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 too have some Tech Pan to try out, and intend to try this development technique:
I've developed several rolls of "regular" B/W film in this Bishop developer, and found that it is fairly low-action/low-contrast. I wound up doubling the amounts of SS and metol, and adding a bit of restrainer (KBr, I think) to cut back on fog. I speculate that this original formula might work very well with Tech Pan. Note the quantities of powder are given in grains, not grams -- you'll need to convert. And doen't try to measure the acetone with a plastic graduate, unless you want it ruined -- been there, don that. Oh -- I had been using Home Depot-quality acetone, but recently bought some from the local pharmacy, so perhaps the better quality will have an effect.
~ 20 years ago I have shot a few rolls of Kodak TP 135 @ 25 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 @ 18°C for 18minutes, 2 slow inversions every 2 minutes.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
Right now on the market, there is Tetenal Dokumol, that same document developer was better than Kodak own dev for TP back in the days.
The devs for ATP should work even better.
Kodak TP is quite unique film, spectral sensitivity wise, res power and so on.
Rolei ATP comes close, yes. Rollei 80S in the spur developer might beat both TP and ATP depending on what You are after.
First of: the 199iso was a typo! Should have said 100 iso. Sorry for that.
Second: I might be the worst photographer in the world, being so seemingly bad at developing "normal" film.
Because I have never developed a film with so much tones - fine grain and sharpness as I did with the Tech pan.
And yes: Some people did think I used 4x5" camera.
Maybe it is the developer. The neofin Doku was fantastic for this film! and I am so lucky still to have some here...
Ian: "Technical Pan had it's place and a unique feel when used for pictorial work but it's not really a good film for consistent project work where tonality is important."
This I don't understand... Never had any problems.
Technical Pan film can certainly be used with great success for pictorial application. My dad shot it quite a bit, and I have a couple of his prints which I consider his very best work.
If you have Technical Pan, and love to use it - use it! If not, sell it. Don't think about the money. It keeps virtually forever in deep freeze, and it can be made to work beautifully with dilute Rodinal. Photographer's Formulary I also believe has a developer that's designed for the purpose of getting a full and rich tonal range from Tech Pan.
And, to all, please don't dismiss gandolfi and his use of Tech Pan. His portraits using the film are extraordinary, and is living proof that whatever theoretical advice somebody has against using it, you can flush right down the toilet, because he made it work in the the darkroom. What else could possibly matter?
I need to ask one question - have read it more than one time in this thread: What do you mean by "pictorial use"?
And I have reacted really bad!! I should have told, that Tech Pan of course is a mediocre film - not for any good use.... In fact - all that have some should donate it to me... (I'll destroy it for you) ;)
Originally Posted by gandolfi
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.
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.
..and to summarize on your very good points..it is very rarely worth all the trouble :)
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
indeed - so send it to me....:laugh:
Originally Posted by MaximusM3
Like I said, Emile.."VERY RARELY" :)
Originally Posted by gandolfi
That's a beauty!