Tech Pan uneven development

[osella]

I acquired some 8x10 tech pan(exp 2006) a little while ago and only now just got around to exposing/developing some sheets. I expected less than optimal results, and that’s exactly what I got. There are several things that could have gone wrong so I was hoping for some opinions on where to go from here.

Processing details were 4 sheets of 8x10 tech pan in a Jobo expert drum. 1000ml water + 20ml Rodinal(possibly not enough). For 7min at 70f. Exposed at EI25. Developer and fixer should be fine as I used them a few days ago and got some nice delta 100 negatives. The tech pan negatives are dense but I was expecting slightly more so I suspect developer exhaustion. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Nick

 

[ic-racer]

Looks more like fog to me. Though Tech Pan is difficult to develop, even when the film was new and the Technidol was fresh.

 

[Vaughn]

Base is clear...so no fogging due to age. What was the subject and the range of light in the scene?

Looks like fogged in the camera.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Long thread on the large format forum:

Tech Pan 8x10 in a Jobo - Looking for Info

I just acquired 75 sheets of supposedly cold stored Tech Pan in 8x10. My normal mix for my Jobo ATL3 is XTol Replenished. I've never used TP before however, but I've read that POTA is required...you can't get Technodol AFAIK. Photo Formulary sells some, just wondering if I should go that...

www.largeformatphotography.info

Try Photographers' Formulary TD-3 or C-41 color developer (only the developer!).

 

[Craig]

I've only used it in 35mm, back when it was a current product. I developed it in technidol and I found that the agitation is important. I had uneven development from one end of the film to the other where my methods hadn't produced that with conventional B&W film. I think the film need reasonably vigorous agitation to avoid stagnation and local developer exhaustion. I looked at my negs again, and I think the exhaustion really only applied if using the developer to it's full capacity.

I think 25 is an optimistic speed for pictorial work, I'd probably rate it at 10 or 12. I found that it didn't optically print very well when I used it in the late 80's, however, it scans amazingly well. It's almost like it was designed for scanning before there was scanning.

 

[koraks]

I acquired some 8x10 tech pan(exp 2006)

Still factory sealed? It looks a bit like the kind of fog you get with sheet film that has sat a long time in an opened bag. Still light tight, but the edges being exposed to moisture in the air.

Base is clear...so no fogging due to age.

Light box image is blown out so far that any edge fog isn't visible even if it's there. Besides the negs are dense as stated in the OP, so the difference is kind of big between unexposed edges, even if significantly fogged, and the actual image.

 

[osella]

Still factory sealed? It looks a bit like the kind of fog you get with sheet film that has sat a long time in an opened bag. Still light tight, but the edges being exposed to moisture in the air.



Light box image is blown out so far that any edge fog isn't visible even if it's there. Besides the negs are dense as stated in the OP, so the difference is kind of big between unexposed edges, even if significantly fogged, and the actual image.

It was still factory sealed, it’s been open for maybe 6 months. The rebate doesn’t seem to show any fog, at least compared to this Delta 100 negative developed a few days before.

 

[osella]

Base is clear...so no fogging due to age. What was the subject and the range of light in the scene?

Looks like fogged in the camera.

The subject was some textured snow, I didn’t use the spot meter for this one but there probably wasn’t more than a 3-4 stop range.

I exposed some other sheets of Delta 100 at the same time so I should know if there was any fogging in camera when I develop it.