To Techpan or not to Techpan....that is my question...

wildbill said:

here's a little info on c41:
Brian K
17-Sep-2008, 05:58
"I've tested nearly every developer combination for tech pan. The best pictorial results come from technidol but in 120 and 4x5 sizes developer mottling due to it's unusual agitation requirements is very common. I ended up using c-41 developer, in a jobo. It gives me an EI around 20 @ 68 degrees- 6'30". It's still an n+1 look so use it with lower contrast subjects or scenes for a little contrast boost."

Click to expand...

Im sure the Tetenal wasn't one of them.....

expose at 100iso - pre-soak for 4 min. 1 bottle makes 500ml developer - develop for 6 min - gentle agitation continously...

No magic - but magical results! In my book much better than Technidol....

Edit: found two more images - now in 4x5"

Michael,

Tech Pan will obviously have more contrast than something like TMax 100. Now what's wrong with that? Color spectrum response slightly different? So what?
Or does every picture have to have a 100% full tonal scale to be acceptable, or is it possible that something like Tech Pan could yield something with even more interest?

My father brought some negatives to my house a couple of years ago while visiting. They had been to the Alsace region of France, walking the vineyards. While there he shot one roll of Tech Pan 35mm in his Pentax, and several rolls of FP4+ in his Hasselblad. Two different results, but both viable.
The Tech Pan shots had strong contrast with added texture and accentuated lines. Can you imagine this as possibly a benefit in a landscape with rows of grapevines? It's not like the FP4+ shots were lacking, but the 35mm Tech Pan definitely added something to the content that made it more interesting, in my humble opinion.
No blocked up highlights, and full shadow detail. The prints we made were full of visual impact and held interest beautifully.

Is Tech Pan a 100% perfect film for pictorial use? Maybe not. Is it useless for landscape work? I don't think so. Both dad and I sure liked the results he got from it. Others might too. The prints are over in Sweden, or I'd scan some and put them up here. There are more than one way to reach the end goal of a beautiful print.

Edit: I managed to find one of the print scans.

Nice, Thomas...I suppose I could do more searching and come up with more landscapes I have taken using copy film, but perhaps copy film is not as "different" as Tech Pan.

Not exactly the same, but close enough, this view on Rollei ATP may shed some light on the matter. I found it easier to control than Tech Pan, in Rodinal 1:300, with a usable curve in certain situations.

http://imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/page31.html

"ATP and D100 have curves that are closely related. D100 is the best with good shadow reproduction and a useable shoulder area. The ATP is slightly less good in the shadow areas and highlights block earlier. It is easy however to adjust the curve (lower the speed a third stop and reduce the development time by 10% and you have a very good result)."

Here's an image taken with Tech Pan and processed by David at dr5. He does wonderful work. It's from 35mm film. It costs a little bit but it's within the range of what I'm willing to pay for the photograph I'm after. (Nikon FA, 28/2.8 AIS, orange filter)

-Marc

Michael, my reply was more to the OP's general question, "With great films like Pan-F, TMX with superb tonal range, why would someone even use TP or ATP?" But you're right, PKM-25 is concentrating on printing from negs. I'll exit, too.

-Marc

No offence, Michael. Perhaps we're really saying the same thing from different vantage points.

You hold that Tech Pan is not like normal full scale films, and that is certainly valid. The film simply isn't TMax or Delta.

I held that it could still be used, and I was trying to maintain that it wouldn't be like TMax, but that perhaps that was OK too, or even interesting. I find that a valid point as well.

I always value your input, since you have a deeper technical understanding than I do. I just didn't agree with you on the picture making viewpoint.

Well, I had planned to soup all my 70mm in dr5 until Ilfochrome was noted as being discontinued. I don't really want to use any hybrid at all in my fine art workflow. A frame off of the roll we ran a few years ago has made an incredible 40" print on Ilfochrome, grainless and stunning.

I am still working on my test trio...trying to make art more than a test. Once I get my head around it, I will figure out what I am going to do with my future with it.

dr5chrome said:

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

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Emil,

By 'pictorial' use I mean a use of the film that is intended for full grayscale printing. Traditionally, Technical pan was a very high contrast film, brilliant for use in astrophotography for its extremely high resolving power and incredible reciprocity characteristics. But mostly its high contrast prohibited use of the film in traditional work with lots of grayscale in between full white and full black.

But some people learned how to use the film that way anyway, more or less successfully. My dad used it with Rodinal at 1+200 dilution with wonderful results. You used Tetenal Doku, and there seems to be other developers that will allow you to produce a full tonal scale from this high contrast film.

- Thomas

Click to expand...

Hi Thomas, I haven't yet read the entire thread but enjoying this read so far. About your comments above, that full grayscale printing you're talking about is something I achieve so easily with Adox Art 25 CHS. It's available in 35mm, 120, and various sheet film sizes, mine being 4x5. It delivers incredibly grain free negatives, and such a rich grayscale with most developers. When I want 100% grain free appearance, I develop in Adolux ATM developer which is the developer Adox recommends for the film. When I want a little more punch I develop with Rodinal 1:50. There's endless gray with this film!

Perry

Brian C. Miller said:

And of course I don't shake sheet film!

Click to expand...

I do! BTZS Tubes man! If you need rapid agitation, consider buying the BTZS Tubes system for 4x5 or 8x10. You can really "manhandle" them once they are tightened shut and with developer inside. I liberally agitate the first 30 seconds of any batch of sheet film I'm processing using the BTZS tubes. It's the quickest way to get a total even coating and saturation of the emulsion. My opinion of course. Also it helps to get some of the liquid behind the film to remove the coating and the "manhandling" achieves that about half the time making for faster fixing/rinsing times.

Hi Perry,

If you use Tech Pan for anything other than its intended purpose, it is probably not going to be to achieve a perfect grayscale. Quite the contrary, one would more likely use it to produce high contrast effects.

I guess it's up to each and every one of us how we wish to use our materials, but if I had a boat load of it sitting in the freezer, I'd find a way of using it. That seems to be the Original Poster's situation as well, and I guess by providing examples of how one can make it work, or finding examples of not using it that way, might provide some guidance for making a decision. Or not.

- Thomas

Perry Way said:

Hi Thomas, I haven't yet read the entire thread but enjoying this read so far. About your comments above, that full grayscale printing you're talking about is something I achieve so easily with Adox Art 25 CHS. It's available in 35mm, 120, and various sheet film sizes, mine being 4x5. It delivers incredibly grain free negatives, and such a rich grayscale with most developers. When I want 100% grain free appearance, I develop in Adolux ATM developer which is the developer Adox recommends for the film. When I want a little more punch I develop with Rodinal 1:50. There's endless gray with this film!

Perry

Click to expand...

I have been reading this whole thread with interest.

I'm sorry if you, Michael is "out"...

I have used the TechPan a couple of times outside, making some portraits, but the most important reaction I have, from reading the posts is "a dare"...

So I'll dig out a couple of TP films and try and see what I get in landscape, using the Doku as developer.

If I'm wrong, I'll bend my head in shame (but with more knowlegde, which is a good thing) - If I am right, well... (dunno...)

Let's see..

I'm really glad this thread has value beyond my questions, keep it up guys!

I guess I am no hurry to make a decision quite yet, still need to finish my test trio and give it more thought. The tempting thing is the thousands of dollars of capital selling it all off would give me to buy more paper and other films...it's tempting. But if I can use TP to great effect that can in turn, become very salable prints, then it is worth holding onto.

I guess I just look at the workflow of shooters I respect that pull in great incomes from doing brilliant work on very simplified setups in terms of film, paper and even camera choice and know what that is worth too, consistency, more time in the field, less hassle, etc...

Here's the rub: it's not the equipment that makes photographs, it's the photographers who make the photographs.

Yes, TechPan and other film behave differently from normal pictoral films. Figure out what they do, and know what they do, and then you can use them to their strengths. I didn't stock up on TechPan because I was enjoying large format. I have found the grain of Acros to be nearly as good as TechPan, and certaintly finer than TMax or Delta.

It really depends on what you want to do, with what, and what characteristics you want in the final image.

Okay, so here's some 135 Kodak TP landscape shots from late 2010, developed in Rodinal 1:100, scanned from negative on very cheap scaner.
Note that this film expiration date was 1985, it was stored in the fridge for 25 years before it was waisted for those shots.
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

PKM-25 said:

I'm really glad this thread has value beyond my questions, keep it up guys!

I guess I am no hurry to make a decision quite yet, still need to finish my test trio and give it more thought. The tempting thing is the thousands of dollars of capital selling it all off would give me to buy more paper and other films...it's tempting. But if I can use TP to great effect that can in turn, become very salable prints, then it is worth holding onto.

I guess I just look at the workflow of shooters I respect that pull in great incomes from doing brilliant work on very simplified setups in terms of film, paper and even camera choice and know what that is worth too, consistency, more time in the field, less hassle, etc...

Click to expand...

Hey Dan, was there ever a conclusion? What happened to the test rolls? Would love to see comparisons.

I shot and developed a roll of TP in DD-X the other day, very contrasty, shot at EI 8 I believe, but after looking at the film base, it's completely clear with no fogging (it was old stock from the 80's so I cut the exposure 2 stops but perhaps I could have kept it normal after seeing how clear the base was).

I've also been promised a bottle of Technidol from a poster and hope it actually comes but the DD-X sure gave fine grained (no grain) results but highly contrasty so wondering how your experiments went.

Cheers


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk