 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / January 2005Kodak TechPan - not difficult!
Greetings; I've just developed the last of the monochrome films from a recent vacation in Wengen, Switzerland - some of these were Ilford FP4+ and HP5+, a couple of Ilford SFX-200 (for the red sensitivity) and three rolls of Kodak TechPan rated at nominal 25ASA but exposed at a stop under and over in some shots. All 120-roll, of course. Now, I read, or have read, here and in other places, that TechPan is 'tricky' or 'difficult' or 'you have to process critically' (etc etc), yet quite frankly the TechPan negatives I have are the best of the lot. Using Technidol developer at 20degsC for 10m 15secs with 10-secs agitation every 45secs dev time in a Paterson spiral tank, it has given me a great tonal range and of course fine grain and a very clear base. Now that is what I have come to expect - I've used TP120 for quite a time now, only of course when I need a faster film I opt for Ilford emulsions, even the Delta films. My quesion is: why do so many folks find TechPan so "difficult"? My next question is, clearly, what will come to replace TechPan after my 'fridge stocks run out? Anyone any ideas? My regards, F.C. Trevor Gale. > Greetings; > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > agitation every 45secs dev time in a Paterson spiral tank, it has given > me a great tonal range and of course fine grain and a very clear base. I like it for landscapes and portraits, and too, appreciate its tonal range. > Now that is what I have come to expect - I've used TP120 for quite a > time now, only of course when I need a faster film I opt for Ilford > emulsions, even the Delta films. My quesion is: why do so many folks > find TechPan so "difficult"? If you use the processing method Kodak indicates in their technical documentation, it's more complicated than the classic one: you have to fill the tank with the developer alone, then, in complete darkness, load the reels, insert them quickly in the developer, close the tank and start the "shaker" agitation every 30". I've read on the web that some report good result using rotation which, I thought, was unusable with TP. So, next time, I'll give it a try. > My next question is, clearly, what will come to replace TechPan after my > 'fridge stocks run out? Anyone any ideas? With all TP characteristics together, probably nothing. For fine grain and sharpness, TMax 100 and Acros 100 are not that far but they don't have the pretty unusual tonal balance and extended red sensivity TP has. For other use than pictorial photography then you have to switch to other special-purposes films. > My regards, F.C. Trevor Gale. I bought three 45m rolls and started to load my rolls again ... Regards, Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch > My quesion is: why do so many folks find TechPan so "difficult"? I have no idea. Follow the instructions and it works. No ifs, no ands, no ors, no buts. Tech Pan complaints can't be a reflection on the film or its processing, and that would seem to point to those who find it "difficult" as being the source of the problem: "The right time, the right temperature, the right developer -- Oh man, what a pain!" > My next question is, clearly, what will come to replace TechPan after my > 'fridge stocks run out? Anyone any ideas? Stock up with 30 years worth?  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >My quesion is: why do so many folks >find TechPan so "difficult"? Because a little more sensitive to overexposure/over development than most other films. >My next question is, clearly, what will come to replace TechPan after my >'fridge stocks run out? Anyone any ideas? TMX-100. EI32 and develop in D-23. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org Please remove the "_" when replying via email On 1/4/2005 2:55 AM John spake thus: >> My quesion is: why do so many folks >> find TechPan so "difficult"? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TMX-100. EI32 and develop in D-23. Development time for this combo? (The Massive Humungous Colossal Really Really Big Dev Chart only gives times for EI 100.) SignatureToday's bullshit job description: • Collaborate to produce operational procedures for the systems management of the production Information Technology infrastructure. - from an actual job listing on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org) I'm happy to have at least a few years worth of TechPan left in the freezer. I mostly use it at EI400 in T-MAX developer. e.g. http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/CandyCane.jpg Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Updated Infrared Photography Gallery: <http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html John Wrote: > - > My quesion is: why do so many folks > find TechPan so "difficult"?- > > TMX-100. EI32 and develop in D-23. I'm glad there's an alternative. What is D-23 developer? Is that Kodak product because I couldn't see it on their website or B&H etc. I it also a discontinued product? What does EI32 mean?? What about Agfa or Ilford - do either carry a TechPan type product?? Thanks - Sea -- seancarroll >I'm glad there's an alternative. What is D-23 developer? Is that a >Kodak product because I couldn't see it on their website or B&H etc. Is >it also a discontinued product? It's a very simple home mix: Water at 125°F 750 ml Metol 7.5 g Sodium Sulfite 100 g Water to make 1000 ml There are many 2 bath versions, too. >What does EI32 mean?? Exposure Index >What about Agfa or Ilford - do either carry a TechPan type product?? Can't recall what's happened to Agfa Copex but it seems to be available to some markets and is sold under other names (or was). Here's some info: http://www.8x11film.com/spur/engcopex01.html Ilford's PanF+ is very useful but is in a different category than TPan and other document films. TMax 100 is certain developers can give a super-fine grain effect. I don't use it but maybe someone else can direct you to some good TMax combos. Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com -Eschew Obfuscation- When Kodak announced the TechPan demise, it re-stirred some interest in the 20-30 35mm rolls I had in the freezer. I had drifted away from using it for many years as it seemed that if I was doing something that mattered for enlarging, I would be using medium format instead. I started tinkering with the old TPan rolls and it seemed that everything that I've tried (with reasonable adaptations to contrast control) has worked very nicely. I got especially nice negatives in W2D2+. I had only used the TP liquid back when I was first using it and haven't bothered to buy any in recent years so the film just sat, forgotten. Now, I'm finding that I'll miss having the option of using it in the future! Just playing around with non-important shots has shown me that it is very easy to work with. >Greetings; >Now, I read, or have read, here and in other places, that TechPan is >'tricky' or 'difficult' or 'you have to process critically' (etc etc), >yet quite frankly the TechPan negatives I have are the best of the lot. >Using Technidol developer at 20degsC for 10m 15secs with 10-secs >agitation every 45secs dev time in a Paterson spiral tank, it has given >me a great tonal range and of course fine grain and a very clear base. Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com -Eschew Obfuscation- > Now, I'm finding that I'll miss having [TechPan] ... > Just playing around with non-important shots has shown me > that it is very easy to work with. I use it for snapshots with a Leica RF. The smooth LF look is great for people shots. It is very well suited to any of the old ~f1.7 rangefinders from the age when Kodachrome 25 was popular; say a Cannonet or Olympus SP. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ > Greetings; > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > My regards, F.C. Trevor Gale. I think partly because people try to develop it in standard developers relying on high dilution to get the extra-low contrast required. It may do that but will also distort the tone rendition. Kodak's recommended procedures work just fine. I used to use a lot of Tech Pan, developed in Technidol. I developed for slightly lower contrast than the Kodak guide, exposing at around EI-15 and using Technidol liquid. Since TP is now discontinued the closest to it is 100T-Max in Microdol-X, but its not the same. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.