Techpan, wherefor art thou, Techpan?

[Scott Rosenberg]

gene, please do post your findings, or send a link to me for your report... scott@srosenberg.com

[Jim Galli]

We don' need no stinking Tech Pan. We got Aerial Recon Panatomic X which is where tech pan came from. Same grain structure ie. you can't use a grain microscope to focus it. And much nicer to use and develop. Comes in a 5" wide roll so useable in 4X5 and 5X7 depending where you chop it. Oh and a 4X5 sheep costs about 8 cents. Put a few 250 foot rolls in your freezer today.

[Gene Crumpler]

Jim;

For a few of us cheap is not important.

[Gene Crumpler]

Scott;

I sent you three e-mails with information and a couple of images.

FWIW

[Brian C. Miller]

Well, Gene, if you don't mind spending $3 a sheet when Techpan is still available at $2 a sheet, or Imagelink is about $1 a sheet, then I'm sure that $.08 isn't something to write home about. :-)

Jim, you've sparked a bunch of questions with me!
Where do you buy this film? I did a Google search, and I found a few pages about its use and how it compares with other films, but I didn't notice anybody actually selling it. B&H Photo-Video sells it in the 9.5in x 250ft, and that seems to work out to $.46 a sheet. Shelling out another four bits for Imagelink seems like not too bad a deal.
What are your techniques for cutting the film?
After you cut it, it still has a curl to it, right? How well does it stay flat in the film holder?

Thanks!

[Dan Fromm]

Gene Crumpler, you've been touting the wonders of Gigabit film for a while now. I'm having trouble understanding why using it would do me any good at all. Or, for that matter, Kodak Microfilm or Agfa Microfilm as is sold as Bluefire Police and used to be sold as H&W Control. I tried H&W Control on 35 mm long ago, quickly went back to Panatomic-X.

Here's what puzzles me: it is generally accepted that an ideal lens can resolve at most 1600/(f/number) lp/mm, and that real lenses don't do as well. LF photographers generally shoot at smallish apertures, rarely wider than f/16, so can't lay down more than 100 lp/mm on film. And it takes meticulous technique and a very good lens to do that. So what does a film that can resolve 400 lp/mm bring to the party?

And along those lines, I'm aware of few lenses for LF with maximum apertures as large as f/4.
I have a 12"/4 Taylor Hobson telephoto, designed by the legendary G. H. Cook, that just barely covers 4x5. Wide open it isn't that great. One of my neighbors recently bought a fixed aperture 400/1.5 Zeiss lens. It weighs 35 kg and has limited coverage. I can't imagine how he can use it, and I think he can't either.

Feel free to tell me I'm dumb, but I'd prefer an explanation of what I'm missing. By the way, I've asked this question once before and you didn't respond. My uncharitable reaction to your non-response is that you can't answer it. Please prove me wrong.

Thanks,

[Jim Galli]

OK, for everybody else except Gene who realizes something can't be as good if it costs less here goes. I've bought the rolls I have by doing searches for "aer* film" on Ebay. There's one seller in particular, mrfoto1, who usually has some. It's mostly gov't surplus.

Here's a link to a piece I wrote about how I cut it.

It curls into the emulsion so the curl works to hold the film flat against the back of the holders. It CAN be a PITA to load. You just have to work with it a bit. 5X7 is easier to load than the 4X5. The 5" section from the roll is correct for both 4X5 and 5X7 so you only have to cut once.

Here's a recent image developed in Rodinal 1:1:100 for about 6 minutes if I recall.

[IMG][/IMG]



The soft area in the roof tiles was because the print was still damp when I scanned!

Oh, and does all the extra handling guarantee you'll introduce dust and lint into your negs??

You bet.

I Might also add for you critics that the shadow detail in the actual print is full of life but I'm not so hot at making a 45kb .jpg look like an original. This was done with the 450mm Fuji.

[Gene Crumpler]

Sorry I didn't respond to an earlier question.

I must admit that gigabitfilm is "over kill" for 4x5. I've been studying diffraction limits since I got a 4x5 camera in Feburary 2005.

I was hoping gigabitfilm might come out in 120 form. This is where Tech Pan was outstanding.

I shot tech pan for about 10 years with nikons, but quit 35mm about 5 years ago. I currently shoot with Hasselblads and Pentax 67's, but with tmax and delta 100, the 16x20's just don't quite make it.

I'm a charter member of " Grain Sniffers Anonymous". I'm the guy you saw at the last AA exhibit with the 8x loupe hanging around his neck!

I'm not forcing you to use it. Just sharing my experience. $3 a sheet does not seem real high to make a smooth- as- glass 20x24 inch exhibition print. Something like "doctor/lawyer" cameras:>)

I don't expect you to buy a diamond Rolex either just because I own four. Timex keeps better time than a Rolex anyway. I'm comfortable retired now and can indulge my self.

Don't get up set with me because I like to experiment. I'm saving YOU money. If you would like I can e-mail my report and a couple of comparison images. I think you might be "gobsmooked" with the comparison. Scott was very impressed. (Help Scott)

Check http://genecrumpler.home.att.net and click on "About Gene". I'm a very transparent person. I have no personal agenda except to enjoy my self as much as I can, until I end up in a nursing home.

[Gene Crumpler]

One more thing. Ludwig in Germany needs an investor(s) to come up with $120,000 to make a batch of 120 gigabitfilm. I'm not impressed enough to spend that kind of money.

BTW, I still have a few rolls of TP in my freezer.

[Gene Crumpler]

Also, I believe the question was what can replace Tech Pan. Gigabitfilm is one!