TechPan - how to develop without microdol?

[Murray Kelly]

How does Voightlander 222 compare with other glycin formulae?

http://www.photocrack.com/photovergne_wiki/index.php/VOIGHTLANDER_222

I am tempted to try it on ImageLink HQ which is proving to be a bitch to control, and I have a lot of it

Murray

 

[Jim Jones]

The goal when using TechPan is to get a 35mm negative that will produce a print that can’t be told from a print made from a 4x5 negative. . . If you are not going to develop TechPan in the correct developer you will be better off shooting TMax-100 or Delta 100: either of these will produce less grain and have better contrast and, of course, provide 2-3 stops more speed. . . QUOTE]

Another valid goal when shooting Tech Pan is to increase contrast or texture in flat subjects rather than developing conventional film for high contrast. Print developer works well in this application with little objectionable grain. This is the main reason I used Tech Pan. As Nicholas said, well exposed and carefully developed T-Max 100 seemed a more practical choice for normal subjects.

 

[sanking]

Quite a number of options for developing Tech Pan at this site.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/TechPan/techpan.html

Sandy King

 

[Lee L]

And another option, via letter dated 1992 from Richard Farber, author of Historic Photographic Processes, whom I met at the house of a mutual friend in Den Haag a couple of years earlier:

Tech Pan @ EI 25
Rodinal 1:300
12 minutes 20C
agitation: 2 inversions at 30 second intervals

I didn't have any more Tech Pan to test this with by the time Richard got this info to me, and I was busy with our first child. We had discussed it three years earlier, but he wanted to wait until two articles on this method were published before giving it to me.

Lee

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Tech Pan @ EI 25; Rodinal 1:300 ...

The problem with these methods is the results are really blah - no shadow detail, poor local contrast and no highlight sparkle. Well done TechPan has all the sparkle and local contrast of well done large format work.

My experience with various Rodinal routines is that the grain is coarser than what one can get with TMax-100. If Rodinal was all I had I would never bother shooting TechPan.

Even POTA produces rather poor results vis local contrast - just went and looked at some test rolls I did a few years ago.

My stash of Technidol is running low, I should probably get some TD-3 and see how that does.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Another valid goal when shooting Tech Pan is to increase contrast or texture in flat subjects ... Print developer works well

Very true. I saw some pictures of Indian rock art that had been taken with TP and developed in Dektol - it really made for a dramatic rendition of the art.

I think AA characterized TP in HC-110 as being about "N+4"...

 

[PKM-25]

My stash of Technidol is running low, I should probably get some TD-3 and see how that does.

I have very few regrets in life but one of them is not stocking up on enough Technidol for my stash of TP in time when I had the chance. I have enough for 1/2 of my TP stash.

So I added on TD-3 to bring it all up to parity for the amount of film I have left. I have yet to try it but I do have a roll of 120 I need to soup so I might give it a go.

I just hate to open the large bottle of chemistry when I know I won't even be shooting the bulk of this film until 3-4 years from now.

So do let us know how it goes with TD-3 since you know what Technidol looks like.

And personally, I have had great results with Tech-Pan because I choose my light and subject accordingly. You won't see me shooting snow on brick on a sunny day with Tech-Pan, regardless of developer used.

 

[sanking]

I have never used Tech Pan but I have used other document copy type films and am familiar with the special problem posed by curve shape.

If I did not have any of the developer designed for the Tech Pan I would be inclined to try it in two part Diafine. Diafine is rather unique in some respects in that it has the ability to at the same time, 1)limit the degree of highlight contrast and 2) produce a very straight line linear curve.

Sandy King

 

[Murray Kelly]

As far as Diafine is concerned I had no joy with it on microfilm depite the theoretical advantage it seemed to promise.

Don Qualls recommends that the Diafine part A be diluted 1:50 before the normal part B. This is with microfilms in sub-miniature format where tanks are small and you can afford to throw away the diluted part A afterwards.

I tried it, mistakenly using B Thornton's 2 bath instead of Diafine and the result was abysmal. Never got around to trying with Diafine after that even tho I know they are quite different.

H&W seems to be my best bet so far.

Murray

I have never used Tech Pan but I have used other document copy type films and am familiar with the special problem posed by curve shape.

If I did not have any of the developer designed for the Tech Pan I would be inclined to try it in two part Diafine. Diafine is rather unique in some respects in that it has the ability to at the same time, 1)limit the degree of highlight contrast and 2) produce a very straight line linear curve.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

I saw that recommendation for a 1:50 dilution with Solution A of Diafine. That seems like a bridge too far to me in terms of dilution. I think the idea to dilute it is a good one, but 1:50 just seems way too much dilution. If I were to test I would probably try 1:2, 1:5 and 1:10 with Dilution A and see where that got me.


Sandy King

 

[Murray Kelly]

Agreed. The emulsion is so thin on copy microfilm it's hard to imagine there would be enough carried over from A to B to get it working at all. OTOH there's not much silver to work on, either. Don was very surprised when I said I'd tried it but basically it me that was at fault - I picked up the Thornton 2-bath in error.

Murray

sanking I saw that recommendation for a 1:50 dilution with Solution A of Diafine. That seems like a bridge too far to me in terms of dilution. I think the idea to dilute it is a good one, but 1:50 just seems way too much dilution. If I were to test I would probably try 1:2, 1:5 and 1:10 with Dilution A and see where that got me.


Sandy King

 

[Morry Katz]

I have about 12 pkgs of Kodak Technidol Liquid Developer that I have no use for. e-mail me at morryk@telus.net and let me know where you are.

Morry Katz

 

[Murray Kelly]

Morry, I have e-mailed you but the Technidol in liquid MAY be a determining factor on mailing it to Australia?

Murray

I have about 12 pkgs of Kodak Technidol Liquid Developer that I have no use for. e-mail me at morryk@telus.net and let me know where you are.

Morry Katz

 

[dancqu]

20 rolls of this ... APUG to the rescue!

Another rescue! What you need is a low energy, highly
compensating developer. I suggest metol in conjunction
with a little sulfite and some bicarbonate of soda. Could
be your low cost alternative. Do you have a scale?
Easy, fresh, consistant results that way.

If interested I'll suggest a formula. Dan

 

[telkwa]

I found that while TD-3 works and gives reasonable negatives, it took me a lot of experimenting, and I still haven't found a tonality as pleasing as I got from plunking it in Technidol and following Kodak's directions.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Of course! Any help appreciated. Metol - soft working combined with low pH should do it. I have a scale (150g by 0.1 increments).
Mulling over all this with a brandy and cigar in the evening cool, I got to thinking phenidone and AA and borax. I have tried it with partial success on Copex Rapid. I wonder if one could make a phenidone and AA 1st bath and borax (or buffered borax) as a second. Would the AA protect the phenidone with its acidity? Mmmmmm.
Prolly need some SO3.

Murray

Another rescue! What you need is a low energy, highly
compensating developer. I suggest metol in conjunction
with a little sulfite and some bicarbonate of soda. Could
be your low cost alternative. Do you have a scale?
Easy, fresh, consistant results that way.

If interested I'll suggest a formula. Dan

 

[Andrey]

This is getting way too complex for me.

I have acess to a scale, but I'd have to buy the chemicals and then experiment, which is I think too much.

Question:
How would the TechPan compare to Efke ISO 25 film? Is there a huge difference in terms of grain?

My problem is that I have no idea what a decent negative should look like at ISO25, let alone TechPan. So I might end up just developing it in some weird way which doesn't really give me the benefits of the film... and I am not sure why I need it.

 

[Steve Smith]

It's a coincidence that this thread popped up at the same time as me doing a bit of darkroom work. Whilst printing some postcards I found a roll of 120 Tech Pan which I shot about two years ago.

It was developed it in Ilford LC29 and the resulting negatives look as you would expect. Lots of contrast. That's why I hadn't tried to print them before.

However, I printed a couple of frames onto some Kentmere grade 1 paper and the results are quite good. There is a lot more detail in the shadows and the highlights than you would imagine was there if you looked at the negative and there are some good mid tones too.


Steve.

 

[gainer]

Look in www.unblinkingeye.com for "Non-Chromogenic Antiscorbutic Developers for Black and White Film" by Patrick Gainer. You do not need scales nor sulfite. They are easy and quick to mix. You will have to experiment some because I don't use Tech Pan, but I would bet 1/4 tsp Metol, 1/2 tsp ascorbic acid and 1/2 tsp sodium carbonate will get you somewhere.

 

[gainer]

PS: in a liter or quart of water. Since you're experimenting, whichever is more convenient will do.

 

[trexx]

I just did a roll of TP in xtol 1:5 12min 30sec Agitation + 10 sec every 2min. Looks like I'd expect.

 

[dancqu]

This is getting way too complex for me.

I have acess to a scale, but I'd have to buy the chemicals and
then experiment, which is I think too much. Question: How
would the TechPan compare to Efke ISO 25 film? Is there
a huge difference in terms of grain?

There is no simpler developer than D-23; metol and sulfite.
I brew up a very similar developer which I'll call D-23-8-80;
8 grams metol and 80 grams of sodium sulfite. I use the
developer very dilute; 1:7, 500ml for one 120.

Actually that developer and dilution may work very well with
document films such as TechPan. D-23 used at high dilution is
a highly compensating low energy developer. If I were to test
at that dilution and at 72F I'd give it a few initial inversions
then 2 or 3 more at 2 minute intervals; 12 minutes.
Go from there. The first roll should tell. Dan

 

[dancqu]

An addition: I compound that 8-80, 1-10. The stock
strength developer is stored in two small bottles.
Good for two rolls. Dan

 

[gainer]

As far as I know, Microdol is about the same as D-23 with some uniodized salt added. Try adding about 30 grams of canning salt per liter.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

As far as I know, Microdol is about the same as D-23 with some uniodized salt added. Try adding about 30 grams of canning salt per liter.

Of what dilution, stock, 1+1, or 1+3?

Tom.