the demise of Technical Pan

[Vaughn]

I like it.

Carbon print from 4x5 neg (Tech Pan):

 

[David Lyga]

Michael R 1974 stated that TP has a different spectral sensitivity and I thank him for bringing that up. My omission.

I found TP to be very tolerant of overexposure and lasts and lasts in the unexposed state. I have some from the 1980s and it is STILL one stop faster than fresh PF+. One of the main reasons for my thread was to get feedback from a film that carries quite good resale value on the Internet. - David Lyga

 

[flavio81]

why isn't everyone raving about the high res CHS films?

I wonder the same. We have the ADOX guys here in the forum supporting us, the film is available, it has been used with good results...

 

[EdSawyer]

TechPan was definitely unique, and I have yet to see any of the Adox/CHS/etc microfilms really conclusively match or beat it overall, as mentioned above. (Nor APX25, etc) Also, for those saying " just shoot it in 4x5 " - yeah, that's an option. TechPan came in that size too. ;-) So as good as plus-x or whatever was in 4x5, Techpan in 4x5 had the potential to be all that and more.

I too shot it at 200 sometimes and processed in straight Dektol for 2 minutes. Awesome high contrast but still with some midtones too.

I am glad it keeps well frozen, and that we still have alternatives, but it is worth raising a glass to it's passing and the opportunity to have used it.

-Ed

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I loved Tech Pan in the 1980s when I only shot 35mm. Then I realized that if I wanted fine grain, more sharpness, and better microcontrast, I should really just shoot a larger format, and I could choose a film for its overall tonality, so I haven't missed Tech Pan or felt a particular need to struggle with high-contrast fine-grained copy films. In general, a slow film like that needs a tripod anyway, so if I'm using a tripod, I can always use a bigger camera.

Maybe if I were climbing mountains on sunny days and could only carry something the size of a Rollei 35, I'd be longing for Tech Pan.

 

[Black Dog]

I think Lewis Baltz went even further, using High Contrast Copy film. His images (and many others from the New Topographics etc.) were inspirational to me. But when you look at the prints you can tell they were shot on special purpose, high contrast films. That's part of his aesthetic though, and it works (in my opinion) to augment the "deadpan" approach to the subjects.

Regarding CMS-20, it is a more difficult film to work with than Tech Pan. For general applications, I have found a useable curve and speed are really only attainable with its dedicated developer, which is an interesting potion.

IIRC Eikoh Hosoe did that as well for some of his portraits [Fuji Minicopy I believe]. ADOX CHS looks promising!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm still laughing to this day about those early Kodak ads claiming 4x5 quality in 35mm. I guess if you went out and stuck the grainiest worst
focus piece of sheet film you could find, a lousy lens, gave up lens movements, and sprinkled some pepper on the film to replicate all those highly magnified little blemishes in the sky. Of course, since they also cut Tech Pan into sheet film, they could have simply changed the ad to say, get 20X24 quality with a 4x5.

 

[ic-racer]

I thought Technical pan, when used for continuous tone images, was pretty bad. Looking back at my photographs from the 1980s, I can always tell a Tech pan print. Most of them were pretty bad tonally. When T-Max 100 came out, I switched over and never looked back.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not only so-so tonality, but poor edge effect.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Yeah... I tried the stuff and stuck to my beloved Agfapan 25 and 100 souped in Rodinal and toned in selenium.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

By the time you got done f'in around with Tech Pan to try to get the most out of it you could have whipped out your 4x5 and got something that was sharper and had better tonality. That about sums it up. I always thought making images with Tech Pan was like a circus sideshow. I don't think I ever saw a great image made on Tech Pan either.

Using Tech Pan in Hasselblad backs was far more convenient than taking 4x5 equipment out to where I was going (a moot point, since I didn't have or want 4x5 at the time). Also, developing it was never a hassle for me.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Using Tech Pan in Hasselblad backs was far more convenient than taking 4x5 equipment out to where I was going (a moot point, since I didn't have or want 4x5 at the time). Also, developing it was never a hassle for me.

Theo, didn't you know that all and any problems experienced with 35mm are completely solved with 4x5?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, 4x5 does have one serious drawback. It ain't 8x10.

 

[Ai Print]

I think Techpan was kind of like Kodachrome, those who blasted it the most were the ones who could not tame the wild bronco that is was, kind of like the digital set does now in saying that film sucked...when the fact is they sucked using it.

I use it very specifically in landscapes with lots of rock, dirt / dust covered snow and ice and in pretty even diffused light or faint sunlight effects. I think when the right light and subject comes along, it looks phenomenal.

I am set for years with 35mm & 120 TP and Technidol.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

So, for those of you who shot Tech Pan and liked it, what do you use in its stead today (also indicate format)?

 

[ColColt]

I shot a fair share of TP back in the day and was awed by the tonal quality, sharpness and zero grain. I tried several developers to include my own version. There was a "Delagi No. 8" developer I tried with the following formula-it was used without diluting...

H2O-500 ml
Sodium sulfite-25gm
Phenidone-1.5 gm
Kodalk-1 gm
Benzotriazole-.2% solution
WTM-1 liter

Nothing I've used since is comparable.

 

[ColColt]

Just one caveat on TP-I mourn the loss of Agfapan 400 more so than TP.

 

[dr5chrome]

tp

TP was always the best film... at least when we processed it - http://dr5.com/graphics/TPlightning.jpg

 

[Nodda Duma]

So, for those of you who shot Tech Pan and liked it, what do you use in its stead today (also indicate format)?

Well, when Tech Pan went away, pretty much all that was left for astrophotography was Provia 400F and Ektachrome 100/200. There are unique requirements of good reciprocity characteristics and sensitivity to the H-alpha and O-III emission spectra. Those are gone now, so really the only current film that I know of that is good for astrophotography is hypered Fuji Acros 100. That's it.

Unfortunately I can't test it's capabilities since I'm no longer set up to do astrophotography. You can probably count on one hand those hypering Acros 100 and still doing film astrophotography.