the demise of Technical Pan

[David Lyga]

It has been asked on APUG as to why Kodachrome died. Lack of sales, aggravated by the ever increasing quality of Ektachrome, was, perhaps, the most accurate response.

But Technical Pan, with its ability to capture both shadow detail and highlights (if development is truncated), and with a real speed congruent with that of Pan F+, nevertheless died. Can anyone say with accuracy that TMAX 100 is its qualitative equal, thus 'better', because of its two step speed advantage?

Although TMX is an extraordinary film, I think that TP was even better. And development for TP does NOT requre special developers, as proper gamma is attained with about 2/3 the mandated development time for Pan F+.

I know that I cannot be the only person lamenting TP's demise, as the topic comes up periodically. Comments? - David Lyga

 

[David Allen]

For particular uses it was a very fine film indeed.

I recently needed to photograph some fine pencil drawings for a friend and Adox CMS 20 comes pretty damned close:

http://www.fotoimpex.de/shopen/films/adox-cms-20-13536-35mm-36-exposure.html

Oops just saw Michael's response - I found TP very easy to work with for pictorial uses. I used it on a few commercial projects where it's special advantages (ultra-fine grain, amazing resolution and particular tonality) were the perfect match for photographing highly detailed architecture, precision machinery, etc.

I think that when you look at original prints by Lewis Baltz (or even the books) from his New Topographics period it is quite clear what a special 'look' SO-119 and later Technical Pan had.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Tech Pan was an amazing special purpose film, but it was best at what it was designed for, and I don't think it can fairly be compared with any slow or medium speed general purpose films. Bending it into submission for general photographic applications involved a lot of compromises in exchange for finer grain - which is all it really offered when you get down to it. Some people liked its extended red sensitivity for portraits, but in general I found it to be a relatively poor general purpose film even when carefully exposed and developed in special developers. Its odd spectral response meant that working speeds could be quite variable, and I found its tone reproduction to be generally lousy.

People liked to believe that by working carefully with this sort of film they could make prints from small format negatives that looked like they were made from large format negatives, but in my opinion this was never the case. I think people saw what they wanted to see.

Exactly.

 

[Xmas]

Films die on sales or contrabanded chemicals.
Buy PanF if you like it.
Buy tmax100 if you like it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

TP was always a niche film. A bit quirky with its extended red sensitivity. It was never intended for general purpose photography. As with all things commercial it ultimately is the bottom line. Too few people bought it and Kodak could no longer afford to continue its manufacture. Will I miss it? Frankly no.

 

[Ian Grant]

I partly agree with Michael and David. I used Technical Pan for work occasionally for copying fine line work and it out-performed all other films for this, I tried it for continuous tone (nomal) work but didn't like its quirky tonality, it also lacked acutance despite its high resolution.

In 35mm I actually preferred EFKE Kb14 (the old DIN name later renamed to reflect the Tungsten ASA as EFKE 25) for it's inherently fine grain and excellent acutance which while not quite a s fine grained as Technical Pan had a far better tonal response. Used well with a good lens, optimum aperture, sturdy tripod, no over-exposure and careful processing 35mm EFKE Kb14 could give results that were close to 5x4 with the films in the 1970's. But then EFKE sold the same film in 120 and LF sizes.

Ian

 

[Jim Jones]

I miss Tech Pan. Where exaggerated contrast was not needed, T-Max was fine. Sometimes more contrast was better. Torturing T-Max into providing this contrast was not nearly as effective as using Tech Pan. Tech Pan and a red filter can make photos of ordinary clouds more dramatic than IR film. Also, Tech Pan sheet film processed in Solarol developer added a whole new dimension to the Sabattier effect. My avatar is an example of modest reversal of Tech Pan in Solarol

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never used it, so I guess that I will never miss it.

 

[EdSawyer]

I shot a ton of it back in the day, and do miss it greatly. It was a fantastic film, versatile for a lot of uses, and really had some unique characteristics. Fortunately it keeps pretty well so I have been hoarding it for some time in the freezer, multiple bulk rolls of 35mm, probably 40+ rolls of 120 and some 4x5 (not enough). Also a good stash of Technidol which also keeps fairly well.

Good tip re: solarizing during development with solarol! That is another great product, I never tried it with film but with paper (Agfa Brovira 5 or 6, specifically) it was amazing, easily the best developer (and paper) for solarizing.

-Ed

 

[RobC]

It's been gone a long time. Move on to what's available today.

 

[Doc W]

I have in my rather cold (most of the year) darkroom a box of Technical Pan in 8x10 sheets. Any suggestions on exposure and development? It must be at least ten years old.

 

[Nokton48]

I sometimes got wonky results with the Technidol. It and the film were rather quirky stuff.
All iin all I don't miss it. If I want large format quality, I shoot large format.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I used Tech Pan as a forensic and graphics film in the lab. It did a nice job for high-contrast masking work if you needed something pan sensitivity rather than the usual ortho. I still have a lot of 8x10 on hand. It was pretty disappointing for general photographic use; you lose
a lot of detail at the extremes of highlights or shadows. And yeah, I tried all the fancy developers. I have a friend who shot a lot of it in 6x6
for the detail, but every print suffered tonality loss in the high values. TMX100 is itself a tad fussy, but does have a very long usable range
if properly exposed. I don't think any Tech Pan has actually been coated for over twenty years. But it seems to keep better than most films.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Hypered Tech Pan was *the* film for astrophotography for years and years. It will be sorely missed by those of us insane enough to freeze our butts off sitting still staring at a guide star for hours on end in the dark. Sometimes only to find that the shutter hadn't really been set on bulb.

I'll have a drink to Tech Pan.


Oh and I heard long ago that Kodak didn't retain or lost the corporate knowledge / technique necessary to make Tech Pan...part of the reason for its demise. That was the rumor circulating around the astrophotography community at the time.

 

[Black Dog]

How things pan out

I used Tech Pan as a forensic and graphics film in the lab. It did a nice job for high-contrast masking work if you needed something pan sensitivity rather than the usual ortho. I still have a lot of 8x10 on hand. It was pretty disappointing for general photographic use; you lose
a lot of detail at the extremes of highlights or shadows. And yeah, I tried all the fancy developers. I have a friend who shot a lot of it in 6x6
for the detail, but every print suffered tonality loss in the high values. TMX100 is itself a tad fussy, but does have a very long usable range
if properly exposed. I don't think any Tech Pan has actually been coated for over twenty years. But it seems to keep better than most films.

I bought a job lot from Mr Cad in London circa 2004-I got on really well with it, mainly using well diluted Pyrocat-HD following the advice of Anchell and Troop in The Film Developing Cookbook [well worth buying btw]. Rodinal at 1+200, even 300 is another alternative, which also worked well for the similar Maco Ortho 25 [Rollei or Retro Ortho 25 as it now is].

 

[arealitystudios]

I will totally admit that when Tech Pan was discontinued I pretty much shrugged my shoulders and thought to myself "meh". I always found it to be any too limiting with the supposed rewards of using it to be non-existent. So back in the day when the announcement was made I bought one last roll for old times sake and never looked back.

Now the demise of Plus-X on the other hand...

 

[removed account4]

i loved using tech pan iso 200 in print developer to make it contrasty
with to die for to die for mid tones. i used to photograph leaves ( looking at the sun )
to make beautiful leaf photographs. it was fun to photograph a wedding the same way
( the wedding party liked it too )
it is too bad there is't such a versitile film being made today that can be
tonal/pictorial and high contrast but ultra fine grained at the same time.
i used to enlarge a fraction of the leaf photographs ( like smaller than a little finger nail ) to 16x20, NO GRAIN ..
the wedding ... it was mostly 8x10s

 

[Theo Sulphate]

In the 1990's I used Tech Pan and Technidol for vast landscape shots in medium format. For me, it was unbeatable: fine grain, amazing detail, a nice tonal range.

Not sure if anything matches or exceeds it today.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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.

 

[Paul Cunningham]

...some 4x5 (not enough). Also a good stash of Technidol which also keeps fairly well.

Well that's interesting!

 

[RobC]

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

 

[David Allen]

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

ER, if you mean CMS 20 I actually did - see post #3

Not sure if anything matches or exceeds it today.

Adox CMS 20 comes pretty damned close

I don't think I ever saw a great image made on Tech Pan either

Are you familiar with the mid-career work of Lewis Baltz?

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Ian Grant]

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

They used to in the 1970's. However the very poor hardening made them less attractive films to use, I overcame that by adding 2 or 3 drops of formaldehyde to the developer and a chrom alum hardening stop-bath. By the 90's the hardening was better still not as good as other films but more manageable.

When Adox introduced what later became the CHS range in the early 1950's they were way ahead in terms of resolving power compared to films from Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc. By the time films like Tmax100 were released the gap had narrowed significantly.

The use of micro-films for very fine grain & high resolution isn't new people were doing it in the 60's and 70's and many gave better results than Technical Pan, but were slower.

Ian

 

[Jager]

Tech Pan died because it wasn't mainstream.

Finally bowing to the periodic magazine articles that insisted that TP was a way of getting medium/large format quality in a 35mm camera, I put a couple rolls through my Nikon. Alas. None of the labs around could develop it.

In a way, that was a good thing because it forced me to learn how to develop B&W myself, something I've enjoyed ever since. And TP certainly had a unique look - I remember being stunned at the lack of grain, at the clarity of those images.

But at the end of the day, irrespective of whatever benefits it might present, if processing isn't readily available then a film stock will die. That's what killed Kodachrome. That's what killed TP. And, soon enough, that's what will kill E6.

 

[jim appleyard]

When TP was on, it was great. When it was off, it was awful. I had trouble getting consistant results and I'm a careful darkroom user. Miss it? No. Pan-X and APX 25 were better, IMO. Those guys I miss.