Your experience with true Tech Pan successors

[christer_almqvist2]

Now that there is virtually no Tech Pan any more, it may be time to exchange experience with the true

successors that have been on the market for a few years now. (The term "true successors" has been

choosen to exclude conventional low speed, fine grain film as enough material on these can be found

on the net already.)

 

There are at least four films that can be loosely described as Tech Pan true successors;

 

Gigabitfilm (presumably Agfa Copex) and its similarly named developer. I have no experience with this

film. Some people love it, others hate it.

 

Orthopan UR and Spur Nanospeed UR developer. I had a few instances of uneven development with this

combination, but that may be due to my agitation and the fact that I used higher dilution than

recommended by SPUR. Otherwise I found enlargements from this film superior to Tech Pan.

 

 

Adox CMS 20 and Adotech CMS developer. The film is orthopancromatic and is said to be very similar,

if not identical, to Orthopan UR, but the developer is said to be different. I have no personal experience.

 

Kodak Imagelink and Spur Imagespeed developer. I expose (e.i.25-50) and develop like it says in the

developer instructions and I am very pleased with the results.

 

What would interest me would be:

 

- experience with developers other than those mentioned which generally are quite expensive

 

- experience with higher dilutions (so that Paterson 290 ml tanks can be used).

 

- experience with agitation and the effect on evenness of development.

[ed_sawyer]

"Now that there is virtually no Tech Pan any more,"

 

Well, I patently disagree with that premise. It's out there, just on the secondary market. it keeps well so even out of date it's still useful. Technidol is still available. Why not continue to shoot Tech Pan? IMNSHO I have yet to see a film that matches it. It would be interesting to see your results vis a vis Orthopan UR and Spur Nanospeed UR developer if you have identical shots in both. Or, the Kodak imagelink.

 

FWIW

-Ed

[wieslaw1]

I do not understand this =true successors= notion of one film vs.

another.

 

A film with IR extended sensitivity (Tech-Pan) is supposed to be

replaced by an orthopanchromatic film (Orthopan UR)? In what way?

 

And what do you mean by finding enlargements from this (Orthopan) film

superiour to those on Tech Pan? Probably beacause you did not get

=the uneven development= this time? Congratulations, but I can

provide you with a darkroom technician capable of making superb

enlargements to any of your trials.

[willscarlett]

Maybe he doesn't feel like spending his money on Tech Pan and is exploring the options that exist, in which case you forgot the new Rollei Technical Pan, which was formulated with the same extended red sensitivity that Kodak Tech Pan was.

 

I've used the Kodak Imagelink HQ film, rated @ 25 with the Technidol developer and gotten good continuous tone negatives. However, when compared with the Agfa Scala that I shot side by side with the Imagelink HQ and developed as a negative, the HQ film was higher contrast. I've also used Adox CMS 20 with the Adotech developer with very nice results that were very consistent. The only bad exposures on the roll with night shots since I didn't know the reciprocity. There is a way to developer Adox CMS 20 in Rodinal... let me look it up and get back to you. I've heard that if you were to develop Imagelink HQ in Rodinal that you would need to shoot it with an ISO of 6.

 

You still can find Tech Pan on the secondary market, but it's often hard to find just a few rolls and you have to shell out big bucks to pay the film hoarders what they want for their bricks.

 

I've gotten superb 16x20 enlargements from Tech Pan, Rollei Ortho 25 and Rollei Pan 25 that when viewed with the naked eye, all basically look the same. Sure, the different spectral sensitivities play into how the print looks, but with the naked eye, they're all very similar in terms of grain. I've gotten good results from Tech Pan, but it is a tricky film to use. You will find an equal amount of Tech Pan lovers and haters out there... but can't we just answer this guy's question as to other options instead of trying to make like this is the end-all of film?

[willscarlett]

Oh, it's pretty accurate to say that Imagelink HQ film has the same grain structure as Tech Pan, just minus the extended red sensitivity. There's also Imagelink FS film, which you start rating at ISO 50.

[User_502260]

If you are shooting in 120 size you can contact Film For Classics. They should be able to sell you Imagelink HQ or FS. I agree with John-Paul that where grain and sharpness are concerned the Imagelink HQ looks as good as Technical Pan. You don't need exotic or expensive developers for it. Microphen at 1:5 works. Any dilute phenidone based developer if you experiment with it a little. I used dilute Clayton CP developer with some success but if any air os left in the containes the ph of CP will change and your negatives will be too dense. Clayton F60 at a high enough dilution should work well. If you need the different spectral sensitivity then Imagelink will not work well for you unless you use some kind of filtration. Document films are not foor for every subject. A film like ACROS in 120 size will enable you to make very large grainless enlargements.

[nickc1]

If it helps, this link has a comparison between Tech pan and Rollei Ortho 25 - from a supplier of Ortho 25, though.

 

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/PDF/Jan_06.pdf

[christer_almqvist2]

Thank you all for your replies and comments.

 

Yes, I am aware that Tech Pan is available on the secondary market for the time being, but

sometime in the future there will be no more. I prefer to make the change to a similar film

now that I am under no pressure to make the change. Btw, I use 35 mm film and I am

mainly looking for fine grain. (And sharpness and beautiful grey scale and and and)

 

"Substitute" was probably the word I should have used instead of "successor" when I tried

to describe what I am looking for. (English is not my mother tongue, nor are the two other

languages that I mainly use, which sometimes makes life a little bit difficult.) OK,

somebody will say that nothing can substitute Tech Pan. But I guess you know what I

mean.

 

Yes John-Paul, I would be interested to learn how Adox CMS can be developed in Rodinal. I

used Rodinal and Xtol 1+3 with Tech Pan exposed at e.i. 25 with very good results, so that

is what I would like to continue doing.

 

In the meantime here are som links that may be of interest:

 

http://www.8x11film.de/spur/navengl.html

 

(you can navigate a bit on that site if you wish)

 

http://www.adox.de/english/

 

(ditto; look under "film")

[bobmichaels]

Christer, I know you asked for a 35mm solution and not by simply using a larger negative size.

 

But you are asking for the equivalent of the best three piece suit to swim the 100 meter freestyle or speed tips for a John Deere tractor.

 

Remember that anyone with a cheap 6x6 or 6x7 camera and just about any film from the photo store will exceed your expectations by a long ways.

 

There are many ways to accomplish your goals. But constraining yourself to a small negative is a major detriment.

 

Yes, I have shot 35mm Tech Pan. I concluded it was a very difficult way to accomplish the same print quality that I could so much simpler.

[willscarlett]

Hey Christer, here's the info I have on Adox CMS 20 in Rodinal -

 

1:100 for 18 minutes. Agitation was 5-10 seconds every minute; temperature 68F

 

Hope this helps... I haven't tried this, but another photo.netter told me it's worked very well

for him.

[christer_almqvist2]

Bob,

 

you may be right ("a cheap 6x6 or 6x7 camera and just about any film from the photo

store will exceed your expectations by a long ways") but I want to minimize my equipment

and seeing that a friend who bought a medium format for the reasons you mentioned,

hardly ever uses it due to its bulk, I am will remain a 35 mm user.

 

I am not looking for results that will make my 35mm prints look like they were made with

a large size camera. I just want fine grain prints from 35mm film. That's all.

 

John-Paul

 

thank you for your information. It is in line with my experience with Tech Pan which I

developed in Rodinal 1+150 with good result. I shall try it, because I also try to minimize

the number of developers I use. My goal is two developers (Rodinal and Xtol). Add to that

the price advantage of Rodinal over spezialized developers.

[nealcurrie]

I'm simply ponied up the bucks to buy Techpan on Ebay. I have an embarrassing amount of it that I'll likely never finish. With technidol, I haven't had any difficulties getting good results.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

If anyone wants to buy this film- I have plenty for sale, but it won't be cheap.

[jerry_friedman]

Hi Dan;

 

Which film are you talking about when you say that you have some available? I would be interested in knowing because i have a limited amount of Tech Pan left.

 

regards, Jerry

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

Hi. I have lots of Tech Pan.