Tech Pan

[DrPablo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.