Why I loathe Kodak Tech Pan film......

[Jim Galli]

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/TechPan_4.jpg
Cows, Truckee River

70mm TP shot in Kodak Folding Brownie #2. Rodinal 5:850 5.5 minutes, JOBO tank, slowest speed.

No surprise here, I've never gotten a decent image on Kodak Technical Pan in my life, and I consider myself fairly adept at this stuff.

Arrgggghhhhhhhhhh. No it's not an image that would have made my name a household word, but still, I took the time to make it.

[sanking]

[QUOTE=Jim Galli

70mm TP shot in Kodak Folding Brownie #2. Rodinal 5:850 5.5 minutes, JOBO tank, slowest speed.

No surprise here, I've never gotten a decent image on Kodak Technical Pan in my life, and I consider myself fairly adept at this stuff.

Arrgggghhhhhhhhhh. No it's not an image that would have made my name a household word, but still, I took the time to make it.[/QUOTE]


Why in the world would you shoot TP in a Kodak Folding Brownie #2? That old camera is probably not capable of capturing all the detail that you can get from an ASA 400 film,much less a super high resolution film like Tech Pan.

In any event, looks like the trouble here is fogging from the camera, right? I don't think you can put that on Tech Pan.

Sandy King

[Jim Galli]

Why in the world would you shoot TP in a Kodak Folding Brownie #2? That old camera is probably not capable of capturing all the detail that you can get from an ASA 400 film,much less a super high resolution film like Tech Pan.

In any event, looks like the trouble here is fogging from the camera, right? I don't think you can put that on Tech Pan.

Sandy King

LOL, it's slow and I had some. No, all the uneven development around the sprocket holes is regulation tech pan. But I wouldn't put my life in jeopardy vouching for the camera either.

[Peter K]

I've exposed many rolls of Technical Pan 70mm, not with a Kodak Fogging Brownie but with Hasselblad and Linhof cameras. As ISO 50/18° exposed and developed in HC-110 dilution F 6 min at 68° F the extended red sensibilisation made nice skin tones and of course a high resolution. So I miss this great material.

[Jim Galli]

So you're saying the trouble is that my Kodak is old and fogged up? I'll put some in an RH50 and shoot it carefully to see if I see any fogging difference.

[KenM]

You also need to agitate quite vigorously....from Kodak pub p-255 (emphasis mine):


Fill the tank with developer adjusted to one of the temperatures in the table.
In total darkness, drop the loaded reels into the tank of solution and attach the top to the tank.
Firmly tap the bottom of the tank on the top of the work surface to dislodge any air bubbles. (You can then turn on the room lights.)
Provide immediate agitation by shaking the tank vigorously up and down 10 to 12 times for 2 seconds.

Do not rotate the tank.

In other words, agitate the crap out of it.

[David Luttmann]

True Ken,

I always treated it like a Martini to get decent results. Never had a problem with it in Technidol, D76, or HC110.

[rippo]

well as luck would have it, i just shot and developed my first roll of tech pan over the weekend. in a nikon N90s, shot at asa 50. i developed it in technidol (had some sealed packets someone gave me...not the same person who gave me some tech pan, but luck favors the unwary) and the negs came out really nicely! i've only done a contact-sheet scan on my epson 4990, but there's no fogging or anything like that, no sprocket marks. i didn't even do anything very different than normal: typical 30 sec agitation followed by 5 sec every 30. didn't shake it like a polaroid picture, just the normal inversion. i did however process it at 86° so that i wasn't sitting there for 15 minutes.

could your jobo and continuous agitation be an issue? if your test of the camera works out ok with different film, try processing the TP using a hand tank and see if there's a difference. just a wild hunch.

[Marko]

I never shot Kodak Tech Pan, but I have seen similar patterns using rotary development (non-Jobo tanks on a Beseler base) with both 35mm and MF films. Also, what little I know about Rodinal, from many years ago when I used the stuff but also from recent experience, is that it doesn't like vigorous agitation, quite to the contrary. I've had pretty good results, I like to call them luck, with very gentle agitation regimen.

I'm talking about one slow inversion every 5 seconds throughout the first minute and then once on top of every minute with Rodinal 1:50 and half that for N- development.

What I am driving at is two possibilities - that your spool might be prone to turbulence and that the combination of film, developer and agitation method may be mutually incompatible. Why don't you try a) one roll of the same stuff in the same camera developed in same concentration Rodinal but with hand inversion, b) one roll
of the same film in the same camera with the same agitation but with different developer and c) all of the above but with different film?

[cotdt]

TechPan is amazing!

[Brian Ellis]

I used to use Tech Pan in a Pentax 6x7 camera. Never had any problems like Jim is experiencing but I found it kind of unpredictable - sometimes the negatives were very good, other times too much contrast. I used Technidol and followed the Kodak instructions meticulously. But even when the negatives were good I didn't think it was that big a deal in 6x7 enlarged to 11x14 compared to TMax 100, probably a bigger deal with 35mm and its greater mag factor.

[Alan Rabe]

This was shot on tech pan back in 88. Used a Fuji gs645m, still have it. Used technidol. I loved the film for it's lack of grain but it was just too slow and I always had problems with highs blocking up. And anyway I moved on to 4x5.

[Neal Wydra]

Dear Jim,

Try using the C-41 developer for 8 minutes at the highest speed on your Jobo. While I've never tried any 70mm film, it really doesn't look like the problem is with the film but rather insufficient agitation.

Neal Wydra

[Diane Maher]

I shot some Tech Pan a couple of weeks ago in my 'Blad and the streets looked like they were snow covered. However, the subject of the images (buildings in this case) were fine. I didn't care about the streets.

Some snowy landscapes I took on the same roll came out fine too. I would have liked to get some 8x10 sheets of this film, but it was too expensive (plus I have a lot of 8x10 film around the house and couldn't justify it at the moment).

[Mark Sampson]

Jim, I don't mean to belabor the obvious but here goes. Tech Pan is the trickiest film to use if you're looking for a continuous-tone negative. It was never designed to do that! The fact is that high-contrast films don't react well in low-contrast developers. Unevenness like yours (or otherwise) is the most common result. It takes a lot of practice, and consistent technique, to get worthwhile results. A casual approach to this film (like perhaps 90% of TP experimenters) have guarantees poor results.To make things even worse, it seems that no two successful users have identical techniques to get good results. it's a shame that we can't get Verichrome Pan (perhaps the world's most forgiving film)anymore, but there it is. To mangle Shakespeare, "the fault lies not with the stars, Horatio, but with ourselves." Better luck next time!

[ic-racer]

I have obtained good 35mm results with Copex and Rodinal 100:1 in a rotary Jobo processor. ( http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23322 ) I suspect you have a bunch of that 70mm Tech Pan film and want to find a use for?

I had tried Technidol in the Jobo with the Copex and got similar results to what you are showing, thinking the Technidol is the culprit. Seeing your results with Rodinal makes me think the Tech Pan film itself is not friendly with rotary. T-max developer seems to be quite rotary freindly, I wonder how that would work.

[Jim Galli]

Mark, I appreciate your response and surmised the same. I'll try again with the formula I use for APHS ortho asa 3 film. But I think the sprocket holes are always going to be a problem. Maybe I can find one of those paint shaker machines the hardware store uses.

Actually I was quite taken with the 1.7:1 format of the antique camera and curious just how good the little achromatic meniscus could get at a controlled f64, but it's not a camera I would invest much more fiddling with.

I also find it interesting that the aerial recon Panatomic X at asa 32 has identical grain structure as tech pan with none of the fussiness.

[Mark Sampson]

I haven't used TP for continuous-tone for a long time. Most of my experience with it has been for high-contrast results- for which it's very well suited. That said, here are some guesses about continuous-tone work.
1) Agitation methods should be tested. Tedious, I know. I wonder if any rotary processor will work for TP rollfim.
2) The last time I thought about this, I remembered a Photographer's Formulary developer called TD-3. It sounded like an interesting product. See below.
3) There's intelligent advice about TP in Anchell & Troop's "The Film Developing Cookbook". If you're going to experiment with any film developing, it's a necessary resource. Nothing compares to it at all.
4) Remember, good results can be had with TP. But even if things don't work out today, there are new good pictures to be found tomorrow.

[Alan Davenport]

There are diagonal streaks in the fogging that indicate the problem is unquestionably due to the rotary processing.

[Rob_5419]

I really don't know.

Looks like you could have both.

Has anyone compared the new Rollei version of Tech Pan out yet?

[John O'Connell]

Rodinal at high dilution + insufficient agitation = uneven development with Tech Pan.

Used per the Kodak guidelines it works pretty well, but I've fallen out of love with it over time because it's a dust magnet.

[Arne Croell]

I used some 35mm TP many years ago, before I saw the light (that is, large format!). Developers were either Technidol LC or Tetenal Neofin doku. No problems with sprocket holes or other uneven development when using continuous inversion for agitation (similar to the Martini shaker concept mentioned before). I never really cared for its tonal characteristics, and the shoulder was rather abrupt in both developers, so highlight separation was problematic if one was not really careful with exposure.

[Gary L. Quay]

Some of my best images are on Tech Pan. I used it mostly for cityscapes, but I used it for portraits when I wanted to achieve a harsher look (for humorous portrats). But, it's all moot now, since it's hit the history books. I've been shooting Efke PL25 instead.

--Gary

[Jim Galli]

I have an important portrait waiting for me on a roll of 120 TP. I took it last summer of a friend who will be gone by next summer. It was a perfect moment and I knew I wouldn't have another chance, and the only camera I had with me was my Minolta Autocord, and all the normal Agfa 100 was used up so I did it on tech pan. I've been sitting on that roll and I really need to get some confidence up so I don't booger up that one important pic.

[rippo]

so i've finally scanned that first roll of 35mm tech pan (dev'ed in technidol in a normal small tank, at 86° at the recommended time for that temperature). film was host at asa 50, and i used a fill flash TTL at -1.7 to fill in the shadows (and thus keep my contrast at bay). in shots with more background, it was evident that the shadows were blocking up a little, and could have possibly used a lower film speed. but i won't be experimenting as i've only got for or five rolls of this.

here's a sample. and no it's not LF, but i didn't start this OT small/medium format thread. ;)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2199/2340694387_d1b01e1edc.jpg