Tech Pan and Technidol in Nikor Tank?

[DSB]

Hi. Does anyone use a Nikor 4x5 tank for Tech Pan and Technidol? I'm still a LF beginner but I have had pretty good luck with other B&W films and the Nikor tank. But, according to the Kodak directions, there are very different instructions for 4x5 sheet film (in trays) and roll films in tanks.

The roll instructions call for 1 packet to make 8 ounces of developer. So I would need 4 or 5 packets to make enough to fill the nikor tank. Dunk the reel into the tank, then shake up and down like crazy for 2 seconds every 30 seconds. After the developing the liquid can be used again with an added minute of developing.

The tray technique uses 2 packs for a quart of working developer to develop 12 sheets as a one shot developer. Perhaps I would use this diluted mix and agitate the film in the tank as I would with normal film such as Tri-X.

I'm thinking of going with the shake like crazy roll film process with 8-10 sheets in the tank. And using the developer 2x. I have a pretty limited amount of film and developer so any experienced advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
David

[vinny]

Rodinal

[StoneNYC]

You'll have a totally different contrast with Rodinal vs Technidol. I wouldn't suggest that.

If you're worried about wasting too many packets, and have a limited supply, I suggest you look at making some POTA developer from scratch, it's fairly cheap to get all of the chemistry to mix up together and is fairly similar to Technidol in the low contrast you want for TechPan.

You can find the formula in a few books but I'll make it easy...

129200

Rodinal will work, but you'll get a much heavier contrast.

Wish I could get my hands on some 4x5 TechPan, always wanted to try some.

Good luck!

[vinny]

It doesn't sound like he's used tech pan or technidol so "totally different" isn't really an issue.
Why wouldn't you suggest Rodinal? Have you shot tech pan sheet film, processed it in rodinal (say 1:100), and made optical enlargements?

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2832/9262693740_21bf27e15d_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/f7vJ9d)goodhart forest (https://flic.kr/p/f7vJ9d) by vinnywalsh.com (https://www.flickr.com/people/62218065@N00/), on Flickr

[David R Munson]

Vinny - I love the gradation of contrast foreground to background with the fog.

[StoneNYC]

It doesn't sound like he's used tech pan or technidol so "totally different" isn't really an issue.
Why wouldn't you suggest Rodinal? Have you shot tech pan sheet film, processed it in rodinal (say 1:100), and made optical enlargements?

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2832/9262693740_21bf27e15d_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/f7vJ9d)goodhart forest (https://flic.kr/p/f7vJ9d) by vinnywalsh.com (https://www.flickr.com/people/62218065@N00/), on Flickr

Vinny, you showing us the scene that was super low in contrast to begin with, and is still really extremely contrasty looking.

I'm not negating your view I'm just saying that it isn't the right developer nor is any standard developer the right developer for developing tech pan if you want to have normal contrast, because it's not designed to give normal contrast with normal developer. Which is exactly why people use a special developer like Technidol or POTA to develop it as those are both low contrast developers which was something like tech pan will give a normal contrast.

I have shot and developed tech pan in a number of developers including Rodinal, and certainly settled on POTA or Technidol as my two developers of choice when shooting tech pan.

I have not updated printed any of them and have only scanned that, I do plan to make actual optical prints at some point of some of my images made originally on Tech Pan, and although not ideal, the scanner does tell you pretty much the differences between the images shot and developed with one developer versus another and they're very distinct differences between normal developers in the low contrast developers.

Anyway it's good that you have found a developer you like to use with it, I'm just telling you that from my experience the images you'll get from something like Rodinal will be higher in contrast then a normal scene would normally give.

Your image, though nice, still obviously shows the high contrast of using a developer such as Rodinal.

By the way I love Rodinal and use it with 90% of my shooting, so I'm not putting down the developer, I'm just telling you and the OP with the reality of using normal developers with tech pan is going to give you as a result.

[Michael Rosenberg]

For normal development of Tech Pan I use XTOL at 1+5 for 11 mins. 72F at the suggested agitation method for Technidol. Use dH2O!

Mike

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I used rodinal 1:100 when I had a supply of tech pan. I loved the results. Tonality use were smooth and beautiful. And grain was nearly nonexistent. I believe I was rating the film at about 25iso.

Eta: I have printed optically from these negatives and they have been some of the easiest prints I have made.

[vinny]

People use technidol because that's what was sold for years as "the" techpan developer. I've read countless times that you MUST use technidol or your negs will be shit.
I always question things I read on the web because so many statements aren't based on actual experience.
C41 developer actually works well too. Wait, "it's a b+w film, you can't do that!"

[Corran]

I have used T-Max developer, diluted way past "normal" ratios, semi-stand, for Tech Pan, which worked beautifully. I did 1:40 for Tech Pan. It was actually too low-contrast depending on the scene! Might be worth it to try.

I have a friend who has dozens of boxes of 8x10 Tech Pan in his freezer...I am still trying to get him to sell me some. I only have one roll of 35mm left of some I was given.

Here's an example using the above dilution and 1- hour semi-stand:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymYslAWhf5Y/URsbi7ubW3I/AAAAAAAACyA/a5_b_4wsYrk/s400/Untitled-12s.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymYslAWhf5Y/URsbi7ubW3I/AAAAAAAACyA/a5_b_4wsYrk/s1600/Untitled-12s.jpg)

And for those of us who know our Rodinal, yes 1:100 will be highly compensating and should also be a good option.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've used C41 developer with TP. It was ok, but I preferred TD-3.

[jnantz]

good stuff vinny

i agree about the internet, it can be a sinkhole of false information

i've only used t-p - asa 200 and processed in dektol both in tanks ( 35mm )
and in trays ( 4x5 ) ... never bothered with the specialty developers ...
came out grainless, with massive enlargements projected on the floor.

[StoneNYC]

I have used T-Max developer, diluted way past "normal" ratios, semi-stand, for Tech Pan, which worked beautifully. I did 1:40 for Tech Pan. It was actually too low-contrast depending on the scene! Might be worth it to try.

I have a friend who has dozens of boxes of 8x10 Tech Pan in his freezer...I am still trying to get him to sell me some. I only have one roll of 35mm left of some I was given.

Here's an example using the above dilution and 1- hour semi-stand:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymYslAWhf5Y/URsbi7ubW3I/AAAAAAAACyA/a5_b_4wsYrk/s400/Untitled-12s.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ymYslAWhf5Y/URsbi7ubW3I/AAAAAAAACyA/a5_b_4wsYrk/s1600/Untitled-12s.jpg)

And for those of us who know our Rodinal, yes 1:100 will be highly compensating and should also be a good option.

Ugh 8x10! Wow!

[DSB]

Thanks for the replies. I think that I will have enough Technidol for the amount of film that I have. I'm more worried about burning through the film. My question was mostly directed towards the technique using Technidol in a Nikor style tank.

If the Technidol is not working for me, or I run out, I will try some of the suggested developers. POTA, Rodinal, T-Max and the Caffenol recipe that I've used to tame Copex Rapid with great success. I've had uneven development in the Nikor tank using Rodinal stand developing, although it could quite possibly be due to user error.

Best,
David

[EdSawyer]

Let us know how it works out. I have shot miles of Tech pan in the past, and have some in sheet form now, plus technidol and also the Nikor 4x5 tank, so I will be interested to see how it plays out. When in roll form, I always did the crazy-shaking-for-2-seconds-in-technidol method, which worked well. Even then it was easy to get excessive contrast, and most stuff printed on Grade 1 best.

-Ed