Tech Pan 8x10 in a Jobo - Looking for Info

[sperdynamite]

I just acquired 75 sheets of supposedly cold stored Tech Pan in 8x10. My normal mix for my Jobo ATL3 is XTol Replenished. I've never used TP before however, but I've read that POTA is required...you can't get Technodol AFAIK. Photo Formulary sells some, just wondering if I should go that route? Or did people process it with normal developers to get the excessive contrast that can occur...

As an aside...would processing Ilford Direct Positive in POTA result in lower contrast w/o the preflash perhaps?

Thanks!
-Mark

(I also got a 100 sheet box of the old version of TMax 400 in 5x7...100 sheets, what glory days those were!)

[Peter De Smidt]

Pota is not required....the big thing is contrast and film speed, as TP tends to be very high contrast and low film speed. I used to use TD-3 from the formulary, but also using c41 color film developer, just the developer, also worked fine. Any of the developers for document films should work fine, but many will call for less vigorous agitation than your jobo gives.

[nolindan]

General TP principles:

TP can be processed for high (100-200) film speed and high contrast -OR- slow (12-25) film speed and normal contrast. In either case, TP is a continuous tone film and not a document/microfilm.

Technidol, only available on ebay, worked the best for developing. I was never able to get POTA to work well.

The next best developer choice will be Photographer's Formulary TD3. As Peter points out, regular color negative developer also works well. And agitation will be a problem, you may find you get better results in a tray.

Some people claim they like the results with HC-110 and even Rodinal. I found the results execrable but my standard is a 4x5 look from a 35mm negative - no grain and creamy tones. It all depends on the results you are aiming at.

8x10 Tech Pan should be good for rather grainless 6x7.5 foot enlargements (~18x (= 16x24" from 35mm)). If you like looking at murals with a jewelers' loupe then this is the film for you.

I found 4x5 Tech Pan to be rather disturbing. 20x24 enlargements had no grain and thus looked like they were out of focus - grain, even very fine grain, gives the eye something to lock on to and say "that's sharp, I can see something with very fine detail even though it is only the grain."

Done well, 35mm Tech Pan enlargements to 6x9" are hard to tell from LF contact prints.

[Drew Wiley]

It's sorta con-tone. Don't expect deep shadows or specular highlights to reproduce well. They won't. It was designed for high contrast development, though it can be reasonably tamed if needed. Formulary has an appropriate developer. And HC-110 1:15 from STOCK (not concentrate) might be acceptable. But it's the high RPM of Jobo development that would worry me - just too much oxidation.

I disagree completely with nolindan about TechPan prints resembling contact prints. Sure, a ton of detail can be packed in using a lens equal to the job. But what particularly graces a contact print is sheer tonal gradation; and Tech Pan prints fail badly in that respect. If you aren't careful, you'll get more of that annoying "soot and chalk" effect that AA so criticized in his handbooks. And believe me, I've seen a LOT of Tech Pan prints from very high-end MF lenses. I've personally worked with it in everything from 35mm to 8x10, but mainly for forensic or technical applications, just like its brand name implies. But it can indeed be fun to experiment with for pictorial purposes, particularly if you stick with scenes of moderate contrast needing a bit of contrast boost, rather than the other way around. Just be aware of its extended red sensitivity too. Start out around ASA 25, or do a bracket test.

[NHE]

I also just acquired some 8x10 Tech Pan so this is quite timely. I use a Jobo but with PC-TEA so my plan was to use a very dilute solution. I’m curious what constitutes high contrast for Tech Pan as I plan to use the negatives for Palladium prints so that may work well.

You can get long expired technidol of ebay, but the prices are outrageous. I imagine the Adotech developer for CMS20 should work well.

[Drew Wiley]

No, don't think in terms of the high-contrast potential of Tech Pan. It was designed to behave just like an all-or-nothing ortho litho graphics film, except with extended red pan sensitivity. It was in fact often used for title slides in 35mm format. For realistic Palladium printing you'll still need to tame the contrast down quite a bit. And be aware it's a relatively thin slick film. I advise using Anti-Newton glass in your contact printing frame.

[Greg]

When I was shooting 8x10 TechPan many years ago I processed it in Rodinal 1:100. I agree with Drew that getting the "soot and chalk" effect was annoying. Too many times I got this effect and eventually just went back to shooting FP-4. For some reason the images that I shot on 35mm TechPan film and enlarged never exhibited that "soot and chalk" effect. FYI: Back then my 35mm enlarger had a condenser head. For me using TechPan for photomicrography was an ideal matchup.

[nolindan]

I disagree completely with [Nicholas Lindan] about TechPan prints resembling contact prints. ... It was designed to behave just like an all-or-nothing ortho litho graphics film ...

It seems Drew Wiley and myself have no common ground.

Here is a 6x8" print as an example of gradation. High contrast subject, inside of skylit shopping mall, Nikon FM2, 16mm fisheye, f2.8 @ 1/8, hand held, so not the sharpest. LF Forum doesn't seem to like high res. in-line images so it's a 75dpi scan and should show up somewhat lifesize on a 72 dpi monitor.

221785

A center enlargement, 4x - or 24x32" print:

221786

Looks like smooth gradation, good shadow detail and nary a sign of soot nor chalk.

Technical Pan seems to have some of its roots in Solar Flare patrol film, hence the extended red sensitivity. It was heavily promoted for microscopy, electron microscopy, and photographing electrophoretic gells (DNA evidence), applications where the subject contrast is low but continuous tone.

The Technical Pan data sheet opens with:


Kodak Professional Technical Pan Film is Kodak's slowest and finest-grained black and white film for pictorial photography (when developed in Kodak Technidol liquid developer). It is a variable contrast panchromatic film with extended red sensitivity; because of it's extended red sensitivity, it yields prints with a gray-tone rendering slightly different from that produced by other panchromatic films. (This is most noticeable in portraits, in which it suppresses blemishes.)

Use this film for pictorial, scientific, technical, and reversal-processing applications. It is an excellent choice for making big enlargements or murals.

The data sheet does say it can be used in microfilm applications when developed in Dektol (!), HC-110 or Versamat (don't know why anyone would want to - TP is much more expensive than any microfilm).

[Drew Wiley]

Its variable hig gamma potential is nice for boosting the contrast of color neg film when making interpositives, prior to making internegatives on ordinary pan film like TMX or FP4 in turn form those, resulting is richer scale black and white prints from insufficiently contrasty color neg film. In other words, a superior alternative to panchromatic b&W printing paper, and doable in any size, but a lot of preliminary work.

You can also use it like a near-infrared film using a deep red 29 filter. I once sleuthed art fraud cases by detecting suspicious underpainting using Tech Pan and infrared copystand lamps. But unlike the ghostly flare look of true infrared films, you can get extreme detail. Lots of fun applications.

[Drew Wiley]

nolindan - thanks for posting those; but that sure doesn't look like a high contrast setting to me, so those don't disprove anything I stated. Now get out in high altitude where shimmering ice and deep deep shadows under open sun exist in the same scene, like me and a climber buddy of mine addicted to Tech Pan do, and it's unavoidable when comparing our respective prints that my own TMX or ACROS choice captures the full tonal range, while my friend's TP shots exhibit only about a Zone 3 to 7 range, and everything outside of that soon turns into either soot or chalk.

I also happen to have a certain amount of inside knowledge of how Kodak began marketing TechPan for pictorial purposes outside its primary range of technical applications, having had in-person conversations with certain people who wrote some of those sheets. Some wishful thinking involved. One significant problem with 35mm shots is that there are a fair amount of tiny little spots or zits of missing emulsion, evident in areas of continuous tone like skies. I've seen it hundreds of times over. It's a little less evident in 120 roll film due to a lesser degree of magnification, and relatively hard to detect in large format work.

I don't know its specific astro applications. At the time it came out, Kodak was making astro glass plates using original TMax 100 emulsion, far more suited to that particular application. But I'd love to cut down some of my remaining 8X10 stock to 4x5 microscopy size - itself wishful thinking at this point. I'd still haven't purchased a Zeiss trinocular microscope analogous to what I used back in my Microbiology college courses. Otherwise, I might turn the full sheets into highly detailed photogram contact negatives of big interesting leaves and so forth, and just enlarge those normally in one of my 8X10 enlargers. Too many bucket list projects, too little time.

[nolindan]

Drew doesn't seem to like Tech Pan. I do. Lets leave it at there. Everything following is just getting silly.

Nicholas Lindan

[Drew Wiley]

I've probably used far more square inches of it than you ever have, nolidan, and in far more ways. I'm not getting silly, just pointing out a realistic limitation already long known and admitted by many. It's all about finding the right fit shoe for the foot. What one likes or dislikes is a secondary question. I like it for what it does well (or once did), not for what it doesn't. So don't try to twist what I distinctly stated into something else entirely. If I inherently disliked it, I wouldn't have $350 worth of it in my freezer right now.

[LabRat]

I have found it difficult to get a "natural" scale out of it, and many tests to get even processing on the material...

But good for a harder contrast for very flat subjects like macro, fog, etc... Soft standard developers ok, POTA really hard...

YMMV...

Steve K

[sperdynamite]

Lots to think about here! I think I'll order some PF TD-3 and also try C41 developer because I have so much of it. I found a article from Jobo indicating some good information. They recommend normal rotation speeds, a 5 minute pre-wet, and used Technodol. TD-3 should work fine then, as well as C41. I'll test ISO's 12 and 25 to see where I land, both pretty reasonable.

[Vaughn]

Good luck with the film! I got some great contact prints (carbon print) on it using it in a Diana camera, developed in technodol, and some 4x5 carbon prints along the way too. But this was due to matching the film/processing with a process that is capable of eating contrast for breakfast and pulling detail out of what looks like blocked-up highlights.

Use it, abuse it, make images with it. Why be normal?!

[Mark Sampson]

We used TP on occasion when I worked for Kodak- always for various technical purposes, though.
I did try it for normal photography with Technical Liquid developer (current at the time), and later with Formulary TD-3 (which works better and you can still get it).

No matter what you do, it's a short-scale film best suited for lower-contrast subjects. When done right, it has a very particular "glassy" look, which may or may not be to your taste. But since you have the film, it's certainly worth a try.

[Bernice Loui]

Never got enough contrast scale out of Tech Pan for silver gelatin prints regardless of developer used or film speed. Really depends on what the image needs are. Know Tech Pan was intended for speciality microscope images with low contrast, hint is in the spectral sensitivity of Tech Pan.

Box speed rating of 25 is highly optimistic, suggest a film speed rating of 12 and lower with low contrast development.

35mm roll Tech Pan was marketed for a time as, "equal to 4x5 sheet film for grain size"..


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I always got a kick out of that old Kodak "4x5 Image quality from 35mm film" Ad. Guess if you got ahold of an exceptional 35mm lens and compared it to a miserably funky 4X5 one, with a warped film holder and something like Tri-X or Super-XX film developed for golf-ball sized grain, then the comparison might be vaguely applicable; otherwise, it was pure marketing BS. And with Tech Pan routinely available in sheet sizes itself, does that mean you get 40X60 inch FILM quality using only 8X10 sheet film? Regardless of detail potential, even with special low contrast developers like TD3, the edge acutance was poor, and the prints didn't look all that sharp. You could capture a brightness scale only slightly better than Pan F for around the same speed, but without that same wire sharpness. But for certain actual technical applications, Tech Pan could indeed be the cat's meow. But fooling around with it for pictorial purposes almost seems to be a rite of passage; and we all need to try new things from time to time. Have fun!

[Michael R]

Did Kodak actually ever say that? I'd be surprised. It was never really intended to be used as a general purpose film with a long scale. Overall I agree with you that it is generally best to play to a film's strengths rather than trying to beat it into something else. Particularly in large format, the grain and resolution advantages Tech Pan gives over any general purpose medium speed film are meaningless unless you are making enormous prints, and you are giving a lot away in terms of exposure range, tonality and obviously emulsion speed.

My suggestion would normally be to reserve it for very low contrast subjects that need expansion, or for subjects that might benefit from its extended red sensitivity.

If you must use it under average conditions, you'll definitely need a low contrast developer if you want any sort of usable EI or exposure scale.


I always got a kick out of that old Kodak "4x5 Image quality from 35mm film" Ad. Guess if you got ahold of an exceptional 35mm lens and compared it to a miserably funky 4X5 one, with a warped film holder and something like Tri-X or Super-XX film developed for golf-ball sized grain, then the comparison might be vaguely applicable; otherwise, it was pure marketing BS. And with Tech Pan routinely available in sheet sizes itself, does that mean you get 40X60 inch FILM quality using only 8X10 sheet film? Regardless of detail potential, even with special low contrast developers like TD3, the edge acutance was poor, and the prints didn't look all that sharp. You could capture a brightness scale only slightly better than Pan F for around the same speed, but without that same wire sharpness. But for certain actual technical applications, Tech Pan could indeed be the cat's meow. But fooling around with it for pictorial purposes almost seems to be a rite of passage; and we all need to try new things from time to time. Have fun!

[Drew Wiley]

Back when TMax films were being developed as a potential silver bullet film intended to replace several previous product applications, including those of Super-XX, Plus-X Pan, and Tri-X, there was a lot of resistance from old dogs unwilling to learn new tricks, because, in their respective trades, they relied on how those earlier films specifically differed. But now a new film arrived which could be development tweaked to allegedly replace all those earlier needs. Less emulsions to make, the higher Kodak's cost efficiency. And that apparently left even the relatively new Tech Pan emulsion in question, rather close to the guillotine itself.

And in fact, no master rolls of TP have even gotten coated for the past thirty years or more, from what I've been told. TechPan ages slowly, and they just kept cutting from the old stock. Moreover, scanning and digital methods were beginning to dominate in the printing industry. And with Kodak's attitude toward dye transfer printing becoming unreliable, there went one of Tech Pan's largest sheet volume applications, for pan highlight masks. So those in charge of marketing Tech Pan schemed up what they hoped would become a new popular use for it in small format pictorial camera applications. Their campaign worked, and it even became something of a mythology-based fad for awhile.

Therefore, not only did Kodak imply what I noted earlier, Michael, but put out full page illustrated ads in photo magazines outright stating it. I was quoting the actual headline. Then folks like Formulary scrambled to come up with an appropriate developer, at least better than Kodak's own recommended option. Everyone was so obsessed with the ultimate in fine grain that they completely forgot about the implications of tonality or edge acutance, etc. But that attitude was characteristic of small format shooters in general unless they were of the traditional gritty look photojournalist stripe. Kinda like the most-pixel-count wars of today.

Meanwhile, other potential alternate uses for Tech Pan were spelled out in formal tech sheets for certain applications, but unawares to the reader, based on hypothetical applications which were never actually tested! So it goes. Just like many things, engineers can deliver a superb product for the specific applications they have in mind,
while marketing types might stretch the rubber band to the breaking point.

[Peter De Smidt]

John Sexton used it when a scene needed a +2 expansion or more. His photographs using that method look pretty good to me.

[Drew Wiley]

Plus 2 would represent a very low contrast scene to begin with; so that kind of thing would fit into the native scale of TechPan decently, given proper development. But you have to keep in mind that John was at times contracted to experiment with and promote Kodak materials specifically.

[John Layton]

Way far back...mid 1970's I think - I did a bit of beta-testing for the H+W Control guy, who supplied me with a few 35mm rolls of his film and special developer. Never really took off for him...and much later I made use of Tech-Pan for doing line copy work, often to use stripped on to a 4x5 negative with rubylith tape. Also worked well for copying otherwise low contrast continuous tone illustrations. Never could really get it to work for my usual landscapes...even with various low contrast developers.

Thing is...I think that the H+W film and developer combo. actually came much closer to succeeding, for continuous tone daylight work, than did the later TechPan.

I wonder what ever happened to the H+W guy. What was his name? Bob S. do you remember?

[Michael R]

John Sexton used it when a scene needed a +2 expansion or more. His photographs using that method look pretty good to me.

That’s just the point. Use a film for its inherent qualities.

[Peter De Smidt]

That’s just the point. Use a film for its inherent qualities.

No disagreement here. :)

[Bernice Loui]

Tech Pan was originally designed for film images like this:
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999PASA...16..288P/0000292.000.html

Tech Pan data sheet:
https://bioskoplab.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/tech_pan2415.pdf

~Extended Red Sensitivity and more~

Back when 35mm roll film was THE most common means of photographic recording more than a few 35mm B&W film folks became obsessed with "fine grain" and "sharpness". This resulted in popularity of stuff like uber fine grain film, uber fine grain developers and all that and home dark rooms were common enough among 35mm film folks interested in going after uber fine grain, uber sharp and all that..

Some discovered no matter how "fine grain" 35mm marketing hype became, the fine grain obsession was essentially hammered by making sheet film or 120 roll film images.

Could Tech Pan be used for "Pictorial" images, absolutely. Are there better films and film sized for Pictorial images, absolutely. Question is, what are the image goals and how much effort, resources, involvement, testing and ... is required to achieve these image goals.


Bernice




That’s just the point. Use a film for its inherent qualities.

[LabRat]

I think the red sensitivity best helped me in astrophotography... Stars usually have some red in them so would show up well, and the background dark blue + contrast would hold down the haze & sky... A good match...

I had a massive copy project where I bought a 150ft roll of 35mm Tech Pan, but did side by side tests with APX 100, and didn't see much of a difference in grain between, and had a more manageable scale when wet printing 8X10 prints, so still have most of the roll of bulk film somewhere, but would use it for astrophotography in a heartbeat...

I was thinking then that if shooting a dark red filter for telephotography, that the filter factor would be minimal due to the extended red sensitivity...

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

"Technical Pan belongs to a group of films produced in 35mm format and having ultrahigh resolution. This property is the result of a monodisperse emulsion having extremely small silver halide grains, which goes hand in hand with high contrast."

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/E5369/e5369.html


Bernice