..and to summarize on your very good points..it is very rarely worth all the trouble
It is possible to get a greyscale using a pretty wide variety of developers, but the film still has a relatively short scale. There is no way around that. So all I'm saying is I would not recommend it for general photography (which I think is what OP was asking about) unless working under limited contrast conditions or contolled lighting situations, or if special effects are desired. Other key considerations regarding general photography:
1. Tech Pan's extended red sensitivity makes it a tricky film to meter for under different lighting conditions. Establishing a standard EI is difficult as speed falls off pretty quickly under more bluish lighting (ie typical outdoor shadows)
2. The standard zone system placements (ie speed point .1 above base fog and shadows on zone III) need to be adjusted downward if one wants to make maximum use of the available scale. This applies to all document films as you cannot afford to "waste" any density on the low end. This is where different developers can have substantially different effects. If a developer gives higher toe contrast, very low densities can be used as part of the printable scale. There's some good discussion about this in The Film Development Cookbook.
3. Reportedy batch to batch variations were more significant with Tech Pan than other films, which can further complicate exposure/development.
...it is very rarely worth all the trouble
indeed - so send it to me....
The attachment in post #29 would fall under what I called controlled lighting situations (ie studio work etc). I'm not arguing against those applications - although I still maintain a picture made with a document film will never look like it was made with a larger format, with the exception of graininess. That, however, is somewhat a matter of personal opinion.
IIRC, the Kodak instructions for Tech Pan are exactly the opposite to shaking like a martini, so I suggest double-checking on that point.
I have the instructions taped on the wall. "Shake up and down using a vigorous motion," and the picture has arrows indicating what very much looks like a martini shake.
Use what works for you. I'm working my way through my last box of sheet film, and the roll film was gone long ago. And of course I don't shake sheet film!
Question is...how do you shake the tank 10-12 times, up and down, in 2 seconds. It seems that it would require maybe 10 cups of espresso, if that's even possible
Easy. You just alter time.
Question is...how do you shake the tank 10-12 times, up and down, in 2 seconds. It seems that it would require maybe 10 cups of espresso, if that's even possible
Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation: Recommendation:
Recommendation: NO pre-soaking of the film!
Recommendation: FUNDAMENTALLY important, the developer it to be set with destilled water only!
Recommendation: Processing in 3 Sec. tip over frequency (or Heiland/JOBO machine).
Recommendation: NO stopping bath!
Recommendation: Fixing bath, 2 x more diluted, e.g. Agefix 1+15!
Recommendation: Wetting agent, 3 x diluted, e.g. RWA 1+3.000!
Recommendation: Developer temperature affects the grain size. Attempts with 17°C (all bathes!) and alternatively with 25°C resulted in different grain sizes. The reference that all bathes refers that the developer + fixing bath must have in priciple the identical temperature!
Recommendation: It was identified that the film spoul and developing tanks must be very clean. In no case, remaining silver and/or wetting agents may adhere! Therefore: A more thorough cleaning than normal is hardly recommended!
Ok, so I am trying to be a bit more mature and professional about my film choices for the next few years in terms of realistic image making as a business instead of dabbling. I started "gathering" Kodak Technical Pan in both 35mm and 120 in 2004. Needless to say I have a pretty healthy stash of it, all late dates, deep frozen. I also have a about half the Technidol required to soup it, the other half is TD3.
Now that Rollei ATP is out I have been playing with it a bit and it is good, no grain, but curls like Shirly Temple. I have started printing an edition of landscapes from APX-25 in 120 and I just love the tonality, a total breeze to print, have a decent but not huge stash of that too. So I am thinking in terms of practical return on my investment, getting consistent results that I can use for years. Most of my prints will be on 11x 14, 16 x 20 and 20 x 24 paper with the occasional larger size.
So I am tempted to part out of my TP, get enough capitol out of it to re-invest in a smaller stash of ATP and more TMX / 120 since prices are going up, the rest on paper, matting material, etc.
I have enough TP to do about ten years worth of projects / shows, but wonder about the choice in terms of professional production value. I hardly see any great shots from it or the new ATP for that matter, all techno-dabble thus far.
When ever I have asked about consistent processing of it, there is not one person who has claimed to arrive at a consistent alternative to Technidol. So I have two film backs loaded with both TP and ATP...I am thinking of loading one with TMX just to put a dose of reality in there and take a week really working hard to create scenes that I would actually sell as fine art prints.
With great films like Pan-F, TMX with superb tonal range, why would someone even use TP or ATP?
Haven't we discussed this in the past? There is no alternative to processing TP unless you have Tecnadol - FOR NEGS.
But - there is dr5 processed TP in specialized conditions. We see this film still - much of it. It produces a spectacular chrome shot correctly, in the right conditions. Consistent processing? that would be here... but not for negs.
I would be interested in the 120 & 4x5, 8x10 formats. If you need it taken off your hands.
dw
Haven't we discussed this in the past? There is no alternative to processing TP unless you have Tecnadol - FOR NEGS.
But - there is dr5 processed TP in specialized conditions. We see this film still - much of it. It produces a spectacular chrome shot correctly, in the right conditions. Consistent processing? that would be here... but not for negs.
I would be interested in the 120 & 4x5, 8x10 formats. If you need it taken off your hands.
dw
So you can't process it in c41 or rodinal as others have done with success?
I guess I'll have to box up all my TP and send it to you since you're the only man in the universe who can process it correctly. Now where's my wallet?
lol.
On that not my first roll of Rollei ATP in Rodinal 1+300 was terrible... contrast -still- too high, and extreme edge halo'ing (like a damn HDR but b&w!). As per here - http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/atp_film_003.php
Though the test image is not indicative of contrast achieved..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?