Struck gold? 150 ft of Tech Pan

[Tony-S]

I was clearing out an old lab and came across a 150 ft roll of 35mm Kodak Technical Pan in an unopened box. Since Kodak stopped producing its developer, and I didn't see the film listed in the massive dev chart, what developers can I use for it for pictorial purposes?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Photoformulary's TD-3 is probably your best bet - it is supposed to be a Technidol replacement but I confess to never having used it as I still have a few years worth of Technidol left. As I have a larger stock of TechPan I guess I will have to try it some time.

I've tried all the Rodinal and HC-110 suggestions and none has worked as well for me as Technidol. A well made 35mm TechPan negative will deliver an 8x10 print that can't be told from 4x5 work. There should be no hint of 'high contrast' about either the negative or the print.

 

[gandolfi]

A little time ago, I was lucky! I found 15 bottles of Neofin Doku (Tetenal) on the bay...

that is and have always been my favourite developer for the tech pan.

Look out for it... that is what makes the Tech Pan into gold!...

(they don't make it anymore, so watch out for it....)

here's what it is: http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemnext&item=260694435829.html

 

[erikg]

I had best results with TD-3. Rodinal was ok and dilute HC-110 did pretty well too, but the TD-3 was the best. I assume you can still get it from the formulary. Tricky film, but when it worked it was pretty special.

 

[gandolfi]

I had best results with TD-3. Rodinal was ok and dilute HC-110 did pretty well too, but the TD-3 was the best. I assume you can still get it from the formulary. Tricky film, but when it worked it was pretty special.

I tried the diluted HC110 a couple of times... stone hard, which actually was surprising... (no use for the images I make..)

here's an exampbe of a recent picture, developed in Neofin Doku.
exposed as 80iso - pre rinsed and then 6 min, continous agitation...

 

[mwdake]

and I didn't see the film listed in the massive dev chart

It is still listed on the Massive Dev Chart, it is under the Unlisted Data or Discontinued Films

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=discontinued

 

[patrickjames]

You might want to consider selling it and getting a whole bunch of film that you like. Some people will give their left kidney for a roll of Tech Pan.

 

[removed account4]

the only times i have ever used tech pan were
shot at iso/asa 200 and processed in dektol
it gave the finest grained kodalith (pure high contrast black and white )
negatives.
fun film !

 

[telkwa]

I did not have good results with TD-3. Technidol was clearly the best choice, for me. I've heard good things about Rodinal, but specifications matter a lot here.

 

[EdSawyer]

Technidol is the best choice if you can find it. It's out there, on ebay from time to time. If/when I run out of technidol I'd try TD-3.

A great film, no doubt. At one point a 150ft roll would bring close to $200 on ebay, but lately it seems like $100 or less is the going rate.

150ft = about 30 rolls of 36 exp., btw.

-Ed

 

[Tony-S]

Thanks for the great comments (well, except for the one suggesting I sell it!).

It is still listed on the Massive Dev Chart, it is under the Unlisted Data or Discontinued Films

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=discontinued

I have Rodinol, XTOL and Perceptol. I may try the Perceptol first. I'm looking for pictorial images, so hopefully one of these will work. I'll also buy some TD-3 to see how it does.

 

[MattKing]

I've seen technidol on shelves at a couple of stores around here (Vancouver). IIRC, at Lens & Shutter's Broadway store, and at Leo's Cameras. They might be happy to fill a phone order.

 

[mabman]

Just a word of caution - I recently developed a couple of rolls of Tech Pan in 120, expiry dates around 1995 and the late '80s respectively. Storage until it got to me was unknown (and therefore the rolls were relatively cheap). The base fog is quite high on both rolls - the older roll had 1 frame that was salvageable.

So, it might be worth testing a short roll from the larger package just to see how it is, especially if you don't know how it was stored.

 

[Tony-S]

Well, Google has sent me to this post from Ian:

What about using POTA developer:

Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) 30 g
Phenidone 1.5 g
Cold water to make 1L

Use undilluted

Development time 6-12 mins.

This is a low contrast fine grain film developer and was recommended for Technical Pan

So I've ordered both chemicals and will make my own POTA developer to try.

 

[neelin]

POTA is good, but I discarded it in favor of Delagi#8, a modified POTA, then discarded it for my own mix (RW1) using .5/5/2.5/1 Phenidone/Sulfite/Carbonate/Water on Scopix T-Grain Xray film (VERY constrasty).

Delagi#8 results here are better than POTA, but I like my RW1 the best. Here's the full frame and here's the RW1 extreme blow-up.

I am going to be moving up to .8g/l of Phenidone in the future (.2/250ml/roll). The old film I'm using has some base-fog that I don't restrain in this 1 bath developer, but I have a 2 bath where I restrain it in the 2nd bath. My tests are neither exhaustive or particularly scientific. Most were however carried out with the strips from the same test roll, exposed & developed and scanned at the same time, so they compare well against each other.
Robert

 

[jp498]

20 years ago, I used to use tech pan a little in 35mm. The technidol was the best, but I could also use d76 diluted or tmax developer for adequate results. I wonder if there are technidol clones made by other companies like formulary?

I used it for copy stand work mostly. Eventually I moved to Tmax100, but not everyone likes Tmax.

Being that the film is thinner than most, 150 feet would probably fit a 100 foot bulk film loader. If you're not a tech pan devotee, you could probably sell it for a seriously substantial amount of money. If you cut a sample piece, shoot and develop it properly to prove it's still got it's magic, perhaps you could get even more money.

 

[3 Olives]

We have had mutiple expiration dates from a number of sources and it has always been great film. My son uses Photoformulary's TD-3 and it works very well. In fact, he's using some for a school project this spring.

 

[olehjalmar]

If this develeoper can tame CMS 20, it can tame Technical Pan. CMS 20 is an Agfa microfilm, and seems to have more contrast than Technical Pan.

I remember an article in one of the photo mags from maybe 20 years ago suggesting dilute Rodinal (1:100). I probably still have the article if you're interested.

On the newer front, you might consider trying Adox's Adolux Adotech developer. It was formulated specifically for getting pictorial contrast out of Adox's CMS 20 high resolution film. I'm just starting to test this combo, so I don't have any results. Obviously Tech Pan is not the same as CMS 20, but I'm just speculating that since all super-fine grain, super slow, super thin emulsion, super high resolution films are inherently very contrasty, perhaps Adotech would have similar properties to Technidol. There's no data on this though so you'd have to test it from scratch.

 

[Tony-S]

So....

My FIL had three packages of Technidol LC, each with three packets to make 16 oz. I suspect they are still good?

 

[RobertV]

http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/Data_Sheet_SPUR_Modular_UR_gb.pdf

SPUR made a modular UR system for all type of microfilms. Suitable for Agfa Copex, Kodak Imagelink, CMS 20, ATP1.1 Tech Pan and Tech Pan (Kodak). Parts A/B/C/D depending on which type film you have.

SPUR also made the ATP-DC developer for Rollei and the CMS 20 developer for Impex.