Tech Pan withTD-3 Problem

[baisao]

<p>I developed a roll of 135 Kodak Tech Pan in TD-3 yesterday and I frustrated with the results. The scans have small white specks all over them and the grain looks unattractive. It's not dust and doesn't look like pin holes to my eyes, but I could be wrong about the latter. The film was exposed at EI 32. Here is my process:</p>

<p>I used distilled water for every step and for mixing all chemicals. The temperature was maintained at 20° for every step except the very final wash, which was more than 24°. </p>

<ol>

<li>Presoak for 5 minutes</li>

<li>TD-3 Developer (10:10:100) @ 20° @ 21 min. w/ gentle agitation for 20 sec. every 3 min.</li>

<li>Water Stop rinse - 3 times at 30+ seconds each, with agitation</li>

<li>TF-4 Fixer for 5 minutes, with typical agitation</li>

<li>Water rinse - 3 times at 30+ seconds each, with agitation</li>

<li>Hypo Clear (1:4) for 3 min.</li>

<li>Water rinse in circulating water for 8 minutes at no more than 24°</li>

<li>Wetting Agent for 1 minute</li>

</ol>

<p>I use TF-4 and the water stop procedure with Pyrocat-HD and various B&W films w/out issues. The fixer is still quite fresh.</p>

<p>What is causing these ugly spots/grain?</p><div></div>

[baisao]

<p>Full image</p><div></div>

[glen_h]

<p>I have some TP to try sometime, but didn't know about TD-3.<br>

<br />Otherwise, I don't know.<br>

The 4C difference is a little high, but shouldn't be a problem.<br>

Recently, I got both bottles of Diafine and the rinse water warm, but forgot about the fixed. It was probably more than 4C colder, but the negatives look fine. Most often, I don't have that problem, but as it gets colder out, my darkroom gets colder, too.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>How old is the TP and how was it stored? That could be part of the problem. You might try another roll with a different developer and see if you still get them. To figure this out you will have to just go one step at a time. I had some old Microfilm that did that. I tried 3 different developers and new filtered fixer. I had to chock it up to age.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>My experience says that finer grain films last longer.<br>

Panatomic-X is pretty good even after 50 years.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Oh I know this but even bad storage can cause damage to fine grain films or moisture.</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>"How old is the TP and how was it stored? That could be part of the problem." - Larry Dressler</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was sourced from the Film Photography Project, with the following statement: "Supply has been stored frozen by experienced film shooters." This is vague but I imagine it is as fresh as TP could be.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The 4C difference is a little high, but shouldn't be a problem." - Glen Herrmannsfeldt</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I've developed a couple hundred rolls of various films in various developers and never had a problem with using room temperature (24°) stop, fix, rinse, and wash after a 20° developer. Is Tech Pan more sensitive to reticulation than other films?</p>

<p>There are few things that I did differently with this development than my others:</p>

<ol>

<li>It was my first time using TD-3</li>

<li>It was my first time using Hypo Clear</li>

<li>It was my first time maintaining 20° throughout the process (except for the final wash)</li>

<li>It was my first time developing Kodak Tech Pan</li>

</ol>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>Odd FPP has pretty good stuff.</p>

[baisao]

<p>Could these spots/grains appear this way because TP is a lithographic film (tones created in a matrix of black/white dots like newspaper images)?</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I have done TP in Diafine, where it comes out just like any very high contrast film should.<br>

No spots, but no grays, either. </p>

[deanmeeks]

<p>Jim,</p>

<p>These spots still look like dust spots to me. The scanner really pulls this junk out beyond what you'd get<br />in a wet print. I've had negs that look like this purely because of dust, other times hardly at all when I hang the negs in a smaller and cleaner environ. It really depends on the atmosphere of the room you're hanging the negs. The naked eye cannot see these airborne particles, and if there is an A/C vent in the room where the negs are drying it only makes it worse.</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>"These spots still look like dust spots to me." - Mark Meeks</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the response, Mark. These were dried in a pre-fogged bathroom, in the shower with the door closed. They were then taken immediately to my Nikon CoolScan IV and scanned. I've done this 200+ times and have never seen anything like this. I might get 5-6 spots of dust (max!) on a 35mm neg but not hundreds.</p>

 

[glen_h]

<p>If they are dust you should seem them if you hold the film with a bright light not so far from parallel to the film plane. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"Could these spots/grains appear this way because TP is a lithographic film (tones created in a matrix of black/white dots like newspaper images)?"<br /><br />In lithography/printing, the halftone dots are created by a halftone screen placed over the film. They are not in the film itself.</p>

[baisao]

<blockquote>

<p>"If they are dust you should seem them if you hold the film with a bright light not so far from parallel to the film plane." - Glen Herrmannsfeldt</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. I am thoroughly certain that these spots are not dust. But what?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"They are not in the film itself." - Craig Shearman</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for explaining that the grid is not part of the film. My eyes were "matrix-ing" on the image and seeing a fine grid at times.</p>

<p>Could the specs be caused by the Hypo Clear interacting with the stain imparted by the developer?</p>

 

[Edwin Barkdoll]

<p>Technical Pan can be very fussy about developing. Even though you are not using Technidol it may be informative to read Kodak's document on Tech Pan:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/p255.pdf</a></p>

<p>I have not encountered the grain as you have although I have seen mottling if not very careful about agitation. I have also prefilled the tank with developer before dropping in the film and reel. Next close the tank and tap it firmly on a flat surface several times to dislodge any small bubbles that may appear as small white spots on the print.</p>

<div></div>

[baisao]

<p>Thanks for the whitepaper, Edwin. I'll give it a read. Your photo above is very nice, more in line with what I was expecting. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Next close the tank and tap it firmly on a flat surface several times to dislodge any small bubbles that may appear as small white spots on the print." -- Edwin Barkdoll</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With a staining developer I usually agitate very gently, as slow as three inversions in 12 seconds. For TD-3 it was suggested that it should be agitated 10 times across 20 seconds. Additionally, I don't introduce air bubbles into my developer- I pour everything down the sides of the measuring beaker and stir. </p>

<p>I normally tap the tank when using non-staining developers. Perhaps I should do this with the staining developers, too.</p>

 

[IanRivlin]

This isn't my experience.  I have a freezer and 'fridge full of Tech Pan (and Kodachrome....) I use this film/developer. The grain is extremely fine,  I never get specks. My problem is that the negatives come out very thin - so thin that if there's the tiniest defect on the base or emulsion,  that imperfection is,  of course,  translated to the print. I have even developed Tech Pan in undiluted TD-3 working solution for 10 minutes and the negatives are still thin.  The information is still there (in the shadows and highlights) but because the shadow detail is so close to the density of the base material, any artefact in the emulsion isn't tolerated. I do get excellent results and I'm still sticking with the combination.  (I've tried Adotech lV, highly dilute XTOL and many other low contrast developers, but, IMO, TD-3 gives the best overall results.

I would definitely use a new batch of TD-3 and find another source for Tech Pan, in case your batch has become affected by heat, age or radiation (I bought a mini Geiger counter and was surprised how much extraneous radiation there is in unlikely places).

You'll still pick up Tech Pan in various places.  If it's been correctly stored,  it keeps for decades.