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

[NB23]

I shoot landscapes with Delta 3200 in my Xpan and print on 16x20 and I couldn't be happier with the level of detail and the beautiful unobtrusive grain.

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot Tech Pan, accept the results it would give me and make it my own.

[Brian C. Miller]

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!

[frobozz]

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!

Page 6 here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe.../p255/p255.pdf

Duncan

[MaximusM3]

Page 6 here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe.../p255/p255.pdf

Duncan

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

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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.

[MaximusM3]

Easy. You just alter time.

Listen, wise-ass, Kodak says 10-12 shakes in 2 seconds and that's what it is. Either you get seizures to shake the damn tank or you don't..your choice

[georg16nik]

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

Probably a mistake, we all know other incorrect Kodak data.
Kodak TP and other films of that sort asks for less aggressive approach.
In the data for Rollei ATP there are some helpful notes:

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!

Also, there is some more good info from SPUR, Adox CMS20 and Agfa Copex Rapid files but I am sure the folks who are interested will find it easily.

I agree with gandolfi.
There is too much "Kodak TP is not suitable for x,y,z,.", "no shadow detail", " no tonality", "pictorial use", and what not.
Back in the 60's my guitar buddies used to say that there is nothing that will make the Fender Strat sound big, then came Jimi and hooked it with a Fuzz Face.
Well its 2012 and still there is nothing that would beat that sound, You can't even emulate it with the new technologies.

So, Kodak TP..
There is no developer that will help TMAX or PanF or any other average Joe 135/120 film even come close to TP, while You can develop TP so that it looks like TMAX or PanF?
Also, its a shame that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji don't use archival-ready polyester as base for their 135/120 films. TechPan and other disc. films were exceptions.
One might think that only larger formats deserve life beyond, what 50, maybe 100 years?

[Trask]

Regarding the agitation: well, hush my mouth. I dis-remembered incorrectly. I note the instructions caution against non-uniform development when using reels, and notes it may be best to fill the tank first and then lower in the film. I distinctly recall (as best a 60-year-old can when hearkening back 30 years) reading a Tech Pan "how-to" that suggested lining up several tanks with developer, stop, fix and then moving the reels from one to the other with those stainless steel reel rod that used to come with multi-reel tanks. I guess I conflated this technique with not doing a lot of agitation, but of course it'd be just as easy to move the reels up and down with the rod as it would be to shake it. I've got the TP, I've got the Technidol, time to try out this stuff.

[dr5chrome]

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

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?

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

Rodinal works just fine, and did you see what Emil Schildt did with Tetenal?
Against all recommendation people make it work, and beautifully so. Why argue with that?
With all due respect, I know you operate a fine business.