Tech Pan results

I got my first roll of Tech Pan back. It was developed in Xtol at a

lab since I'm not able to process film myself. Some photos here are

results of what I ended up with. Ive noticed Pan F is a contrasty

film, but compared to Tech Pan its still tame. I've noticed little

grey values with Tech Pan as in one shot here the sky is blown out

and the foreground very dark. Is what I have here typical of Tech Pan

or is this a result of processing it in Xtol? The film was exposed at

the regular 25 ASA. One shot is a one to 2 stop difference and you

can see it did not help produce much grey tones. Tech Pan seems to

have the etched line art drawing look. Interesting results. I'm not

sure I'd want to use it as a regular film though.<div></div>

Heres a second group of photos. One on Pan F and the other on Tech Pan. You can see the difference in contrast easily.<div></div>

Here is the blown out sky vs dark foreground.<div></div>

Here is another Pan F shot that is similar to the first group of photos. And I still think Pan F is contrasty for a B&W, but not like the first group of pics. Can anything be done to Tech Pan to tame is desire to want to make things strictly black and white with litte greys?<div></div>

You must use a low contrast developer, like Kodak Technidol, to use Tech Pan pictorially (i.e., with more than two shades of gray ;D)

Also, might I add that I think that Tech Pan is more trouble than it's worth. Pan F+ doesn't require special developer and is generally more flexible, in my experience.

<p>For pictorial purposes you have to use special developers as has been mentioned. When you want the really highest resolution possible Tech Pan is the winner by a long shot. If you follow the directions that come with technidol you will get negatives of normal contrast and images that are limited by your optics only and an ISO of ~12. Photographer's Formulay sells TD-3, which is also supposed to yield normal contrast and give an ISO of about 50 at the cost of some resolution. I haven't tried it yet. Tech Pan is also more sensitive to red than other panchromatic films. The end result is that your negatives come out more or less like regular B&W films taken with a yellow #8 filter.</p>

 

<p>- <a href="http://www.sciencething.org/photos/photos.html">Blatant Plug</a></p>

Hi Scott. Here's a shot made with TP 120 developed in Technidol, EI25/RB67/180mmf4 lens/handheld/available light.<div></div>

Tech Pan in technidol works just fine if your lighting isn't too contrasty. It is very good for flat subjects or those that need more separation. The attached image was shot in the light of one 40 watt bulb in a solitary confinement cell. Nikon F3, 18mm lens. Tech Pan in Technidol per Kodaks directions.<div></div>

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1380934&size=md"><br><i>Tech Pan 120 4.5 minutes in 1:50 rodinal @ 20° C</i></center>

As you can see from the above photos, Tech Pan (previously called Kodak High Contrast Copy Film) works best in low contrast scenes. It's going to be difficult with any developer if you use it in bright sunlight.</p>

 

Regarding the claim that:</p>

 

<i>�Tech Pan is also more sensitive to red than other panchromatic films. The end result is that your negatives come out more or less like regular B&W films taken with a yellow #8 filter.�</i></p>

 

I may be wrong, but if a film is more sensitive to red than to blue light, would it not have the <b>opposite</b> effect of using a yellow filter? If I am correct, that would mean that using an yellow #8 with Tech Pan (which makes for even more contrast) would be like using a regular B&W film with no filter at all. If true, this would be one more reason why it my not be a good choice for landscapes if a sky is in the image. But maybe I missed something or interpreted the above quote incorrectly.

Nah, mr blatant plug got it right. Say you had a film that has a horizontal sensitivity curve, and you stick a red filter in front of it. The only light that passes through is the red component of your subject. So the blues and greens are diminished, and the reds are left intact. Looking overall at the system, you would say that it gave more exposure to red light, even though it was really that the light only contained red. So you'd call the film red sensitive.

 

Scott, As for the contrast of the pics, you really need to read the kodak datasheet for techpan, cause you'd find out that you can develop to different contrasts by using different developers. For instance, TP in dektol would give you lith contrast, while in technidol you'd get more greys. Technidol is the only developer they list as giving the lowest contrast, ie xtol is higher up on the contrast scale.

Since I can't develop film myself I have to send them out. I found a place in the city (1 1/2 hour drive) that developes it in Technidol. Of course the developing itself is $15 since its hand done, plus print costs after that. Kind of expensive- but at least I know where I can go. I'm not sure if costs go down if you give them more then one roll. The pictures in Xtol do have an interesting look. The landscape one shown here almost looks like one of those old photos from way back. Not quite, but sort of.

OK, I was wrong about the red sensitivity of Tech Pan. My excuse is that I posted that at 06:55 A.M. Eastern (04:55 A.M. Mountain Time Zone where I live), and I was obviously still asleep.

Mark, late at night or early in the morning, it is not that simple: �using an yellow #8 with Tech Pan (which makes for even more contrast)�. The beauty of using panchromatic films with IR-extended sensitivity for pictorial scenes is that by applying filters you can tailor the rendition to you linking, from common panchromatic, to partially IR. In the case where you have dominant natural green areas (trees, forests, etc.) they often appear too dark on panchromatic films, but very light on IR films. On Ilford SFX 200 which has the extended sensitivity to 760nm, and I believe in case of TechPan as well, with sensitivity up to 700nm, proper filtering will allow you to have overall panchromatic rendition with much lighter, and thus improved, details in grass and trees. See the enclosed example, (direct scan from negatives). Make your own tests with all possible filters at hand, but keep the negative density at equal level with all filters. Have fun.

 

Scott 15$/roll that's a good price for medical doctors, lawyers or... fashion photographers. As I mentioned in the previous thread on TP, my developer is 0.50$/gallon.<div></div>