Yes, thanks all, especially Michael R 1974:"big time expansions or distorted tonality without golf ball grain are the reasons to use these films".
Yes, this film excels in the 'expansion' you state, Michael, and is right at home with low exposure (E.I 32?) and Dektol (1:1). The fact that you simply cannot get a contrasty scene all into this film is a fact of life. Some developers might help but not succeed in getting a 'Tri-X' tonality.
georg16nik: I will look up the 'spur modular UR' but will not hold my breath in anticipation of complete success.
Bill Burk: no I have not tried Technidol. But I can say, without equivocation, that Tech Pan is not all that difficult to process in standard developers in order to obtain FULL scale negatives. All you do is either dilute and/or add sodium bicarbonate to the developer to get truly magnificent negatives. Much needs to be said as to why Tech Pan became 'in vogue' only AFTER it was discontinued for lack of interest! The film was/is sensational because it did not block up if developed with care. In fact, why, how, for what reason was the ImageLink even MADE since Tech Pan 'does it all', and without compromise?
Gerald Koch: Since you have never seen a truly satisfying negative with ImageLink maybe I, therefore, rest my case. Thanks all. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 12-03-2012 at 09:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.