PDA

View Full Version : Tech Pan



DrPablo
2-Feb-2007, 06:35
I'm getting 50 sheets of Kodak Tech Pan in 4x5. I'm also picking up some Technidol to develop it.

I want to make sure I get the most out of this film. That makes me think I should primarily shoot landscapes or cityscapes, i.e. subjects with innumerable small details. This may be my only chance to shoot with this film, so I'd appreciate suggestions.

Mark Sampson
2-Feb-2007, 07:34
I've never shot this film (pictorially) in 4x5, and not for a long time in smaller formats. But people I know who have used it successfully report excellent results with Formulary TD-3 developer. There is some thoughtful commentary on the use of Tech Pan and similar films in Anchell & Troop's "Film Developer Cookbook". If I was going to shoot Tech Pan I'd re-read their recommendations.

Alan Rabe
2-Feb-2007, 07:49
I have used tech pan in the 35mm version using technidol as a developer. I found it imposible to get any details in the high values, like in snow. But there wasn't even a hint of grain which was beautiful. I messed around with a metol only developer and it helped but it dropped the film speed down so low it was impractical to use. I would definately try a softer developer than technidol but make sure you do some kind of film speed test or you might waste a good bit of film.
On the other hand I thought Kodak had stopped making Tech-Pan so I guess that is good. If you find a developer that works let us know. I like what the film has to offer but just couldn't make it work.

DrPablo
2-Feb-2007, 08:13
I've seen some examples of the high contrast, and for that reason I think I'd choose to use it in nothing more than velvia-like settings, i.e. 4 or 5 stops of scene brightness, and nothing placed higher than zone 6.

Do you think dilute technidol would work better?

Jim Jones
2-Feb-2007, 08:14
Tech Pan is perhaps best used to boost the contrast in flat subjects, such as the full moon, clouds, or faint textures. It can be processed and partly reversed in Solarol developer for Sabattier negatives. I'll use a swindling stash of this great film for such special applications, and make do with conventional film for convential subjects.

Brian Ellis
2-Feb-2007, 09:34
I used Tech Pan quite a bit at one point. I'd strongly suggest you waste a few sheets and do some testing for the speed at which to rate it. Even after doing that I found the results unpredicatable. Sometimes I'd get normal looking negatives, other times I'd get extremely high contrast negatives, with no apparent explanation for the difference (I used Technidol and was extremely careful with the methodology). I'm not sure how valuable Tech Pan is in 4x5 unless perhaps you plan to make mural size prints.

DrPablo
2-Feb-2007, 10:15
I'm not planning on making any extreme enlargements as a general rule.

But as I gain experience with LF, I'm coming to realize that certain subjects just either have or lack meaningful detail below a certain level. For instance I've done some extreme macros, like 5:1 or 6:1 macros of coins and plants, and what happens is that textural detail gets resolved to a degree that doesn't always add to the shot.

So as I conceive it the best use of Tech Pan would be for much more distant subjects where there is a negligible reproduction ratio on the film. For instance, a cityscape would have a tremendous amount of recognizable fine detail (quantitatively), and tiny textural details would really have a lot of meaning. In other words, being able to resolve bricks in a distant skyline is more important to me than being able to resolve scratches on a coin.

As I think about it this seems like it would place a lot of demands on my enlarger lens as well. I might need to upgrade from my cheapo Wollensak lens.

George Stewart
2-Feb-2007, 11:18
I've shot TP in all formats from 35mm to 4x5. In my experience, Technidol is the only developer for this film-so you have chosen wisely. This combination still has limited exposure latitude, so chose your subject and filter well. Otherwise, the results are nothing short of astonishing; meaning, sharp and grainless enlargements to 25x or more. It does not perform as well in scans (a good scanner will still pick up the grain) as it does in optical prints.

I use this combination in my Contax TVS, tripod mounted with filters, when backpacking. I still carry a 4x5 when backpacking, but use the Contax as a second camera. Who needs MF?

Rob_5419
2-Feb-2007, 16:45
Pablo,

It sounds like if you're not going for enlargement factor from Technical Pan, then the tonal gradation is more important, and Technical Pan being such a high contrast film needs some taming.

I guess of the approaches I've used for Technical Pan, most people opt for a moderated approach; on one extreme, going Pyro-Tea & using staining techniques to control the contrast, or pushing that extreme and going for image latensification and other way-out-wacky things is fantastic.

The opposite approach, perhaps more conservative, is the use of a standard developer and pulling the ISO of the Technical Pan. For instance - I find that using Rodinal at 1:100 and exposing Technical Pan at ISO6 gives a little more highlight modulation than I would get from Technidol.

The staining and experimental techniques are fantastic if you've got time and more Technical Pan. Overall, I think I've settled for the conservative ISO 6 and dilute Rodinal approach - a bit like preferring having a regular meal rather than an exotic fusion restaurant meal everyday.

Good luck.

PS - It's a little depressing noticing that a wealth of knowledge about this film which existed a few years ago is starting to become buried or lost. Years ago, no one would have settled for an orthodox Technidol approach to Technical Pan ;(

John O'Connell
2-Feb-2007, 20:59
Perhaps those of us who used the orthodox approach to TP were just silent about it a few years ago . . .

I've used TP in all of the formats it was offered in except 8x10, and I only ever found it to perform satisfactorily in 35mm prerolled canisters souped in Technidol. TD-3 I found to be too contrasty, and never had luck with the Rodinal 1:100 technique; TD-3 was too contrasty and I didn't get even negatives from extremely dilute Rodinal.

I also found it to be a very different animal in each format. Random problems would crop up--I found the sheet film was a dust magnet, and the 150' spools always had emulsion defects. Great stuff, and I'll certainly miss it for portraits, but very finicky.

DrPablo
2-Feb-2007, 22:27
It seems like the best way to control contrast with this film is with scene selection more than anything else.

If I limit myself to shooting in scenes with 3 stops of dynamic range, then I'll probably have quite a bit more leeway both with EI rating and with development, and any fine tuning can be done in printing. Right?

I'll leave the high contrast scenes to my FP4.

Tony Lakin
3-Feb-2007, 02:37
Hi
I have used (and wasted) a lot of Technical Pan sheet film over the years including 8X10 (still have 25 sheets in unopened box in my fridge), I have tried the original Technidol dev. supplied in powder form, Technidol LC and POTA, then I discovered Celer-Stellar by Speedibrews in the UK, wonderful, full tonal scale, better than any of the forementioned by far.

Ed Richards
3-Feb-2007, 07:54
I am curious about the characteristics of Tech Pan that are worth the trouble in LF. I used it in my 35mm days in the quest for lower grain to get that LF look, but then I just moved to LF. Unless you are making really big prints (I hate to imagine how big with 8x10) it seems that grain is not an issue. This is for continuous tone - if you are using it for graphics art effects, it makes a lot of sense.

Joseph O'Neil
3-Feb-2007, 08:48
I also found it to be a very different animal in each format. Random problems would crop up--I found the sheet film was a dust magnet, and the 150' spools always had emulsion defects. Great stuff, and I'll certainly miss it for portraits, but very finicky.

Exactly my experience. I used to hypersensitize 35mm tech pan for astro-photo shooting, and I found lots of issues with tech pan in bulk rolls, but never in the single cartridge.

Interesting thread however, as I still have a fridge with tech pan in 120 and 4x5. :)

joe

David Luttmann
3-Feb-2007, 09:57
I am curious about the characteristics of Tech Pan that are worth the trouble in LF. I used it in my 35mm days in the quest for lower grain to get that LF look, but then I just moved to LF. Unless you are making really big prints (I hate to imagine how big with 8x10) it seems that grain is not an issue. This is for continuous tone - if you are using it for graphics art effects, it makes a lot of sense.

Agreed Ed,

Grain really isn't an issue for this film. I always use Technidol LC for processing and never have a problem with tonality. I only use Tech Pan in 35mm and MF....still have a few hundred rolls of MF and 3 x 150 feets in 35mm. Scanned MF is grain free at 32x40. In fact, it better than I can get with Delta 100 in 4x5.....albeit with a different look.

John O'Connell
3-Feb-2007, 11:16
"I am curious about the characteristics of Tech Pan that are worth the trouble in LF."

Tech Pan scans very well if it is not grossly overexposed. Almost as well as chromogenic films in my (limited) experience.

The grain structure in enlargements looks significantly different than other films, and some find it pleasing--I have a very large Tech Pan print (not mine, but an old professor's) on one of my walls and it is different than other films--not better, but different.

It also had a lot of extended red sensitivity. Good if you're prepared for it, disappointing if you like portraits with dark lips or if you don't adjust your filter factor for your Wratten 29.

Rob_5419
3-Feb-2007, 13:12
35mm Examples on this thread: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IRvN&tag=
Rodinal 1:100


35mm Pyro Example: http://photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=30423984

5x4" Example:
[Rodinal 1:100]

http://www.luxcamera.co.uk/pages/Blacklight/Hampshire%20Walden%20II.htm


_______________________________________________________________________



It seems like the best way to control contrast with this film is with scene selection more than anything else.

Once a photographer learns how to pull film and develop accordingly, there are more scenes which he can select. Turning away from a scene due to the limitations of the film isn't healthy ;(



I am curious about the characteristics of Tech Pan that are worth the trouble in LF

The darkroom experience with the TP 120 roll is frustrating enough to turn the lights on. I find it near impossible with plastic reels, and use the Hewes metal reels which are a little less painful.

I'm finding either 35mm or sheet film versions of Technical Pan more rewarding than 120 TP film. The greater curvature of the film due to its thin emulsion base increases the risk of streaking (in some of the above examples, chemical streaking is evident).

The Kodak cocktail shake-development is also highly peculiar, although let's not go there...

Btw - presoaking seems to help development immensely if you're going to try this at home.

Good luck.

Brian C. Miller
3-Feb-2007, 21:38
I've found that Tech Pan (RIP) is an excellent emulsion, and contrast control is obtained by varying the development time. It is (was) a pain to load TP on steel rolls. I made a film holder for tray development from Plexiglas, and it works quite well for one sheet at a time. TP for LF is reasonably stiff, and its no harder for me to handle it than it is for other films.

One of my LF cameras is a Graflex Super Graphic. When I developed my first sheets of Tech Pan from it, I was stunned. With the stock Wollensack lens, I could see bicycle spokes in a window a couple of blocks from me, and easily count the bricks in the wall.

Is TP worth it for large format? Yes! While others I have discussed it with dismiss films like TechPan, I love it dearly for the two boxes I have left.