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?