Going to try Techpan

[Jehu]

I've got a box of Kodak Technical Pan that was given to me years ago. I later scored some pouches of Technidol. I've had the developer in my freezer for about 10 years. I'm starting to think that I should use this stuff. I have a few questions for those who may be familiar with this...

ISO? Should I just shoot this at 25? Is push/pull an option with this stuff?

I'm using a Jobo with Expert Drum. What temperatures, dilutions and times would be good?

Are other developers (Rodinal?) okay to use?

Typically, I would look forward to some trial and error to dial in my favorite workflow but I only have 24 sheets and 3 doses of developer. It would be good to get a handle on a starting point.

[jp]

I'd sell it on ebay. Chances are good someone wants to use it WAY more than you.

[Drew Wiley]

Tech Pan has tremendous contrast flexibility, but gravitates toward very high contrast; so for ordinary pictorial purposes you need special low contrast developers; Photographer's Formulary still has these. ASA 25 is a good starting point. See the tech sheet included with the chemistry. But remember, this film has extended red sensitivity, so you might need to filter your shots a bit differently. I don't recommend the high-RPM agitation which comes with Jobo drums unless you gently hand-roll them. Whether your old stock of developer is still good is hard to say. I wouldn't recommend Rodinal or anything else highly active. You might be able to use a high dilution of HC-110; but if it were me, I'd opt for fresh special developer from Formulary.

[Jehu]

I'd sell it on ebay. Chances are good someone wants to use it WAY more than you.

NO-WAY!
I'm known for checking the depth of a stream with both feet. This stuff can't possible be worth enough on Ebay to give up the experience of trying something new.

I do, however, have a few sheets of 8x10 Polaroid that's been in the freezer for several years. I just don't have access to a processing machine.

[Mark Crabtree]

You're talking 4x5 I imagine? I have a bit somewhere, but my experience is more with Panatomic Aerial which is purported to be a very similar emulsion. It behaves like that for me, and is absolutely nothing like Panatomic. I think the name just indicated a speed class.

With that film I tried all the usual suspects of ordinary developers including the classic recommendation of very dilute HC110. I got usable results but nothing worked very well until I tried dilute xtol. I need to find my notes, but diluted at least 1:3, and that from my replenished stock. That combination finally gave me relatively normal contrast and a fairly usable speed of about EI 16, the same as often mentioned for Tech Pan at normal contrast. I can look up details if you are interested. The Photographers Formulary, or custom POTA developer might be better; I liked this because I was shooting 6.5 x 8.5 and 8x10 and went through a fair bit of developer. Plus, I had it.

[Jehu]

You're talking 4x5 I imagine? I have a bit somewhere, but my experience is more with Panatomic Aerial which is purported to be a very similar emulsion. It behaves like that for me, and is absolutely nothing like Panatomic. I think the name just indicated a speed class.

With that film I tried all the usual suspects of ordinary developers including the classic recommendation of very dilute HC110. I got usable results but nothing worked very well until I tried dilute xtol. I need to find my notes, but diluted at least 1:3, and that from my replenished stock. That combination finally gave me relatively normal contrast and a fairly usable speed of about EI 16, the same as often mentioned for Tech Pan at normal contrast. I can look up details if you are interested. The Photographers Formulary, or custom POTA developer might be better; I liked this because I was shooting 6.5 x 8.5 and 8x10 and went through a fair bit of developer. Plus, I had it.

I have a few unopened pouches of Technidol. Wouldn't it be best to use that?

[reedvalve]

I've been using Photographer's Formulary TD-3 developer with good results.

This is 35mm from a bulk roll using a Contax IIIa:

191301

[Oren Grad]

I have a few unopened pouches of Technidol. Wouldn't it be best to use that?

Technidol LC powder or Technidol Liquid?

Either way, I'd be very wary of 10+-year-old developer, especially since you don't have enough film to burn some of it confirming developer integrity. Regardless of the theoretical stability of the developer mix, over such a long period there's just too much risk of a microscopic breach of the package sealing resulting in enough oxygen and/or moisture getting in to cause trouble.

[Mark Crabtree]

I have a few unopened pouches of Technidol. Wouldn't it be best to use that?

Yes, if it is still good. But you asked about other developers. I also meant to mention that, to me, Rodinal would not be a particularly good option. I too had some packs of Technidol but gave them away before trying them. For me it wouldn't have really helped because I've got quite a lot of this similar film.

Good luck. Should be fun.

[Vaughn]

Fun stuff -- love it, but then I want all the contrast I can get (DR of ~3 is nice!) My times would do you no good.

[Peter De Smidt]

SLIMT is an option. I used to use TD-3, back when TP was available new.

[Mark Sampson]

TP is an inherently high-contrast film with a short tonal scale. it takes care in exposure and development to get good results, but it has a unique look when you get it right.
I'd try Formulary TD-3- it was designed for your purposes. The Kodak formulas will be unreliable at best by now due to age, and I've never had good luck with extreme dilutions of standard developers.
Steve Anchell, in 'The Film Developer Cookbook', has written very intelligently about microfilms and their characteristics, when used for continuous-tone photography.

[Chester McCheeserton]

I think the technidol liquid might still be good if it was sealed. I messed around with some 35mm some years ago and found box speed worked okay, and as others have said, that bright sunlight worked better then cloudy days...Cloudy days had a weird simultaneously too contrasty and too flat look.

Agree with the comment about turning down the agitation on your Jobo, I also had issues with overdeveloped edges. maybe use a couple sheets on the same scene and test some different exposures....

[LabRat]

Dealing with Tech Pan is tricky in development, as it is easy to get uneven density... Follow whatever Kodak info you find regards to agitation, especially start of development...

As for the old developer, it might work, but making your own is cheap and simple, something like 1/10gm phenidone (or 1 gm metol) and something like 10 gm sodium sulfite in a liter of water (but don't quote me, look it up)... Sorta a very dilute D-23... Buying this small amount of chems would be very cheap...

Remember, this was a semi line film, and you are trying to control the contrast by using very weak developer, but the film wants to go very contrasty in any other developer, even very dilute versions...

I still have a 125ft roll of 35mm I haven't used yet, but with my roll tests, it was hard to get even development... And the spectral response can be screwy, as well as contrast...

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

Technidol concentrate has "indefinite" shelf live according kodak, but 6 month after mixing. If your technidol is in shape it would be best choice.

If not, the simple choice is HC-110 Dil F for low contrast scenes, in the shadow, etc

For high contrast scenes a low contrast developer or compensating (stand, etc) is required.

___________________________________________________________

191311

HC-110 Dil F is the less wild choice (in the datasheet) after Technidol, 0.8 Contrast Index with HC-110 may be suitable for low contrast scenes.

Some developers suitable for low contrast processing (Beyond Technidol) are:

POTA,
Adotech II (ATP-DC especially made by SPUR for the Rollei the CMS20 micro film)
Caffenol,
Delagi,
Agfa 14, (formula here http://bjornburton.org/agfa.html.gz)
Tetenal Neofin Doku , sadly RIP, some at ebay

and... T/O XDR-4, TDLC-101 series , ATP-DC A/B,


__________

POTA has high fog and streaking problems with TP, Film Development Cookbook (Anchel/Troop) has modified POTA formulas:

Modified POTA
Water (52C) 750 ml
Sodium Sulfite (anh) 10 g
Phenidone 500 mg
Pyrogallol
or
Hydroquinone 250 mg
Water to 1L

Develop 11min 20ºC

_______

From a post I saved from Photrio:


This modification is an attempt to optimize POTA for Technical Pan film. Add borax or sodium bicarbonate as desired to control time, contrast, and speed. Develop 11 minutes.

TDLC-101 and TDLC-102 modify POTA by adding a second developing agent (glycin) to stabilize it. The variation also raises the contrast a bit.
TDLC-101
Sodium Sulfite (anh) 4 g
Phenidone 100 mg
Glycin 500 mg
Sodium bicarbonate 20 g

TDLC-102
Sodiun sulfite (anh) 4 g
Phenidone 250 mg
Glycin 250 mg
Sodium bicarbonate 5 g
Both TDLC-101 and TDLC-102 could be modified by adding 1 to 10 mg of potassium iodide.
Another variation would be to add 50 ml per liter of isopropyl alcohol.

Delagi-8 is said to raise both the speed and the sharpness of Technical Pan compared to POTA development.
Delagi-8
Sodium sulfite 25 g
Phenidone 1.4 g
Borax (decahydrate) 2 g
Benzotriazole 0.2% 15 ml
Substitute sodium metaborate for borax to get higher speed and contrast.
Note:
Benzotriazole may not be active at low pH and could be eliminated. Potassium
bromide or iodide might also be substituted.


(Glycin can be found in Photographer's Formulary web store.)

_____

I've been playing with low contrast developers for CMS 20...

for those that yearn techpan... we have Adox CMS 20 in 4x5" sheets. Sharper (crazy 800 line Pairs per mm at high contrast) than Techpan and even more painful, well, quite a lot more painful, so total fun.


______________________


I wouldn't recommend Rodinal or anything else highly active.

Rodinal can used if highly diluted. Wikipedia says it !!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Pan

With Rodinal: E.I. 15 , 1+150 for 6:30 minutes at 20C.

[EdSawyer]

I've used a lot of tech pan in the past, and still have a stash along with technidol. as mentioned I'd use the technidol first, then the TD-3 probably. 3 pouches is enough for 24 oz of developer which can be used twice, so depending on how you develop, you might have enough to run all 24 sheets in it, possibly.

[Mark Sampson]

Try to find the Kodak tech brochure for TP. (I have a copy buried somewhere.) It will explain, with curves, some of the various contrast levels achievable with Kodak's developers. Of course they don't mention any other manufacturer's products, or any home brews, but it will give you an excellent overview of what the film is capable of. (I often had to refer to it in my Kodak days.)

[Oren Grad]

Try to find the Kodak tech brochure for TP.

Kodak still has the 2002 edition posted:

http://wwwru.kodak.com/RU/ru/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf

[Jehu]

I've used a lot of tech pan in the past, and still have a stash along with technidol. as mentioned I'd use the technidol first, then the TD-3 probably. 3 pouches is enough for 24 oz of developer which can be used twice, so depending on how you develop, you might have enough to run all 24 sheets in it, possibly.

I have 3 pouches. They are unopened. They were in a freezer before I got them and I just put them in my own freezer. That was about 7 years ago if I remember right. My preference would be to try out a sheet or two at a time so I can make adjustments. Hopefully, the mix I get from a single pouch will last a couple of days so I can run some tests.

[Drew Wiley]

In their contemporaneous film guide, Kodak only mentions Technidol and HC-110. The dedicated Tech Sheet Oren linked is more specific. but I personally preferred what P. Formulary offered, that is, for con-tone work. I still have quite a stash of 8x10 Tech Pan, but use it for higher contrast lab applications. Unlike Ortho Litho, the pan characteristics of TechPan make it suitable for highlight masking selective of any color with suitable filtration.

[EdSawyer]

Each pouch makes 8oz, which can be used twice (technidol). I am not sure how long it would last in a tray or other container. I've never frozen it either so not sure how that affects it. Depending on your film developing method, you might have enough to develop it all, but it will be a stretch.

[Mark Crabtree]

I ended up shooting a couple portraits on my Tech Pan like aerial film yesterday so thought I'd add a few details on that processing. I couldn't quickly find my notes on Xtol, but did find times for HC110 from last fall. HC110 1:80 from concentrate, 5 1/2 minutes at 72 degrees, continuous agitation. This was BTZS style tubes, so similar processing to the OP's Jobo. Results were fine and maybe even a bit flat, but these was very low contrast shaded portraits. Developer quantity is probably a big deal at this dillution. I think it is relying partly on exhaustion to control the highlights. I used about 2 1/2 ozs per 4x5 sheet; I don't know how much the Expert will handle.

For accuracy with the small quantity of HC100 concentrate I ended up mixing more developer than I needed, so finally got around to a direct comparison of my Panatomic Aero with Tech Pan. Results were very much the same. I may repeat today with dilute Xtol since I think I got better results that way.

I still think Technidol, Formulary, or a POTA developer will be the very best. This is what I had on hand and I thought the info might be useful for someone.

[Nodda Duma]

Tech Pan was my favorite 15 years ago. I have collected a stash which I shoot from periodically. I suggest shooting it at ASA 12.

[Peter De Smidt]

Yeah, I agree with the ASA 12. That's what I shot at with TD-3 or C41 (developer only). Supposedly, Edwal TEC gave a true higher speed, but I was never able to try it.