Technical Pan @ 100 - 200ASA through XTOL

[John Salim]

Hello all,
Has anybody here processed Kodak Technical Pan ( rated at 100 & 200 ASA ) through XTOL developer ? ( stock solution - replenished line ).

I've a customer requesting it.
A starting dev time would be nice for a clip test.

Many thanks,
John S

 

[Anon Ymous]

An older version of the Xtol datasheet had development times for very dilute developer and exposure indices nowhere near 100, never mind 200. An EI of 10 was the maximum...

 

[John Salim]

An older version of the Xtol datasheet had development times for very dilute developer and exposure indices nowhere near 100, never mind 200. An EI of 10 was the maximum...

Yes I know it's a mad request ( I certainly wouldn't do myself ) but the customer needs it done.

John S

 

[relistan]

Hello all,
Has anybody here processed Kodak Technical Pan ( rated at 100 & 200 ASA ) through XTOL developer ? ( stock solution - replenished line ).

I've a customer requesting it.
A starting dev time would be nice for a clip test.

Many thanks,
John S

Is this a situation where the customer shot it at 100 or 200 already and you have been asked to develop it? If so, why does it need to be XTOL? Surely a very low contrast developer, or one that works well at extreme dilution, would be a better choice? If it has not already been shot, I'd suggest giving them the advice that this is an idea unlikely to result in joy.

If it has been exposed at that EI already, I have only one idea about how to handle it but if I suggest it here I will get crucified. Feel free to message me if you'd like to hear it so I don't end up in an endless flame war.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm afraid there's no way to get "normal" negatives from Tech Pan at EI 100+ -- regardless of the developer used. It's very tricky The best you can do for film already exposed is get microfilm-like high contrast with a document film developer like Technidol. If you use a low contrast developer like H&W Control (recipe to mix your own is readily available), SPUR, or one of the low contrast Caffenol derivatives, you'll get anywhere from EI 25 to EI 40 or so, which is a minimum of about two stops underexposed.

The best I can recommend is to use either a Rodinal derivative at 1:100 (sorry, don't have a time for this one, but for this EI I'd start at 30 minutes) or Caffenol LC+C (formula below) and increase development time by 50% to try to push the contrast enough to get usable mid-tones without going into document film contrast where there are no midtones.

Caffenol LC+C (speed enhancing low contrast microfilm developer)

8 oz Water
4 tsp (level) Arm & Hammer Washing Soda
.26 g (4 grain) Ascorbic acid or erythorbic acid (supplement or technical, 97%)
2 tsp (slightly rounded) Folger's Coffee Crystals

Mix 1/4 tsp (1 g) ascorbic acid powder in one quart water, and use 8 ounces for the developer, if you don't have a scale that will read low enough. Use with microfilms to give increased speed with pictorial contrast. No detectable stain.

Film (EI) Time (at 20° C) Agitation Interval
Copex Rapid (64, pictorial) 15 3 min
ADOX CMS 20 (EI 20, pictorial) 15 3 min

This developer, at this time, should give EI 25-32 for Tech Pan (I've never shot that film, so this is an educated guess). I'd increase development to 22-25 minutes, still agitating with five inversions every third minute, to try to push that enough to get EI 100 -- that should at least get images. There will be no shadow detail, and the highlights may run too dense to print or scan -- but it may be the best you can do for Tech Pan already shot at EI 100.

 

[pentaxuser]

If it has been exposed at that EI already, I have only one idea about how to handle it but if I suggest it here I will get crucified.

relistan, I take it that the rest of us will have to stand-around for at least an hour and do nothing until things develop?

pentaxuser

 

[relistan]

relistan, I take it that the rest of us will have to stand-around for at least an hour and do nothing until things develop?

pentaxuser

Those who aren't screaming!

 

[removed account4]

Hello all,
Has anybody here processed Kodak Technical Pan ( rated at 100 & 200 ASA ) through XTOL developer ? ( stock solution - replenished line ).

I've a customer requesting it.
A starting dev time would be nice for a clip test.

Many thanks,
John S

I've processed tech pan at 200 but in DEKTOL and other print developers, never xtol. the point was to create a negative with extreme contrast (instead of pan-tonal range of technidol developer ) ... for me at least, xtol gives extremely low contrast and low density ( like caffenol ). ... so if you can develop by inspection (use a green safelight ) or IR ( thanks Donald ! ) goggles to develop until you see the highlights I'd do that. good luck with your customer's film, if it was me, I'd start at 15 mins with stock xtol and check with goggles every 2 minutes after 9 minutes and extend your development accordingly, and try to get a dense negative.
are you going to shake your film in the can with developer like spray paint as directed with technidol developer ?

 

[Donald Qualls]

UV goggles

I presume you meant IR goggles? UV will expose unaltered halide (as in Daguerreotype or collodion plates).

 

[removed account4]

I presume you meant IR goggles? UV will expose unaltered halide (as in Daguerreotype or collodion plates).

yeahhh that's it IR goggles. my bad. .. thanks for catching that !

 

[Vaughn]

I have used Tech Pan. All I know it is not some magical film that allows one to develop an image using silver that never got exposed. I could use that sort of film when I taken a photo but forget to pull the darkslide.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Hello all,
Has anybody here processed Kodak Technical Pan ( rated at 100 & 200 ASA ) through XTOL developer ? ( stock solution - replenished line ).

I've a customer requesting it.
A starting dev time would be nice for a clip test.

Many thanks,
John S

Not XTol, but Daniel Keating seems to have successfully done a 5 stop push of this film. Scroll down to see an example in the comments.

https://m.facebook.com/notes/the-darkroom/keatings-pyrobutter-developer/1894609420671723/

 

[Bill Burk]

Ok I see. Looks like you really have a fighting chance!

John S do you have any other developers at your disposal? Daniel Keating’s Pyrobutter will do what you need.

I have a few rolls of Tech Pan that I could test at 200.

I don’t have Xtol on hand but could try D-76, D-19, Selectol-soft, Dektol, R09 (if it hasn’t gone bad on me). I have some Technidol too.

 

[John Salim]

Relistan:
Go ahead... let us know what's so controversial. I guess you're talking stand development ?
I'm sure you won't get crucified on such a nice and friendly forum !

Bill Burk: I don't use any other developers since I'm running a replenished processing line ( through a Jobo CPE-2 ), and don't want to buy in others just for one roll.
My wonder is if XTOL would be too low contrast to push so many stops.

I do use IR goggles, but I'm not sure you'd see an image on non-fixed film ( ... will have to try that one day ).

Thanks all,
John S

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes, you can see an image on unfixed film, that's how people develop by inspection.

You're going to need a low contrast developer, POTA and Technidol were the recommended developers for Tech Pan. I'd use very dilute Rodinal and stand development. First though I'd test expose some Tech Pan and do some trials, there's still some floating around here in the UK. Don't expect good results though.

Ian

 

[Donald Qualls]

Looks like Keating's Pyrobutter may be the ticket. Probably wouldn't have to be made up in TEA to get the benefits, though -- he's using 1 to 2 grams of the "butter" in 300 ml of water. You could make up the phenidone in 2% solution with 91% isopropyl (from the drug store), for ease of measuring tens of milligrams, use carbonate for the alkali instead of the TEA, and mix something similar "just in time". You'd still want/need to process one or more tests before committing your customer's film, though. And you'd need fresh glycin, as well as pyrocat...

 

[relistan]

Relistan:
Go ahead... let us know what's so controversial. I guess you're talking stand development ?
I'm sure you won't get crucified on such a nice and friendly forum !

If only. But, no, this has already happened.

 

[dynachrome]

When I used TEA to make PC-TEA I did not heat the TEA in a microwave. I put the TEA in a stainless steel measuring cup, placed the cup in an aluminum pan and used boiling water to make a water bath.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think Xtol would be too high contrast (for excellent pictorial negatives). But if you like the results Keating got, it may work out.

Anyway it’s close enough to D-76 maybe I will just try that...

When you develop by inspection the image in the surface of the emulsion appears first and can trick you into thinking it’s done. You should go past that initial appearance and keep going.

You could learn in maybe two trials on any film. One will probably come out too thin no matter what you do (because it’s deceptive).

 

[Bill Burk]

Anyway it’s close enough to D-76...

When you develop by inspection the image in the surface of the emulsion appears first and can trick you into thinking it’s done. You should go past that initial appearance and keep going.

You could learn in maybe two trials on any film. One will probably come out too thin no matter what you do (because it’s deceptive).

Tested Tech Pan shot at EI 200 and developed by infrared inspection in D-76 stock. 68-degrees F.

I talked myself out of snatching the film at 17:00 when the shots looked good. But talked myself into thinking that the highlights would be hard to print so I yanked the film out at 18:20.

It still was not long enough in the developer. 20 or 24 minutes might be better.

 

[ic-racer]

Just about any developer should suffice. What type of special effect was the customer trying to achieve? I suspect you would have to work with them with some testing to achieve the desired effect.
If the customer accidentally under exposed, I'd probably not touch it. The chances of a satisfactory outcome are slim.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think an hour might be called for.

 

[Bill Burk]

John Salim,

Have you already developed the customer's film or should I keep going? I could try an hour (I have 2/3 of this roll left and 2 more in the freezer).

When I develop for an hour, I change the agitation pattern over the course of development. I agitate "Kodak" style for the first 10 minutes, then break the pattern to an agitation every minute for the next 30 minutes or so, then agitate less often, not quite stand but just don't need to agitate that often because by this point I'm not worried about uneven development.

It might be an hour, or two or three before you get a good negative in stock XTOL from something shot at EI 200 on Tech Pan.

 

[Bill Burk]

Oh yes. 64 minutes makes rich dense negatives at 200

 

[Bill Burk]

Tech Pan exposed at EI 200 and developed in stock D-76 68-degrees F for 64 minutes.

These are just phone photos of wet negatives as-is and then inverted so you can see what might be possible. Skies are hopelessly blocked but the effect may be pleasing.