Kodak Technical Pan

[Contrastique]

As you may have read in another thread (about ATP-V1) I was able to lay my hands on some Technical Pan film. Most of them expired in 1993 but 2 of them in 1986. I would like to share some impressions as I have come to absolutely love this film.

The first 2 films have been treated as a 100 iso and developed for 6 minutes in the HC-110. I made that choice because at that time I didn't know anything about that film and I wanted to try them out.
Result: Very tin negs but the extreme contrast just blew me away, in other words, I loved it immediately.
Examples:

By contrastique at 2008-01-24

By contrastique at 2008-01-24

By contrastique at 2008-01-24

I decided to try 2 more films, treated as 25 iso now, developed in the HC-110, again for 6 minutes to see the difference.
Result: Negs are a whole lot better this time. More detail in highs and lows. Contrast is huge, like graphical and I love it even more. Suits my name well, I guess haha..
Only the highs are like so heavy I think I developed too long. So third batch will be developed (again HC-110) for about 5 or 5 1/2 minutes. Still debating what I should pick. Maybe 5 1/2 minutes will make too little of a difference or 5 minutes will be too much of a difference. Anybody an opinion?

Also I intent to buy the Rollei RLC developer since I want to experiment with the ATP-V1 in the near future and that developer can also be used with the TechPan. Would I loose a lot of contrast when using that developer? The examples I saw with the LC developer didn't really blow my mind.
I really like the results so far although it still needs some finetuning so I'm wondering which way to go with this film. I guess I just try the developer and if not liked I'll go back to my HC-110...

Some examples of the second batch:

By contrastique at 2008-02-20

By contrastique at 2008-02-20

By contrastique at 2008-02-20

 

[Iwagoshi]

"Contrastique" indeed!

The first set I did not think was a good representative of the film's capabilties, but with the second set I'm beginning to see what the hoopla is all about. Very graphic...Frank Miller Graphic.

Terry

 

[DanielOB]

Sorry, but these picture are not good. I used Tech. Pan too, and the contrast was normal with 1.25 density at "zone" 8. Might be it turned something wrong with your scanning.
By the way when you got the films. As I know they gone. Hm never know.

 

[Contrastique]

Sorry, but these picture are not good. I used Tech. Pan too, and the contrast was normal with 1.25 density at "zone" 8. Might be it turned something wrong with your scanning.
By the way when you got the films. As I know they gone. Hm never know.

The scans are not the best indeed as I lost some detail in the highs and lows. But the negs do contain this amount of contrast for real. I think that's due to the developer I used. You probably used a low-contrast developer. I'm gonna try that soon but I think I'll stick with the HC-110 to see if I can improve development since I do like this contrast a whole lot. It's all in the eyes of the beholder
I got the films from where I work. We got a batch of this films from the hospital who used to work with these films. Nobody had interest in them so I took them all
Mind you, they are quite old.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I used Tech Pan at an EI of 200 to develop it in Dektol stock, 3 mins. According to Kodak, this gives you a contrast index around 2.5, which is pretty extreme. I copied some engravings with it, and it was perfect, but I got some halfway interesting results with continuous tone subjects, like you did. I like your pictures better than mine, though I think I should try again, with a slightly lower CI.

 

[Ed Sawyer]

Dektol, etc.

I've used it with Dektol straight-up, 2 minutes. nice and contrasty, not too much midtones but some.

The best is using it with Technidol, really. Superbly continuous results, and contrast that can be controlled nicely by printing on grade 1 paper (sometimes grade 2).

I still have 5+ bulk rolls of this to shoot sometime in the future.

FWIW
-Ed

 

[Contrastique]

I used Tech Pan at an EI of 200 to develop it in Dektol stock, 3 mins. According to Kodak, this gives you a contrast index around 2.5, which is pretty extreme. I copied some engravings with it, and it was perfect, but I got some halfway interesting results with continuous tone subjects, like you did. I like your pictures better than mine, though I think I should try again, with a slightly lower CI.

Thanx
I believe I have some Dektol lying around somewhere. Have already ordered the RLC developer and the ATP-V1 so I'll see where that'll get me.

 

[Contrastique]

For those interested I experimented some more. I used one film in studio to see how it would react with faces. The results are again extremely contrastful. I wish I could post the negs here as they contain more detail than the scans do.
I developed again in HC-110 as I haven't received the RLC-developer yet. I developed for 5 1/2 minutes now compared to the 6 before. They no longer look overdeveloped but the contrast as said before is HUGE!! So here we go (again):

The second one is with my face wrapped in plastic because I liked the idea and wanted to see how it would work out.

 

[Doug Webb]

I like the portraits, they are a great example of how Technical Pan can be used to give a unique look. If you want less contrast and want to stay with HC110, try exposing at ei of 12 and reducing the development time a little, you will probably have to increase the dilution so that you will have a long enough development time to get even development, or you could try just taking off a half minute time down to 5 and see how that looks. Dektol will probably give you more contrast, if that is what you are looking for. Lots of contrast like you got in the top portrait above is exactly what some people are looking for and if you like that degree of contrast don't change a thing. You might be able to get less contrast with the portraits by just reducing the contrast in the lighting and leaving everything else the same, i.e. exposure and development. It also looks like the lighting was very high contrast in the landscape photos, not the best match for Technical Pan unless you really want high contrast in the final image.
Keep up the good work,
Doug Webb

 

[Contrastique]

Thanx for you comment. I ordered the RLC but I'm not sure if I'll like that. I actually like the contrast the HC110 provides me with and if the Dektol gives me even more, I'll pass.
Next film will be developed at 5 to see how the highs end up.
The lighting is the thing I'll likely change the next time. I used one flashlight with softbox very close to my head and no reflection board on the other side. I'll add that the next time to try and get more gray tones in it. I'm very pleased though. This film is just crazy!
The contrast was meant to be there in the landscapes. Again in those negs is far more detail than in the scans. Still have to print them to see how it works out in the darkroom.

 

[nworth]

You will notice the big problem with the pictures is their extreme contrast. That was due to using HC-110 as a developer. Technical Pan was inherently a high contrast film, almost lithographic. It was designed for high contrast technical applications such as astronomy, metallography, certain medical subjects, microscopy, holography, and explosions, replacing several other technical films of the time while giving much higher image quality. When normally developed, it gave fairly high speed (80, more or less, depending on use) and contrast similar to microfilm. For pictorial use, you need to use a special developer that tames the contrast. Kodak Technidol developer was designed for this purpose, but POTA and its derivatives and several other very low contrast developers ("document film developers", in the Anchell and Troop terminology) also work.

 

[ntenny]

You will notice the big problem with the pictures is their extreme contrast.

Who says it's a problem? It's pretty extreme, but it sounds like Contrastique likes the effect (as the name might suggest).

You wouldn't want it for every picture in the world, or anything, but I think it works quite well in those two portraits.

-NT

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Nice images! I used to use Tech Pan at EI 12 in either C41 developer or the Photographer's Formulary's TD-3. A well respected photographer swore by using TEC developer with an EI of 50.

 

[fhovie]

I thought I read they got 14 stops or more out of this film using POTA. I used it quite a bit at one time - Still have a few boxes of it in the freezer. There is a formula for a TD-3 like developer that uses Catechol. I tried it and got full midtones. My issue with the film is that it is too high in resolution which cost too much in accutance. I had hoped that I could use it with 35mm and get 6x7cm performance. I found that it was possible but did not get the "look" I was after. I found traditional films to be more pleasing. If you are after a lith effect, no need to burn up the worlds remaining sheets of this super hi rez film. Just under expose and over develop some PanF or plus-x and you will get a similar result. Tech pan is capable of getting greater resolution that most lenses can keep up with when exposed and developed properly. Techpan also has an elevated red response and works well with red filters for an almost IR effect. I did not like Technidol, the developer Kodak sold for pictorial use of Techpan I think I still have an old box of it - I doubt the chemistry is still good.

 

[Contrastique]

Who says it's a problem? It's pretty extreme, but it sounds like Contrastique likes the effect (as the name might suggest).

Indeed indeed.

Thanx for all your comments. Would be nice experimenting with this film with a redfilter indeed.
The resolution of this film is incredibly high, I could count the hairs on my face which I only have been able to do with midformat. Quite impressive.
I'll keep this thread updated with my results as long as I haven't ran out of my stock. I'll hate the day when I have.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Hello Contrastique
I did a test years ago for a client comparing Tech Pan processed in Technidol, the discontinued Kodak developer, which gave normal negatives, and very dilute Rodinal. I think 1+125 or 1+200. The Rodinal was very close as I remember. Will try and dig them out and post later the dev/dilution times.
Cheers
Mike
PS. Really like the contrast of the initial shots.

 

[spb854]

Years ago, I did some portraits for people I knew in college with Tech Pan in 35 mm and processed them in Technidol. I fell in love with it. Time marched on and I did other things. Now it's hard to get Tech Pan but I've been able to get some in 70mm. I have a 70mm back for my Mamiya AND a loader. The film I have is in bulk rolls. So, I plan to get back into the swing of Tech Pan and I'm really looking forward to it. Just need the time to load the cassettes.

While in college, I had my darkroom set up in the chemistry building and was able to really enlarge some of the portraits. My friends were amazed at how big I could get them without it looking grainy.

I didn't like the constrastiness (is that a word?), so I stay with the Technidol. Absolutely beautiful portraits.

It's such a versatile film in that sense. It's just unfortunate that all the good stuff is disappearing. Digital "people" will just NEVER know the beauty and "romance" of film like I experience it. Yes, I do have a digital camera, but it film comes first with me.

Steve

 

[Contrastique]

Hello Contrastique
I did a test years ago for a client comparing Tech Pan processed in Technidol, the discontinued Kodak developer, which gave normal negatives, and very dilute Rodinal. I think 1+125 or 1+200. The Rodinal was very close as I remember. Will try and dig them out and post later the dev/dilution times.
Cheers
Mike
PS. Really like the contrast of the initial shots.

Thanx, that would be great! I might be able to get some Technidol from someone but he always forgets bringing it along.
After thinking and thinking about the results I have the feeling I'll continue with the HC110 and see if I can finetune it a little more. I'll try and print some negs (the forest ones I think) coming friday to see if I can get a satisfactoring result.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Technical Pan / Rodinal Dev Times

Hello
Have found the tests done on 120 Technical Pan processed in Rodinal. Having done a few clips, the following times gave good results in Rodinal at 1+120. I also processed some film in Technidol as a comparison.

25 ISO - 7 minutes at 20 degrees C
50 ISO - 9 minutes at 20 degrees C
100 ISO - 11 minutes at 20 degrees C

I shot a load of portraits in the studio against a plain gray background. The film rated 25 ISO had the smoothest tonality and was closest to the Technidol and had the best shadow detail. This is not surprising as it is closer to the normal speed of the film I think. The grain, (under very close examination) was slightly more noticeable in Rodinal but only if you are using a loupe. The negs were still a bit contrasty, especially the 100, but no more so than the film in Technidol and printed very well split between grades 0 and 2. Certainly worth trying and at a rough estimation, a roll of 35mm will cost about 5p or 7 cents (Euro not Dollar) in developer!
All the best
Mike

 

[Contrastique]

Hey,

Thanx for taking the time looking that up! I'll keep it in mind. Price is certainly no biggie ;-)
Would it be possible to post some examples of your prints up here, like snapshots with a p&s or something, that gives me a rough idea of how it looks?
If not, no probs and thanx for sharing your insights!

 

[Mike Crawford]

Sorry. They were specifically done for a client and I know he would not want me to put the work on the internet. Also, they would need high res scans to show how detailed and fine the negs are. And they are!
The client is King as they say!
All the best
Mike

 

[Mark Antony]

Here's a shot on TP I did a few years back. I can't remember the developer but here goes:

I think I rated it at 32ASA and at the time I was using Ilfotec HC possibly dilution B HC110 sorry if the details are sketchy
Mark

 

[Contrastique]

Sorry. They were specifically done for a client and I know he would not want me to put the work on the internet. Also, they would need high res scans to show how detailed and fine the negs are. And they are!
The client is King as they say!
All the best
Mike

Totally understandable, no problemo!

Thank you Mark for taking the time posting one of your TP photo's. Beautiful contrast, looks more controlled than mine but that could also be due to my lightning.
I believe the Ilfotec HC is quite comparable to the HC110, right? At least that's what a costumer told me today.

 

[AgX]

Kodak HC110 / Ilford Ilfotec HC

http://silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php?title=HC-110&oldid=1769

 

[Contrastique]

Well, it's been a while but here's some more TechPan-love
Treated as a 25 asa film, developed in HC110, dillution B, developed for 5 minutes. Detail is incredible. That's probably the shortest I'll go considering dev.time.