Let's talk about Tech Pan

[sockeyed]

Let's talk about Kodak Tech Pan 25. Why? Well, because I just bought 10 rolls of the stuff in 35mm and a handful in 120. Yup, it expired in 1994, but it was frozen AND it was a buck a roll (thanks to someone 'going digital').

So, tell me about this stuff. What was it designed for? What developers work best with it? Do folks generally like it?

I shot a roll on the weekend, under bright sun of course. I souped it in Rodinal 1:100 for 7 minutes. Results are good. It has very fine grain (it better have), it's contrasty but still holds some mid tones, it doesn't have the rich tonality I expected (like Efke 25), and it has a funny thinish floppyish base.

Let's hear your $0.02.

Thanks!

(samples attached)

 

[sockeyed]

Here are a couple of other samples.

(And more at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/tags/techpan/)

 

[Pherdinand]

the original developer designed for it was technidol, i think.

I also have a few expired tech pan in 120 (got for 1 euro per roll) so i looked up once some info on it. Incl a question on photo.net...where people suggested using technidol or being very careful with the exposure index.
Depending on the developer and your goals, you can shoot it from ei 6 till ei100 they say. Of course higher ei and corresp development will mean increase in contrast.
I have no personal experience with it, moreover i am glad you shared this.
Noone in the town could develop it in technidol, and noone guaranteed proper development so i didn't use it yet. I'll keep it until i can do my own development🙂 and for some special occasion/shots.

 

[clarence]

That tonality's enough for me. I like the contrast too, but I'm thinking of pushing the limits of my Tech Pan's contrast even further, perhaps until it resembles lith development. Suits my landscape photography.

Does anyone have any idea how to do that in Rodinal?

Clarence

 

[ZeissFan]

I believe Technical Pan was created for high-contrast copy work and then later adapted to general purpose photography. Technidol is a compensating developer, I believe, which lowers the film's usual high contrast. Coupled with Technidol, you rate the film at ISO25.

Processing with Technidol is slightly different. The instructions call for you to fill the tank, drop the loaded film reel into the tank in darkness, cap and shake vigorously for five seconds. All agitation is done by shaking vigorously for five seconds. After capping your tank, you can turn the lights on.

With supplies of Technidol disappearing, some have turned to Rodinal. However, I would suggest an even thinner dilution with Rodinal, because I can see that your photos are pushing the limits on contrast. One fellow processes at 1:300 for 14 1/2 minutes with five seconds of agitation every 30 seconds.

Clarence, if you're looking for even more contrast, I would suggest a lower dilution in Rodinal, maybe 1:50. However, because the film isn't being made any more, testing these development processes certainly will burn up your supply of TPan.

It's another great film killed off by Kodak.

These are on TPan -- processed in Rodinal. Shot with a Contarex + f/2.0 50mm Planar.

 

[clarence]

I really like those photos you've got there, Mike. Very nice, punchy contrast while still retaining tonal seperation. Was that Rodinal 1:50?

In particular, the dog's eyes had me entranced.

Clarence

 

[ddunn]

The 15th Edition of the Leica Manual has a chapter by Jerry katz & Sidney Fogel on ultrasharp B&W photography with high contrast films. They give a formula for Levy developer & did some tests with H&W Control Developer. This no longer made, but the formula is at
http://www.frugalphotographer.com/formulary.htm

Bluefire is the current equivalent of Kodak Technical Pan. You can get more info at
http://www.frugalphotographer.com/catBluefire.htm

 

[clarence]

I thought that Bluefire was repackaged film, meant to be used with the Bluefire developer? Or have I confused it with Gigabit (repackaged Agfa Copex).

Clarence

 

[sockeyed]

Thanks for of your thoughts, everyone.

You have quite lovely tonality in your images, ZeissFan. Are they souped in Technidol or in high-dilution Rodinal?

I'll try the 1+300 on my next roll. At that dilution, I'll never have to buy another bottle of Rodinal!

 

[arthury]

Here's one I developed in D76 and scanned ...
It's the closest thing to being grainless.

 

[arthury]

Ilford PanF+ does a pretty good job, too, if you want grainlessness ...

 

[John Shriver]

Tech Pan was the replacement for High Contrast Copy. I used to use the latter in D-19 developer for really high contrast images. Very sharp, too.

There were a variety of developers made for taming the inherent high contrast of Tech Pan. See Anchell & Troop, Film Developing Cookbook.

There are developers made to try to tame "real" microfilms, like SPUR. Some are for Agfa Copex, others for Kodak Imagelink. Vendors have been seen to repackage both films, as in Bluefire, which was Copex. Imagelink should be readily available in 100 foot rolls, but the minimum order quantity is probably 20 rolls. Copex is presumably vanishing along with all Agfa films.

Note that the true microfilms are even higher contrast than Tech Pan, so it's even more challenge to tame the contrast. Very thin emulsions (for sharpness), but it's easy to over-fix.

Oh, there are folks developing Imagelink in Caffenol -- a developer based on Folger's Instant Coffee.

 

[rpinchbeck]

I stopped off at the Frugal Photographer while bicycling home on Tuesday afternoon. The Calgary location is now called Adox Fotowerke. I knew the shop was somewhere in the area where I cycle home. I chatted with David and he tossed me a roll of Bluefire to try out. I currently have it in my Horizon 202.

I'm very curious to see the results.

Cheers,

Russ Pinchbeck

 

[ZeissFan]

Those shots were in Rodinal, 1:300. The real tricky part is measuring 1 milliliter of Rodinal, even with a lab pipette.

Although it might seem wasteful, it's easier to prep a much larger amount, say 0.9, 1.2 or even 1.5 liters and then discard what you don't use.

 

[clarence]

Thanks, Mike. I'm definitely going to try that out. I normally develop in large batches, in a 1 litre tank, so it's no issue to me.