Processing old Kodak Tech Pan with Rodinal?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by jamie_robertson|2, Mar 17, 2013.

  1. Hi folks,
    I have an old 35mm roll of this famous film and it's been jumping between my fridge and freezer for about 15 years. It expired in the late 90's (I think) but has obviously been well stored.
    1. Am I correct in thinking this film should ideally be rated at ISO 25?
    2. If so, do you think I will need to expose it at a lower ISO due to its age? My gut feeling is that it will probably be fine at ISO 25 because such slow B/W films take a very long time to degrade. Nevertheless, I would like your thoughts.
    3. Most importantly, I am going to process it with Rodinal (Rollei R09) and have no idea of dilutions and processing times. Can you advise?
    Many thanks :)
     
  2. It's a shame you can't get a packet of Technidol to process it in. Or you could buy TD-3, POTA, or Modified POTA (Delagi #8) from Photographer's Formulary. People make Rodinal work, but it's going to be high contrast.
     
  3. I believe it is ISO 25 in Technidol.

    Higher ISO and higher contrast in most other developers.
    Last I looked, the data sheet was still available on Kodak's web site.
     
  4. Oh that's a shame. I don't do much B/W processing so I will not be buying a developer specifically for this job. I thought I had read somewhere that Rodinal can be used with an extremely low dilution. That's ideally the method I am looking for.
     
  5. It's been a long time now, but I used to rate TechPan at asa 25 and developed in Rodinal 1:200 all the time. It was darn good too! Yes, contrast is always a little high with TechPan, but the diluted Rodinal seemed no worse than other developers I tried. I can't remember my times, but I'm sure they weren't on the short side. I also remember using a slightly larger tank to allow more developer since the dilution was so great. With high dilutions you don't want the developer to exhaust before it's done it's job. More ounces of working solution means less chance of that.
     
  6. Another suggestion:
    http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/product_tests/atp_film_003.php
     
  7. Thanks again folks. I think I will shoot it at ISO 25 and go for 1:300 dilution for 12 minutes at 20c as per Alan's link. I will also make sure I use a large tank and use plenty of solution to ensure there is no shortage of active agent in there. :)
     
  8. Thank you Robert, that's put a spanner in the works ;-)
     
  9. Be sure to let us know how it comes out. I think you're going to like your results. JohnW
     
  10. TD-3, POTA, or Modified POTA (Delagi #8)​
    These type of developers are working in low contrast and stretching the logD curve. I prefer them to Rodinal/ R09 o.s. even with ATP1.1 because you can go a little bit higher in E.I. and you have more control of the contrast.
    Here an example of ATP1.1 (35mm) in Rollei Low Contrast 1+5 6:30 minutes at 20C, a type of modified POTA from Udo Raffay. E.I. 20 and done with a Zorki 4K + Jupiter-12 lens. It was a part of a test Leica M7 - Elmarit versus Z4K - J-12. The Z4K camera was Eur. 23,- incl. the CLA, the J-12 Eur. 50,- . Epson V500 scan.
    [​IMG]
    The same film but on E.I. 15 in Rodinal 1+150, 6:30 minutes at 20C, this time with Leica optics. Epson V500 scan.
    [​IMG]
    Both ATP1.1 and Kodak TP are extended Red sensitized. Rollei ATP1.1 is a product from Agfa Gevaert in Belgium. Working with the dedicated ATP-DC developer gives a simmilar result in RLC but a tick lower in contrast and then you can use this type of micro film on E.I. 25-32.
    However all these type of films give a limitation in a higher light contrast scene. With your Kodak TP you can expect something shown in above examples. When printing from an enlarger on 30x40cm or bigger the differences are more clear then these examples with a V500 scan.
     
  11. Be sure to let us know how it comes out. I think you're going to like your results. JohnW​
    I certainly will, but be prepared for a very long wait. I will be loading this film into one of my spare EOS cameras and will only use it when a suitable shot is really worth taking. I don't want to just burn through this film as it will be my first and only chance to use Tech Pan.
     
  12. Thanks Robert. Any of those two results will please me but I prefer the top image. I won't be wet printing, just scanning and possibly printing from the digital file at a later date. I suppose a lower contrast negative would be preferable for scanning.
     
  13. Rodinal will probably not be a good choice.

    Want a wild suggestion? The best results I ever got with Tech Pan were with XTOL. I forget the time and dilution, but it was published in Kodak's publications back in the day. (If you're desperate, I have a copy of the publication in the darkroom - but since the darkroom is at my mother-in-law's house I don't have immediate access to it.)

    The fun part? EI 6. The negatives also look this beautiful brownish colour, not that this matters.
    They're the best negs I ever got from Tech Pan, and if I could still buy it I'd definitely be shooting it today - but at EI 6 you'll need a tripod even in full sun, unless you want to use wide apertures. Even in full, bright sun you'd be about 1/100 sec. at f/4.
     
  14. There is a thread here by Jay deFehr about Obsidian Aqua. Halfway thru I asked if it would be OK for Imagelink HQ, another contrasty microfilm by Kodak, and he has a suggestion and example of the results there.. It turned out to be a bit OT but the information was welcome here. He called it 'soft and low'.
    Also see Jack Dong and ULC-3 which he published here, too. Again, IL HQ.
    Also don't forget the H&W recommended for Bluefire copy film.

    I am presently looking at a Minoz film (Rollei Retro 80S) done in Studional 1:80 with the diluent water with 1g/L of Pot. Thiocyanate. Stand for 1 hour. Looks most promising. SPUR used to have KSCN in their brews to great effect.
    Good luck
    Murray
     
  15. The unkinkingeye.com website has a time for TP in Microphen 1:5. Stock Microphen keeps well and the 1:5 dilution means you still get the phenidone which Technidol uses but the sodium sulfite is kept at a low level in the working solution.
     
  16. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf

    Next to Technidol, it seems that HC-110 Dilution F is the next choice for lower contrast. Gamma of 1.05 to 1.3, EI of 30 to 60.

    For the other end, Dektol EI 200 and Gamma of 3.6.
    For some time now, there has been someone on eBay slowly selling off 150 foot rolls for $210.
     
  17. Thank again chaps. I won't be buying new developer just for this one roll of film so I will definitely be using Rodinal. I don't do much B/W work so a new batch of developer would end up getting wasted.
    When I do eventually get the chance to shoot this roll I will report back with the results :)
     
  18. Seems that you want a high dilution, and corresponding long development time. HC-110 is a fine, general purpose B&W developer, so you should be able to get plenty of use from a bottle. See:
    http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

    Dilution F is 1:79 from the concentrate, where dilution B (1:31) would be a more usual film developer. Given that, I would dilute your Rodinol 2:3, expose the TP2415 at EI32, and develop it for about 6 minutes.
    If you want high contract, EI200, and Dektol for 3 minutes.
    Note besides the change in developer, EI32 for lower contrast, EI200 for higher contrast.
     
  19. I wrote:
    Seems that you want a high dilution, and corresponding long development time.​

    After writing that, it seems not to be right. For TP2415, lower contrast seems to be at higher exposures (EI 25-64) and so not long development times, but in a weaker developer.
    My usual film developer is Diafine (my grandfather told me about it 45 years ago, and it has been my favorite ever since). I did try one roll of TP2415, at EI200, and it came out high contrast, as expected.
    I have some unmixed powder for other film developers, so I might try one of them. I have about half of a 150 foot roll.
     
  20. Pretty sure I have a packet of technidol! Do you want it if I can mail it to you?
     

Share This Page