still good.

Develop it in Technidol. If you can't get Technidol then try for Photographer's Formulary TD-3, as a last resort use POTA (you have to make it yourself from Phenidone and S. Sulfite).

Don't waste it by developing it in Rodinal or HC-110. If you aren't willing to go all out with it then it is best to sell it on ebay to someone who will - you should be able to get ~$50 for the box.

[Toyon]

I much prefer Photgraphers' Formulary's TD-3 developer for tech pan. It controls contrast better and is easier to use than Technidol.

[nolindan]

Much of the info you will find on the net is from folks trying to make roll film Tech Pan behave like normal film with hi-res, so that they can make 35mm look like 4x5. If you are starting with 4x5, then I don't see any need for that approach.

Making 35mm look like 4x5 is the purpose of the film. If all you want is high contrast then just get some microfilm - why bother with TechPan? Carrying a small camera and some light lenses with a fill-it-on-location beanbag for a tripod sure beats hiking around with a LF rig on your back - with TechPan scenes that are 50 miles from the road suddenly become photogenic.

The purpose of shooting TP 4x5 is to make prints that look like 20x24 contact prints. Lots easier to haul a 4x5 on your back instead of a 20x24" Ebony.

TP was originally developed for recording solar flares - hence the high red sensitivity at the 'hydrogen line'. This, and its lack of reciprocity failure with gas or mercury hypersensitization, made it the darling of the astronomy crowd.

You can do other things with it, but it would just be a waste of the film - sell it on and buy some TMAX-100 with the proceeds.

[Kirk Fry]

Suppose we could talk Kodak into making a batch of Tech Pan? K

[Jiri Vasina]

I shoot it in 4×5" at EI 25 and develop in Rodinal 1:100. Absolutely no grain, even scanned at 3200dpi, smooth, sharp, very nice tonality. Wonderful stuff.

Here's a portrait of my daughter on this film (excuse the poor focus).


http://www.vasina.net/wp-content/gallery/katka/p4x5-0352_web.jpg

[John O'Connell]

Use Technidol or TD-3 (I preferred Technidol). Be very careful about dust; I never managed to cure my dust problems with this film in 4x5 and stopped using it for that reason. Otherwise, it scans wonderfully; it has relatively dramatic reciprocity failure (begins at 1/2 second, as I recall); and the red sensitivity does great things with skin tones but tends to make lips disappear.

I tried it out as a high-contrast film, but it's hard to judge exposure and previsualization for that use, and you only have 25 sheets. I'd go the more traditional route, given your short supply.

[Brian K]

I've tested nearly every developer combination for tech pan. The best pictorial results come from technidol but in 120 and 4x5 sizes developer mottling due to it's unusual agitation requirements is very common. I ended up using c-41 developer, in a jobo. It gives me an EI around 20 @ 68 degrees- 6'30". It's still an n+1 look so use it with lower contrast subjects or scenes for a little contrast boost.

Here's a scene shot with Tech pan and processed in c-41:

[venchka]

Jiri,

Would you care to share your times for Tech Pan and Rodinal 1:100? Agitation scheme?

Does anyone have any experience with Tech Pan and Xtol, Diafine, Microphen? Jobo tanks and continuous agitation?

Thanks.

[Jiri Vasina]

Wayne, why not? ;)

I develop my sheets in Jobo 2830 print drum (even if in this case it was a single sheet) rolled on UniColor Uniroller base - that is continuous agitation. Temperature was 19-21°C (I'm not that precise with temperature, it was most probably 20,...). Rodinal 1:100 for 8:00minutes.

And the exposure was with my Minolta meter set at EI 25.

[venchka]

Thanks Jiri!

I have a similar Jobo set up for 120 and a Minolta meter as well.

[Jim Ewins]

Jiri is correct. Expose at 25 ISO and Rodinal at 100 or 125:1 I continue to use it in 35mm & 4x5. I'm OK unless Seattle Light lets me down (its in the freezer). HC110 will work and the Formulary's specific developers work also. Yes it is great for high contrast situations.

[Peter J. De Smidt]

I've used lots of stuff with TP, including c41 developer, TD3, very dilute Xtol, Pota, Technidol... Of those, I prefer TD3. That said, John Hicks (a reliable source) experimented extensively with this film, and he claimed that Ethol TEC produced by far the greatest real film speed. I don't know if it's still made, but if it is, then that's what I'd try.

[gandolfi]

old thread I know...

I Love the tech pan, but I havn't tried it in 4x5 before this evening...

I did as always: expose at 100 - dev in Neofin Doku for 6+ min, continous agitation..

FANTASTIC to use on portraits!

(difficult to scan: a lot of newton rings occured... I'll try again and upload some results.)

[Drew Wiley]

The way I heard it is that Kodak stopped actually making Tech Pan almost fifteen years ago. Everything sold since has been off that last master roll. They needed
a specific polyester support material which was discontinued. Really pissed off the
astrophotographers who prized this film for its extended red sensitivity. I still have quite a few sheets of 8x10 which I use for panchromatic highlight masking. There is no
direct substitute, although there are other microfilms which can be soft developed for
normal contrast range. The idea that Techpan would let a small camera shot look like a
big camera shot was utter bunk all along. Yeah, it had extremely fine grain, if you could
find a lens with adequate MTF to take full advantage of it. But the scale of the highlts
and shadows was disappointing, and every little inevitable blemish in the sky or other
smooth surface would enlarge to the size of the Goodyear blimp. I have a friend who
used it extensively in medium format until I turned him onto Efke 25, and now is finally
beginning to discover the detail that can be put into the extreme ends of the curve,
something we LF practitioners have being able to accomplish for a long time with our
silver-rich thick-emulsion films.

[Jay DeFehr]

I still have some TP in various formats. I develop mine in 510-Pyro 1:300, and get easy to print negatives.

[Peter J. De Smidt]

I much prefer Photgraphers' Formulary's TD-3 developer for tech pan. It controls contrast better and is easier to use than Technidol.

+1

[Drew Wiley]

For general use, I too got the best results with TD-3.

[Jim Jones]

If one had plenty of Tech Pan to fine tune the process, it made wonderful solarized negatives. The results were high key prints instead of the solarized prints which were dark. As I recall, I exposed it at an exposure index of 25 and developed it with agitation for about 45 seconds in Solarol developer before flashing, and about the same without agitation after flashing. Of course a similar effect can easily be made in a digital image editor, although without the Mackie lines.

[gandolfi]

The way I heard it is that Kodak stopped actually making Tech Pan almost fifteen years ago. Everything sold since has been off that last master roll. They needed
a specific polyester support material which was discontinued. Really pissed off the
astrophotographers who prized this film for its extended red sensitivity. I still have quite a few sheets of 8x10 which I use for panchromatic highlight masking. There is no
direct substitute, although there are other microfilms which can be soft developed for
normal contrast range. The idea that Techpan would let a small camera shot look like a
big camera shot was utter bunk all along. Yeah, it had extremely fine grain, if you could
find a lens with adequate MTF to take full advantage of it. But the scale of the highlts
and shadows was disappointing, and every little inevitable blemish in the sky or other
smooth surface would enlarge to the size of the Goodyear blimp. I have a friend who
used it extensively in medium format until I turned him onto Efke 25, and now is finally
beginning to discover the detail that can be put into the extreme ends of the curve,
something we LF practitioners have being able to accomplish for a long time with our
silver-rich thick-emulsion films.

might all be true... if I only knew what you were talking about :o

BUT - with "my" development, I have never had more information in any other type of film than this one...

(So maybe I am just bad at developing other films....)

And because it has this extra red sensibility, it is perfect for portraits - especially if your "victim" is a young girl! Porcelain skin!
They love that....:D

[Brian C. Miller]

I loved Techpan while it was being made. Yes, the grain is fantastically small. Tmax doesn't compare. However, Fuji Neopan Acros is very much like it, in terms of grain. I haven't tried Efke, though.

[venchka]

Suppose we could talk Kodak into making a batch of Tech Pan? K

Sure. The same time they make a batch of Kodachrome in 4x5 and 120 and 135.
Kodak published numbers for Xtol and Tech Pan. I plan to use those numbers for my 1 roll of Tech Pan 120.

[gandolfi]

here are a couple of the portraits I did yesterday.

Simple ones - and quick scan (never mind the dust...:o )

Iso 80 - pre rinse - 6min cont. agitation. Neofin Doku (2 bottles to one Liter)

[imagedowser]

Gandolfi, you used a Boyer 300mm for these and it made me a happy camper to hear it.... I have the same lens (different s/n) and a 360 that I love.... but to hear it was on TP completes the "picture" ... absolutely stunning...

[gandolfi]

Gandolfi, you used a Boyer 300mm for these and it made me a happy camper to hear it.... I have the same lens (different s/n) and a 360 that I love.... but to hear it was on TP completes the "picture" ... absolutely stunning...

thanks.
I love the Boyer!

Actually it was my first LF lens and I bought it 20 something years ago, when I purchaced my big Gandolfi...

I had no idea what it was... it was the only lens in the shop with a working shutter, so I just chose that.
I'm happy I did.....

I lust got 15 bottles of Neofin Doku for my Tech Pan film, so not I actually think I have enough developer for all my films..