Thoughts on Tech Pan

[VPooler]

A day has passed and I have mastered cutting the darn thing. Now I have bunch of holders loaded with it and I have also completed another test negative. Two negs in one tank, 900ml of soup, Rodinal 1+200. 6 minutes normal development, agitation every minute and two inversions during development. Then I left the tank sitting on the counter for another six minutes to let the shadows develop. It worked, the contrast has been tamed to pretty good pictorial level, yet it has crisp highlights. But a problem occurred- the negs have the density of wet toilet paper. Clearly more development is needed, especially with two negatives. I'll try a bit less dilute solution and 10 minutes of normal development, followed by 6 minutes of stand.

 

[StoneNYC]

A day has passed and I have mastered cutting the darn thing. Now I have bunch of holders loaded with it and I have also completed another test negative. Two negs in one tank, 900ml of soup, Rodinal 1+200. 6 minutes normal development, agitation every minute and two inversions during development. Then I left the tank sitting on the counter for another six minutes to let the shadows develop. It worked, the contrast has been tamed to pretty good pictorial level, yet it has crisp highlights. But a problem occurred- the negs have the density of wet toilet paper. Clearly more development is needed, especially with two negatives. I'll try a bit less dilute solution and 10 minutes of normal development, followed by 6 minutes of stand.

I would think, being a roll film type, it would be thinner than normal sheet film.

Maybe best cut for 120?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

It is both thin as in the base is very thin and thin as it is underdeveloped - I still need to adjust the time. But on the bright side - those blotched negatives scan very well as reflective media!


Crown Graphic, Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm, Tech Pan, Rodinal 1+200, developing method described above. Some weird contamination spot on negative.

Same as above, this time without contamination. Notice how the red candle completely blows out and the red danger sign is quite bright also.

 

[StoneNYC]

It is both thin as in the base is very thin and thin as it is underdeveloped - I still need to adjust the time. But on the bright side - those blotched negatives scan very well as reflective media!

View attachment 75955
Crown Graphic, Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm, Tech Pan, Rodinal 1+200, developing method described above. Some weird contamination spot on negative.
View attachment 75956
Same as above, this time without contamination. Notice how the red candle completely blows out and the red danger sign is quite bright also.

What do you use to scan them and still get the frame lines in?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

Some ordinary Canon printer-scanner-copier I had gathering dust here, A4 sized. Just tossed them on the glass and pressed scan. If I can maintain the same contrast but get the density right, I would be so happy.

 

[StoneNYC]

Some ordinary Canon printer-scanner-copier I had gathering dust here, A4 sized. Just tossed them on the glass and pressed scan. If I can maintain the same contrast but get the density right, I would be so happy.

At what DPI? Just curious really, I have an Epson V750 and I'm only able to get an acceptable scan in the holders which cover the edges.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

The scanner maxed out at 600DPI. No holders, just slammed against the glass

 

[gandolfi]

Technidol also results in the best grain structure, it's not just about taming contrast. Almost criminal to use it (TP) without the proper developer...

I agree about the last sentence, but I have personally never gotten Technidol to work well for me....

On the other hand the Neofin Doku was perfect!

So "best" might be a matter of taste?

 

[StoneNYC]

The scanner maxed out at 600DPI. No holders, just slammed against the glass

OH!!! That's why haha, my scans are 3200 or 2400, never scan as small as 1200 or 600 ever.

I guess for internet that's more than enough.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

Well now I am sitting here with 4 holders worth of pictorial material, waiting to get developed but I still have to perfect the time before that. So back to doing test negatives! But the contrast is simply stunning.

 

[VPooler]

Success!!! 900ml of water, 7ml of Rodinal concentrate. Expose for 25ASA, develop for 10-11 minutes. Good contrasty negatives with sufficient shadow detail. Initial agitation 10 sec, after that every minute for 5 seconds. Inversion at 6th and 8th minute. Increase agitation minute before completion to get the last out of developer before total exhaustion. Booyah!

 

[StoneNYC]

Success!!! 900ml of water, 7ml of Rodinal concentrate. Expose for 25ASA, develop for 10-11 minutes. Good contrasty negatives with sufficient shadow detail. Initial agitation 10 sec, after that every minute for 5 seconds. Inversion at 6th and 8th minute. Increase agitation minute before completion to get the last out of developer before total exhaustion. Booyah!

Can you elaborate on "agitation" as you see it? When I say it I mean inversion, but you say you only inverted twice.

Also, your dilution is like 1:125 or something, I would think your dev time would be longer at such a dilute?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

Agitation as in twirling and so on, moving the tank around. True inversions were done only twice, yes.
Believe it or not, I just pulled anouther negative out of the soup, same times and so on - also good density and detail. AFAIK TP is something ASA400 actually, but you are pulling it a lot to flatten out the contrast curve, that is why the time is so short.
Oh, and the recipe is for two sheets of 4x5. I'd say the dilution would be even bigger, something like 1:200 for one sheet.

 

[StoneNYC]

Agitation as in twirling and so on, moving the tank around. True inversions were done only twice, yes.
Believe it or not, I just pulled anouther negative out of the soup, same times and so on - also good density and detail. AFAIK TP is something ASA400 actually, but you are pulling it a lot to flatten out the contrast curve, that is why the time is so short.
Oh, and the recipe is for two sheets of 4x5. I'd say the dilution would be even bigger, something like 1:200 for one sheet.

I never liked swirling, had uneven dev with that, always invert for me. But everyone is different.

Doubt it's 400, it would all fog by now if it weren't such a slow film


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

Datasheet states speeds up to 200 for some applications but I am unsure about the real value. Anyway, 1+125 for 11 minutes @25ASA and 900ml of chemistry for 2 sheets of 4x5 seemed to work fine. However, it is tricky to dry and handle as it gets drying marks very easily + dust and other flaws show up on scans and prints very clearly due to thin base. I have 10 sheets drying and will start scanning them in the coming days. Stay tuned!

 

[StoneNYC]

Datasheet states speeds up to 200 for some applications but I am unsure about the real value. Anyway, 1+125 for 11 minutes @25ASA and 900ml of chemistry for 2 sheets of 4x5 seemed to work fine. However, it is tricky to dry and handle as it gets drying marks very easily + dust and other flaws show up on scans and prints very clearly due to thin base. I have 10 sheets drying and will start scanning them in the coming days. Stay tuned!

Dumb question, do you use a wetting agent? I always do and when I started doing 4x5 sheets I just dip in the wetting agent for 30 seconds, then hang them without wiping them, hung at a corner. Had no issues with spots or dust or scratches or marks.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's never going to give you very good gradation in the highlights or shadows, no matter what developer you use. But it can certainly be tamed
for general use. In this country, Photographer's Formulary still sells some specialized developers for it, for pictorial purposes.

 

[gandolfi]

I don't know about the good gradation or not...

Sometimes it feels if I don't know it "can't be done", then it actually works....

I used TecPan as my all time favorite for photographing women... (and they seemed to love me for using it.. actually they thought it was my doing which it wasn't - it was the film..)

TechPan 120 film 100iso (!!) - 6 min in Neofin Doku..

miss them both.

 

[StoneNYC]

I don't know about the good gradation or not...

Sometimes it feels if I don't know it "can't be done", then it actually works....

I used TecPan as my all time favorite for photographing women... (and they seemed to love me for using it.. actually they thought it was my doing which it wasn't - it was the film..)

TechPan 120 film 100iso (!!) - 6 min in Neofin Doku..

miss them both.

Cute, great eyes too

EI 100? And only 6 minutes hmmm, so it pushed. 2 stops and doesn't look pushed at all.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VPooler]

No, I don't use wetting agent. Most of the scratches are from loading and cutting, I still have to practice a bit.

If I want good gradation, I load Fomapan or something else. Tech pan is for when I want contrast and funky results. Dare to differ!

Larry from Flickr got EI100 out of it with Diafine, IIRC.

Scans coming soon!

 

[VPooler]

I am satisfied to put it short. Developing method described above, Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm shot wide open, Graflex Crown Graphic.

 

[damonff]

View attachment 76050View attachment 76051

I am satisfied to put it short. Developing method described above, Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75mm shot wide open, Graflex Crown Graphic.

Those look great.

 

[damonff]

1 to 100 Rodinal, first 30, rest for 30, 5 seconds every minute for a total of eight (ei 25):

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...BuiPg/s1600/velviaTMY%20%281%20of%2018%29.jpg

 

[EdSawyer]

I used it for portraits a lot too. Hides blemishes pretty well. Great for landscapes too. I used piles of it in the 90s, bulk rolls of 150 ft. Almost always with technidol, except for one project, where I shot it at asa 200, developed in straight dektol for 2 minutes, it was fun. Contrasty as hell, but still fine grain, all things considered. Printed on grade 1 it looked like grade 5.

 

[VPooler]

Two more:




It is a tricky film to use, really tricky. But once gotten right, it is totally worth the hassle. I made some glossy digital prints out of scans and they just pop to life. I'll do some actual enlargements do and see how they print traditionally.