Tech Pan issues - grain, mucky help! - Technical Pan

[damonff]

damonff, that is a beautiful portrait but the title says something about diafine, not rodinal. Some folk think diafine is great for TP but then others praise rodinal for the same film. Could it have been diafine?

Hey, it was not Diafine. That was just the file name in EpsonScan that I never change (I'm lazy). It was definitely Rodinal. I developed that just 3 days ago. I love this combination.

 

[damonff]

damonff, that is a beautiful portrait but the title says something about diafine, not rodinal. Some folk think diafine is great for TP but then others praise rodinal for the same film. Could it have been diafine?

And thank you!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I just never seen it quite as mushy as with this, however that also could be because it's so fine-grained, that said the images of tech pan that were developed in DD-X don't look that mushy at all and look much finer.

Anyway everyone's right in that it could just be the scanner and I won't know about the grain and less I look under a microscope, the irony is that in a sense sometimes especially with the newer films they are actually designed to be better at scanning them printing and so is scanner might actually get a higher resolution image than printing. This was not me who originally stated this but someone else I'm just pulling information from what I've read.

Stone,

You need an incredible scanner to surpass what you get with something like a Leitz enlarger.

I can say, with confidence, that an Epson flatbed scanner does not reveal what the grain looks like. It just doesn't. There isn't even close to the amount of resolution you need to do that.

Even so, if you plan on continuing to scan your film, and you're getting results like this with a film you have experimented very little with, I would state two things:
1. If you're not liking the results, just sell the film you have and buy more of the stuff you do like.
2. Maybe try a different method? Rodinal 1+300 is what my dad used and got some beautiful prints from. One attached here for reference. Printed in my darkroom ten years ago.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone,

You need an incredible scanner to surpass what you get with something like a Leitz enlarger.

I can say, with confidence, that an Epson flatbed scanner does not reveal what the grain looks like. It just doesn't. There isn't even close to the amount of resolution you need to do that.

Even so, if you plan on continuing to scan your film, and you're getting results like this with a film you have experimented very little with, I would state two things:
1. If you're not liking the results, just sell the film you have and buy more of the stuff you do like.
2. Maybe try a different method? Rodinal 1+300 is what my dad used and got some beautiful prints from. One attached here for reference. Printed in my darkroom ten years ago.

WOW that's beautiful!

It's also high in contrast which I like but I was attempting to restrain using the technidol.

Anyway question, what EI was that shot on? And what's the times for 1:300 or 1+300 (not that it matters at such dilutions. Lol

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

WOW that's beautiful!

It's also high in contrast which I like but I was attempting to restrain using the technidol.

Anyway question, what EI was that shot on? And what's the times for 1:300 or 1+300 (not that it matters at such dilutions. Lol

Thanks on behalf of my father. That's a vineyard in Alsace, France, by the way.

If you want less contrast develop less time! It's one of the very basic principles of photography in the darkroom.

I have no idea what his developing times for TP was, regretfully, but pretty sure he exposed at EI 25. Why don't you do a tiny little test and see what dev time suits your work flow?

 

[removed account4]

Why don't you do a tiny little test and see what dev time suits your work flow?

and get some fresh tech pan developer from the formulary !

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks on behalf of my father. That's a vineyard in Alsace, France, by the way.

If you want less contrast develop less time! It's one of the very basic principles of photography in the darkroom.

I have no idea what his developing times for TP was, regretfully, but pretty sure he exposed at EI 25. Why don't you do a tiny little test and see what dev time suits your work flow?

Thanks, mostly because I only have 10 or less rolls to experiment with, and would rather not waste them all experimenting lol.

 

[StoneNYC]

and get some fresh tech pan developer from the formulary !

I thought it was slightly different?

Also, since the image itself came out exposed properly and developed relatively correct, wouldn't that tell me that the technidol was working fine?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks, mostly because I only have 10 or less rolls to experiment with, and would rather not waste them all experimenting lol.

If you can shoot a whole roll of typical scenes, you can clip pieces of film and develop one piece at a time. If you spend one or two rolls doing this, fine tuning your work flow, you could shoot the other rolls with confidence. At least you'd know how to use it instead of just guessing.

 

[removed account4]

I thought it was slightly different?

Also, since the image itself came out exposed properly and developed relatively correct, wouldn't that tell me that the technidol was working fine?

no idea ... it might be a variable worth looking into ...
ive never processed techpan film for anything but extreme contrast ( like old kodalith film used to give ) shot at asa 200 and processed in print developer
so pictorial use of this film is beyond my expertise ...
but if you are unhappy with the results ( as the title of this thread suggests ) you don't have a way to print the negatives, aren't planning on investing in a new skanner
then maybe exposing another few rolls of film, bracketing, and using fresh developer that is supposedly made for that film might be a worthwhile task ... ( maybe not ? )

i would really suggest taking the strips of film in your print file sheets, and sandwiching the film between a plate of glass and a sheet of RC paper and leaving it in open shade / sun
for a few hours to get a sun print and scanning a physical print, your skanner, you might actually get results you like that isn't splotchy or mucky and you may realize
all is well ... sun prints are cheapfun ... ( the cost of a sheet of photo paper )

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks both of you, I guess I was just surprised since the tech pan developer worked or at least you know expose properly, that it works properly and so I didn't understand the result.

You guys are right, and maybe I should just give up and sell it and make some money and buy some 4 x 5 sheets instead, but the base is so clean and it's so neat shooting on to Ken it's more about being able to shoot on something like this then the actual result itself. When I originally got the tech pan about 2 years ago, I wasn't shooting medium format, and I wasn't shooting large-format, and so the detail mattered more to me, but now that I'm shooting mostly large-format these days, the need for the 35mm to have detail doesn't matter to me anymore, in fact I actually use 35mm to give me that grainy film look, and large-format to give me that high definition look and of course medium format to give me that in between film look but with sharpness.

So maybe I'll just sell it, probably a few hundred dollars worth with today's Tech pan prices, especially since I can show proof that the film is not fogged at all.

 

[Early Riser]

Stone, did you use stop bath with the tech pan? Sometimes that causes the effect. If you send me an out take negative I can look at it under the microscope. It's hard to tell from the scans what the issue is. Scanning 35mm on a consumer flat bed scanner is never going to yield results worth the effort.

I've still got some 120 tech pan, I use it when a scene requires an N+1 type of contrast. I process it in c-41 developer. Technidol never gave me even development with 120 size Tech pan.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, did you use stop bath with the tech pan? Sometimes that causes the effect. If you send me an out take negative I can look at it under the microscope. It's hard to tell from the scans what the issue is. Scanning 35mm on a consumer flat bed scanner is never going to yield results worth the effort.

I've still got some 120 tech pan, I use it when a scene requires an N+1 type of contrast. I process it in c-41 developer. Technidol never gave me even development with 120 size Tech pan.

I wasn't around then, but from my reading, the one 20 stuff actually takes the Technidol LC developer, while the 35mm takes the Technidol Liquid Developer. I could be wrong but that's that I remember reading.

A few people have asked me if I would send them pieces to test, I'm kind of curious to maybe send it out to everyone and that way I can see if I get all sorts of different answers, it would be funny.

I have to look at them again but it won't be until this weekend I'm traveling and I won't be home, I look at them then and make sure to send everyone shots that didn't have camera shake, I wasn't always using a tripod and shooting it slow shutter speeds, and so a few of the shots have a little bit of camera movement, but the shots I displayed we're definitely on a tripod. It was a very low light day very diffuse, and obviously very foggy,

Feel free to PM me

 

[EdSawyer]

It would be a shame to sell this and not use it. You would miss out on one of the best films of the past and one of the few that keeps well enough that it's still in it's prime even now.

Acquiring more film, esp. in 35mm, is not hard. I have some I'd sell, probably. (bulk rolls mostly). It's harder to come by in 120 or 4x5 but not impossible.

When all things come together, it's an amazing film and capable of results no other film can achieve.

-Ed

Thanks, mostly because I only have 10 or less rolls to experiment with, and would rather not waste them all experimenting lol.

 

[StoneNYC]

It would be a shame to sell this and not use it. You would miss out on one of the best films of the past and one of the few that keeps well enough that it's still in it's prime even now.

Acquiring more film, esp. in 35mm, is not hard. I have some I'd sell, probably. (bulk rolls mostly). It's harder to come by in 120 or 4x5 but not impossible.

When all things come together, it's an amazing film and capable of results no other film can achieve.

-Ed

I would trade my 35mm/120 and some 70mm for some 4x5 of this stuff!

 

[Trask]

This is Tech Pan (2000, frozen) with Rodinal 1 to 100 for 8 minutes, first 30, 5 seconds every minute:

[https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...ybSrzjE/s1024/diafine%20%285%20of%206%29.jpg]

I bought the Formulary TechPan developer, but now use that only for Tri-X. Depends on what your look is.

damonff: at what speed had you rated your TechPan for this image and for your cited development regime?

 

[damonff]

damonff: at what speed had you rated your TechPan for this image and for your cited development regime?

Hi Trask, I meter my Tech Pan at ei 25.

 

[richard ide]

I am hoarding my 4 x 5. Have both liquid and powder Technidol developer. ;<)

 

[StoneNYC]

I am hoarding my 4 x 5. Have both liquid and powder Technidol developer. ;<)

Why the powder? If you only have sheets, isn't the powder for 120?

 

[Xmas]

If you have a jewellers loope or a short focus interchangeable photographic lens as a substitute then look at a negative on light table or in front of a light bulb.

if you cannot see the same mottle as is on the prints then it is not there. Compare with a pan f neg. Digital is an invention of the devil.

if you can see something that should not be there you need 2nd opinion.

 

[StoneNYC]

If you have a jewellers loope or a short focus interchangeable photographic lens as a substitute then look at a negative on light table or in front of a light bulb.

if you cannot see the same mottle as is on the prints then it is not there. Compare with a pan f neg. Digital is an invention of the devil.

if you can see something that should not be there you need 2nd opinion.

This weekend I will dig out my microscope ....

 

[ic-racer]

Tech pan was a pain to use. You might spend years trying to get good continuous tone results with it. This will probably be impossible because the film is no longer manufactured. I stopped using it long ago when Kodak came out with T-Max 100.

 

[StoneNYC]

Tech pan was a pain to use. You might spend years trying to get good continuous tone results with it. This will probably be impossible because the film is no longer manufactured. I stopped using it long ago when Kodak came out with T-Max 100.

And the ball drops....