So you can't process it in c41 or rodinal as others have done with success?
Originally Posted by dr5chrome
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?
Originally Posted by wildbill
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...p_film_003.php
Though the test image is not indicative of contrast achieved..
Got a link for the C-41 and TP?
here's a little info on c41:
"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."
I wonder why they didn't mentioned agitation in that article from digtruth..
Originally Posted by Athiril
1+300 and just 12min doesn't sound right, at all.
Im sure the Tetenal wasn't one of them.....
Originally Posted by wildbill
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"
Last edited by gandolfi; 02-16-2012 at 10:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
With all due respect to everyone, OP was referring to landscape work, and none of the posted examples show that this would be a good film for that. Sorry, but portraiture is quite a different thing, whether in the studio or using natural light. In all the posted examples I see exactly what I expect - abrupt transitions downward from mid-tones with a sharp falloff in shadow detail, and the same thing upward from the midtones. While these characteristics may be desired on the part of the photographer, and also might be generally acceptable with portraiture, they can destroy landscape images.
I think OP is being done a disservice here. While it is commendable to think out of the box, throw the box away etc, no matter what skills we think we have there are real limitations with certain materials. The fact remains when you use a film for purposes it was not originally designed for, the downsides usually outweigh the upsides. In the case of Tech Pan, you gain only reduced graininess. For general landscape work all its other qualities are inferior. Worse than that, most POTA-derived developers such as Technidol are very prone to uneven development - again, not necessarily causing problems with some subject matter, but try a landscape with a lot of sky.
Yes, people have "made Tech Pan work" for themselves, but it is usually to create a special- effect, or in fact it doesn't work but they think it does.
Either way, implying or stating someone can use Tech Pan with the right developer and get the same results as general purpose films but without grain, is a little irresponsible in my opinion. If someone wants the ability to consistently make prints of the highest quality, under a wide variety of shooting conditions and contrast ranges, the best choice is a general purpose, medium speed fine grained film with a stable developer. If one wants these qualities, plus zero grain and higher sharpness, the only real option is larger film.
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.
Last edited by Thomas Bertilsson; 02-16-2012 at 12:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
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.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
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.
"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)."
Thomas, I did not say Tech Pan was useless for landscapes. Nor did I say every photograph has to have a long linear tonal scale. But that's just the point. Instead of telling OP about how Tech Pan might render a landscape photograph differently, people would rather give the impression the film can do anything you want if you use the right developer and so on.
The scan you posted shows a high contrast rendering with abrupt losses of detail in both shadows and highlights. There is nothing wrong with this if that is the desired tonality, and it might very well work with a subject with strong graphic elements and/or an emphasis on line. But suppose a soft rendering was desired, with a long scale, open shadows and detailed highlights? Tech Pan is not the film for that.
I just think we need to be more objective in threads like this. It's not like talking about TMY or Tri-X where there is so much flexibility. Here we're talking about a highly specialized film (at least that was the intent in its design) with relatively few development options - and most of the commercial developers designed to extract a grey scale from these films are relatively poor too.
Anyway that's my two cents. Start with the straight story, and then post examples of applications we are happy with.