Drew doesn't seem to like Tech Pan. I do. Lets leave it at there. Everything following is just getting silly.
Nicholas Lindan
Printable View
Drew doesn't seem to like Tech Pan. I do. Lets leave it at there. Everything following is just getting silly.
Nicholas Lindan
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.
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
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.
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?!
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.
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
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!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.