25asa Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Im just gathering some info on this film. It seems its a very high contrast B&W film. So basically what do most people shoot on it and get good results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Please stop calling TechPan a high contrast film just because others don't know how to process it. This film is no more higher contrast than Plus-X or some other B/W films given proper processing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john lehman, college alask Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Technidol or Rodinol 1:100 EI 12 if you want pictorial contrast. Read the Kodak tech sheet. Personally, I shoot it in 4x5" sheet film. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_kembel Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Our department photo guy shoots all his staff portraits with Tech Pan, really nice skin tones and no grain whatsoever. It was almost like he had used a orange or red filter, the skin tones were very creamy. Definitely not just a high contrast film... I've developed it to ASA 50 (shot at EI 50 as well) in HC-110 B and it wasn't too contrasty at all and the grain was so fine I had trouble focusing on it when printing from 35mm negs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven_kembel Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 p.s. i shoot close up photos of Astro Boy with it<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I would have to respectfully disagree with some here. Tech Pan is a high contrast film IMO. In fact, before Kodak renamed it to Tech Pan (after <I>Popular Photography</I> published an article that showed how it could yield full range images with a special developer), it was called Kodak High Contrast Copy Film. I still have some old 35mm negatives with that name on it.</p> Tech Pan works best in low to moderate contrast scenes. That includes some studio lighting, or an overcast day. Reducing development can cut the contrast on any film. But realistically, the inherent contrast level of Tech Pan is quite high compared to other full tonal range films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_e Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 The folks above are correct. From the Kodak TechPan tech data available at kodak.com: "You can vary the contrast of Kodak Technical Pan film by modifying development. The wide range of contrast levels..." Page 2 shows that by varying development chems and methods, you can obtain a contrast index from .5 to 2.5 (!). I can verify this from personal experience. I've shot techpan in high contrast lighting, developed in technidol. Buttery smooth grain and a smooth contrast neg. You can learn a lot by Reading TFM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen hazelton Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I was just reading an article in an old Shutterbug (1997 or so) about it, and the guy was using it for landscapes. I have seen another article where it was used for general copying work, photo restoration, etc. As for ME, I have an outdated roll in the fridge that I DO plan to develop as "high contrast". This will be some portraits & misc., & I was just planning to see what it looked like (developing in D76). I have no need for the fine grain, or super resolving power as I don't make large prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 It seems to me that the term �high contrast� is relative. Yes, one of the principles of B&W film is that contrast can be controlled, primarily with development time, but also with the type of developer, or the dilution. But <b>compared to other films</b> I believe that Tech Pan has a high degree of inherent contrast (the only exception being other similar films such as Agfa Copex, etc.).</p> So if we don�t accept that Tech Pan is <b>relatively</b> higher in contrast, then maybe we just say all films have the same contrast when given the necessary adjustment to the development process to compensate. Then we would be saying that there is no such thing as a high contrast film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 mark... shut up. just because you can't keep the contrast down doesn't mean others aren't successful. try technidol fer chrissakes. in d76 techpan is a high contrast mofo... look at astroboy, me p.s. i shoot it in broad daylight and still have to agitate the bejesus outta it, yes, in technidol. p.p.s. yo astroboy... you need help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Getting good greyscale photos with Kodalith is slightly more of a challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clinton_buhler Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I shoot cityscapes, at dusk, at iso 25, and my lab just loves printing it. (he,he) I've got some 35mm 16x20's that look like they were shot on a 4x5 though. I think this film at 35mm probalbly has less grain than Tmax 100 at 4x5 size! It's incredible really. When you want nothing but fine grain, this is the only way to go. And yeah it's got a bit of contrast, but very nice prints can be made with a full tonal range still. Just adjust in printing, the information is all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I didn't say I couldn't keep the contrast down. I can reduce the contrast on any film. But by your definition, all films have the exact same contrast, because they can all be adjusted (by development) to whatever contrast is desired. This is <i>argumentum ad absurdum.</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed_hurst Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Is it just me, or is the rudeness unhelpful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_walton2 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I agree with you Ed, people, let's keep this civil ok! Scott, TP is slated as a high contrast film but with low contrast developers like Technidol, POTA to name a few, you can get some amazing negatives in bright sun, shade or in the studio. I used to shoot all model portfolios with this stuff. I also had alot of fun with it shooting pretty pictures for myself. You can do most any shooting with it and get absolutely grain free negatives or soot and chalk kind of stuff. With Divided D76, I rated it at 80, with TD 25 and with POTA around 12 so it really depends if you have the light and idea of what you want as an effect. As you see, there are people who get good results with other developers so testing here is a good thing to see what effect will be with a given developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 I shoot landscapes, often including figures. I have developed it in Technidol, Diafine, and Rodinal (the last two in various dilutions) and still have trouble getting good shadow detail without burned out high values. I've been meaning to try PMK but.... I love the extended red sensitivity. There's nothing even approaching it for fine grain, but for sharpness TMax100 in Rodinal 1+50 is probably even sharper (unfortunately, I don't like the look of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Scott Walton, if you agree that TP is inherently higher in contrast compared to most other films, then maybe we are in agreement. As I stated, one can reduce the contrast of any conventional B&W film, but that does not change the fact that TP has more inherent contrast than other films, which was the original point stated by the poster (which some have taken issue with). I am sorry if my injection concerning the scholarly categorization of logical arguments bothers you (and Ed), but that may be just because you are unfamiliar with them. It was not intended to be rude. My point is to say that it is absurd (using logical argumentative analysis) to say that all films have the exact same inherent contrast, just because we can compensate for the contrast through the use of special developers or special developing techniques (IMO). For example, assume we compare the same identical scene under two different lighting conditions, one in bright sunlight and the other on a very overcast day. Let us further assume (for the sake of argument), that the bright sunlit image is a higher contrast situation than the same image under overcast lighting. Obviously, one can easily compensate (via film development, paper contrast, film choice, etc) so that the final printed images have similar contrast ratios, but that does not change the nature of the scene itself with regard to its inherent contrast. One scene is higher in contrast than the other, even if we can compensate for it. My own preference, all other things being approximately equal (such as the acceptable level of grain, etc.), is to use high contrast films and developers on low contrast lighting, and visa versa. Therefore IMO, TP is most appropriately used (to answer the original question) when the inherent contrast of the scene is low to moderate, to complement the high contrast nature of the film itself. Obviously, others may have different opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige_buddy Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 hey Trib, go to the top of the page and read... Now what has Mark said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 okay... i'll show you what philo paints with his big brush. he says techpan has more contrast. when it doesn't, not in the right stuff. he's telling us, ad nauseum and i might add, in hundreds of words, what we already know. techpan was made as a copyfilm. big news there. want to know the other scoop?... philo loves to hear himself talk. love, trib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 At least I answered the question that Scott Pickering asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oliver_tan1 Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Had an assignment using TechPan 25 a few weeks back. It is a high contrast film. I shot it at 125, develop in D-76 stock for 12 or 13 min. (I don't recall) and printed on MGIv RC paper. If you shoot a person with a white shirt or sky, you'll have to flash your paper or burn the hell out of it. It took me at least 3 min. to burn a slightly grayish tone (less than 18%) which printed normally is white. I'll post some pix as soon as I get my assignment back. I like the film very much. Have fun with it and good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
25asa Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 Thanks for the replies guys. Anyway the lab I can take it to for developing (since I can't do this myself) mentioned they develope this in Xtol, not Technidol. They said in Xtol its still 25 ASA. Anyway anyone know any results of TP in Xtol? Does it get grainer or different in contrast in Xtol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m0002a Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 You don't need to worry about grain with any developer if you use Tech Pan. However, it is a little more difficult (but certainly not impossible) to get full scale images with XTOL on Tech Pan. A lot depends on what dilution and time they use. But with XTOL, it would be best to use it on low to moderate contrast scenes if you want a normal full scale image. Of course, the best way to find out is to try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_gainer Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 My brother Mike uses Tech Pan for astronomy. It is faster than TRI-X on long exposures because of closer adherence to reciprocity. Pat Gainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie_hightower Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Tech pan in 4x5. Your a phsycopath... In a good way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now