Tech Pan 2415

i recently discoverd an un-used roll of tech pan 2415 film in a recent yard sale buy.included in a bunch of expired film with my pentax me i bought,no idea hopw old or how it was stored but i'm curious about it.i was thinking of shooting it asa 25 to see what it will give.from what i found out it looks like a pretty interesting film stock.any suggestions about shooting it, and i would probably develop it in df96 monobath .what do you think??

Technical Pan - Wikipedia

 

Many older films can work pretty well even years after 'expiration' date. I'd just process it according to the original Kodak data sheets to start with.(Google)

Processing in DF96 will be a total waste of this film IMO. Because you can't control the contrast adequately with a monobath. It needs special development to get anywhere near normal contrast out of it. Otherwise you'll just get a 'soot & whitewash' effect (which is what this copying film was designed to deliver).

 

FWIW. Back in the day, I worked my way through about half-a-dozen rolls of this stuff, trying different recommended developers, developing times and EI ratings. I never did get any results that I found tonally satisfactory, nor the reputed super resolution that was supposed to make all that processing kerfuffle worth while.

I recommend HC-110 dilution F.

 

It is next on the contrast list to Technidol. I have one roll done this way, though maybe not scanned.

 

The other choice is ISO 200, with a few different developers, for an extremely high contrast.

TechPan seems to keep forever, so the chances are very, very good your roll is still good.

 

The appeal of TechPan isn't the lack of grain - you can get that with TMX and Microdol-X - but the large-format creaminess of the resulting prints. Really, truly, it is possible to get 4x5 results out of a 35mm camera.

 

The best developer for TechPan is, unsurprisingly, Technidol. Which you can't get except at high prices on ebay.

 

C-41 process uses a low contrast developer that will work with TechPan. Do not use the whole C-41 process with blix (or seperate bleach & fix) or you will get clear film. Camera stores used to know to do this. You can also diy it with a developing time of ~8 minutes at 20C. Rate it at 12. Results are, well, meh, in my judgement.

 

Photographers' Formulary sells TD-3 specifically for TechPan, which some people like and some don't (no surprise there). I haven't tried it.

 

And then there are Rodinal and HC-110. I have tried both and in my book the results do not come close to what this film is capable of. Like any B&W film you can develop it in darned near anything and get an image - whether that is an image you like is, tautologically, up to you.

 

In summary, my advice is if you can't get hold of Technidol then the Formulary's TD-3 is probably the best bet. The other alternative is to sell the roll on photo.net or ebay. The smallest bottle of TD-3 will process ~20 rolls so there are plenty of people with developer just sitting there on the shelf waiting for some TechPan to roll their way.

Edited September 7, 2021 by nicholas_lindan

The appeal of TechPan isn't the lack of grain - you can get that with TMX and Microdol-X - but the large-format creaminess of the resulting prints. Really, truly, it is possible to get 4x5 results out of a 35mm camera.

If you have prints from 5x4 to compare the Tech-pan to; why not just shoot 5x4?

 

Any examples of those creamy, just like 5x4, Tech-pan 35mm prints/scans? Because I've never seen any, and even carefully following every guide I could find to getting normal tonality on the stuff, nothing came close to a 5x4 negative taken with useably fast FP4plus or T-Max 100.

my developer formula ( ULC )for kodak imagelink microfilm

The oddball chem is used only as a wetting agent, so he says. PhotoFlo?

Have a look at his albums before you write this one off.

I gave away my Speed Graphic after it broke the neck strap (and my neck).

On the menu also (they gave good results with Adox CMS 20):

Adotech IV

TDLC-103

Caffenol CLCN

Adox CMS20 developer | Page 3 | Photrio.com Photography Forums

Alan, I agree with your comment in that thread about streaking. I had so bad a result I never went back to phenidone. SPUR reommend plenty of agitation for 90 or 120 seconds at commencement to reduce 'schleren'? or streaking.

Alan, I agree with your comment in that thread about streaking. I had so bad a result I never went back to phenidone.

But in your previous link there's 5.5 grams of the stuff in that formula!

 

Seems excessive. I suspect the Phenidone and Ascorbic acid weights have been inadvertently swapped over.

 

Looking at most of the 'low contrast' formulae, it appears that there's nothing too special about them apart from the high dilution used. This can definitely result in patchy development.

 

Use of inherently low contrast developers, like Glycin, Phenidone and Metol would be a better approach..... Or simply shoot a larger format with a more forgiving film.

 

Tiny crops of the same subject shot on FP4. One using a 5"x4" camera + 180mm Sironar lens, and the other with 35mm + 55mm Micro-Nikkor.

I don't think I need to label which is which.

(The Sironar lens also has some cement separation BTW.)

Edited September 16, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Processing in DF96 will be a total waste of this film IMO. Because you can't control the contrast adequately with a monobath. It needs special development to get anywhere near normal contrast out of it. Otherwise you'll just get a 'soot & whitewash' effect (which is what this copying film was designed to deliver).

 

FWIW. Back in the day, I worked my way through about half-a-dozen rolls of this stuff, trying different recommended developers, developing times and EI ratings. I never did get any results that I found tonally satisfactory, nor the reputed super resolution that was supposed to make all that processing kerfuffle worth while.

 

I also went through a short phase in which I was shooting lots of TechPan - developing in Technidol as per Kodak's instructions. I was occasionally able to make use of the super resolution with very careful technique and superb lenses, but when using anything but top-notch lenses the film was clearly more capable than the lens.

About 15 years ago I shot, developed, printed, scanned (prints), and posted a detailed comparison of A) 35mm TMX vs B) 35mm Tech Pan vs. b) 6x4.5 TMX vs D) 6x7 TMX. You can see full details at Technicalities, though the tl;dr version is that with prints at 16x20, TechPan did pretty darn well compared to the much bigger negatives.