Kodak Technical Pan and PMK Pyro?

[Drew Wiley]

Jamb570 - recollection might be one thing, but if you had some of those old TechPan images on hand and compared them side-by-side with what is now being done with more flexible films and pyro, you'd probably change your mind. I have recently found Tech Pan useful for double-negative technique making black and white prints from color negatives, where a contrast boost is distinctly needed. But starting out with a high-contrast scene ... well, it can be done, but I have never yet seen ideal results. If working within a milder contrast range suitable to Pan F, for instance, sandwiched between Zones III and VII, that's more realistic for Tech Pan too. Every single image on that link Esearing posted has that soot a chalk look, rather lifeless in the highlights and shadows, though some of that could be do to scanning or web idiosyncrasies. I not suggesting not to try it. It does have it's own kind of uncompromising look. But I got my best results from TD-3.

[Peter De Smidt]

Tech pan in C41 Developer:

[Jasmb570]

Thanks esearing,

Exactly what I was looking for.

I have ordered some TD-3 from the formulary, when it arrives I will do a side by side comparison, with some still life in the studio, with PMK and TD-3 and see how it goes.

The results in the link @ www.alexluyckx.com/blog were about what I was expecting. The PMK was a little more contrasty than the technidol, but definitely not "chalk and soot". Especially considering the examples developed in PMK were shot outdoors at noon, so not ideal when contrast is an issue with the film to start with. Not a criticism of the blog, it may have been unavoidable due to time constraints on their part. Just something to take into consideration when weighing up the results. I would generally (but not rigidly) avoid that scenario for the architectural shots I am planning, just because of my preference for early/late light angles. And not an issue in the studio where I can control the light.

Perhaps when I do the tests, I will try a N-1 as well as an N dev, with the PMK, to see if that helps.

Thanks again,
Jason.

This article has some PMK times and description of use with other developers. I have a box of 4415 I want to try one day.
http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index...technical-pan/

[Jasmb570]

Hi Pete,

C-41 dev you say?

Very interesting. The shot looks great. Definitely "punchy", but plenty of mid tones.

Do tell me more!

Cheers,
Jason.

[Peter De Smidt]

Hey, Jason. Way back when, one of the photography magazines ran an article on using C41 developer with Technical Pan, just the developer and not the rest of the color steps. The film is then fixed as usual. The first stage of C41 developing is a low contrast developer. It worked well, but I also used TD-3, which is probably a better overall choice. Technical Pan can be very effective in low contrast lighting. It really is very similar to jumping up in format. I've been doing a some 35mm scanning, and so I'm used to looking at high resolution scans at 100% on screen. When I saw the Technical Pan negatives blown up that big, they looked much better than other film, including TMX.

[Jasmb570]

Thanks Peter.

As I said above, I have bought some TD-3, and have PMK on hand as my standard developer. It was more out of curiosity. The C-41 dev being low contrast make sense.

I will post some results in a few weeks when they are done (TD-3 will take a while to get here, shipping to NZ is always a pain). Will be 120 and 4x5, I don't own a 35mm film camera.

Cheers,
Jason.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sounds great, Jason. I look forward to seeing your results. I never shot any TP in larger formats. The results should be spectacular with the right subject. If I remember rightly, John Sexton used to keep some 4x5 Tech Pan loaded to use if he came across a low contrast subject.