IanRivlin

XTOL - stock solution. 25C (or 76 F) Pour into the developing tank, start timer. Agitate for 30 seconds. Stand develop for 3 more minutes. No further agitation at all. ie, total time 3.5 minutes. Use a stop bath immediately after pouring out the developer. Fix for 1 - 2 minutes. (More fixing causes the highlights to be degraded) Use a wetting agent and squeegee off with a plastic chamois leather. (Never use a real one or it will streak). Use ASA setting of 15-25 This gives a contrast of gamma 0.75 - 0.8) The resolution, with 35mm film and a good lens, equals or surpasses the resolution of 50asa film, such as Plus X Pan, on medium format. I have made a very good enlargement 40"x30" with no perceptible grain, at a normal viewing distance. Indoor pictures, using a tripod, where the lighting contrast is very flat, gives results which will greatly impress.

<p>If you want to sell me your Tech Pan, I'd be pleased to hear back from you.<br> Ian</p>

Preferably don't use D76. The contrast will be very high. Do you have access to other developers? TD3 (photographer's Formulary, USA) is good. Technidol is OK. Neofin Doku is good. D 76 - highly dilute - using 600mls of fluid and using 5 seconds agitation every two minutes will work, provided you rate the film at 12 (twelve) ASA. Develop for 8 minutes (D76 diluted 1:4). The reason you must use 600mls of fluid is due to local exhaustion in shadow areas if you only use the recommended 290mls. Tech Pan film gives superlative redults BUT using highly dilute solutions will compromise the grain. Accurance doesn't improve much since the film is already extremely sharp. Use a tripod. The film is so detailed that hand held shots show up. Use a prime lens stopped down two or three clicks from maximum aperure (highest resolution? Try and use a 50mm lens at, at least, 125th second. 35mm Tech Pan outperforms - resolution wise - the best full frame DSLR (if you follow the above instructions)

I do too - and have the Minox film slitter to give 4 x 36 exposure Minox films from one 35mm roll of film. I have enlarged up to 12x16" Great results. What developer do you use?

Preferably don't use D76. The contrast will be very high. Do you have access to other developers? TD3 (photographer's Formulary, USA) is good. Technidol is OK. Neofin Doku is good. D 76 - highly dilute - using 600mls of fluid and using 5 seconds of agitation every two minutes will work, provided you rate the film at 12 (twelve) ASA. Develop for 8 minutes (D76 diluted 1:4). The reason you must use 600mls of fluid is due to local exhaustion in shadow areas, if you use the recommended 290mls. Tech Pan film gives superlative redults BUT using highly dilute solutions will compromise the grain. Accutance doesn't improve much since the film is already extremely sharp. Use a tripod. The film is so detailed that hand held shots show up camera shake easily. Use a prime lens closed down two or three stops. Ie about F4 or F5.6. (gives the highest resolution) Try and use a 50mm lens at 125th sec or more. 50mm lenses often have the best resolution but there aare numerous exceptions. Zoom lenses generally are way below the capabilities of T.P. 35mm Tech Pan outperforms - resolution wise - the best full frame DSLR (if you follow the above instructions). It even gives outstanding portraits but landscapes are where it truly excels.

After reading my own posting, I realised I had made a typo and written down conflicting information. To clarify:- Overexposure and overdevelopment can (often) increase grain. It doesn't necessarily increase contrast to the degree that causes the highlights to be burnt out. It would, of course, if the lighting were very contrasty. In low contrast situations, it's quite possible that even heavy over-development (gamma about 0.8) would still not exceed the "flat" part of the film's curve ie, its dynamic range. As always, lighting of the scene is everything. A (good) photographer will arrange lighting to suit the developing process - generally not the other way round. It sounds boring but standard developer solutions, with ordinary films (FP4, TRI-X HP5 etc) and carefully selected lighting allow for the greatest amount of manipulation and effects. It takes a lot of skill to adjust developer concentrations, times and agitation and get "better" results than slavishly following the manufacturers' recommendations. Having said all of this, T-grain films and Kodak XTOL does seem to give somewhat greater latitude than Tri-X & D76. Therefore, a few extra liberties can be taken. Try chromogenic black and white film (XP2) or actual color film and convert to B&W. Color film often allows considerable manipulation of those effects that you alluded to. There are software plugins for Lightroom that mimic all types of films and do a rather good job. If you're a purist. Wait for a dull and overcast day, get your tripod out, shoot Tri-X at 600asa and slightly overdevelop (about 10%). Bear in mind that your exposure meter, your camera, lens, water purity, temperature etc etc etc are all variables. Bracket, bracket, bracket .... *and take notes*..... Then you'll be both able to get the results you're after and have reliable reproducibility next time you take photographs. Time and hard graft spent now will make your life so much easier in the future. Henri Cartier-Bresson said:- "Your first ten thousand photographs are very likely to turn out badly". Wise words.

Thats where the underexposure comes in (no blown out hoghlighrs) and the underdevelopment doesn't give the contrast that would otherwise give hard blacks. If you overexposed and overdeveloped, the grain shoots up and the highlights get blown out (and generally are unrecoverable)

Beautiful shots almost certainly Tri-X or HP 5 (or HP3, dependent on when it was made). From the grain structure, this film would have been slightly underexposed and slightly overdeveloped (or over agitated). A standard developer, such as D76 would easily achieve these results.

In what way does this film differ from ordinary 16mm film?

Please can you give me the battery details? The link that you provided is dead.

The issue might be not using distilled water. It can make a huge difference.

I seem to remember (it was decades ago) an article describing this process. Whether it was a theoretical or actual process, I can't remember. I also can't remember if it was using film or some other base (ie electrically conductive...). Imagine a base made of gelatin or an electrically conducting gel which is infused with sensitised silver nitrate. An electrode on either side of this Gel - with a DC current flowing - would "add" electrons, ie,reduce the intervening material, surely?

Lay the negatives on an x-ray illuminated viewer, place a glass plate over them to keep the negs flat. Pho th ograph with a digital camera on a firm tripod. (multiple shots) and stitch the digital pictures together with "Autostitch". The results can be even better than a high end film scanner, if done carefully.

<p>I'd like to contribute a response - seeming unrelated - but I assure you, this is relevant....<br> I have a lot of experience in photography - decades, in fact. That doesn't make me a good photographer but I've certainly built up experience, using proprietary and home brew formulations.<br> The big problem is EXPOSURE.<br> In theory, an exposure, is an exposure, is an exposure.<br> Sadly (and frustratingly) it most certainly isn't.<br> When budding photographers ask the question "What's the best exposure meter?" - my answer is always "For what?"<br> if you use a Nikon F, with a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor lens, using FP4 and Developer X or Y or Z - and use the same exposure meter, conduct identical tests, at the same location, then develop the films in exactly the same chemical, with the same temperature and time. Believe me, you'll get different results from the other photographer.<br> It's one of life's mysteries. It sound counter intuitive, it sounds unscientific, it sounds absurd but it's true, nonetheless.<br> The only way to get good, consistent results, is to learn how to use your.(preferably narrow) range of equipment, the developer that you feel comfortable with and put in hundreds and hundreds of hours of hard experimentation.<br> You can use D76, Rodinal, TD-3 - anything at all. A photographer with years of dedicated commitment to (say) D76 and FP4 will get far better results than the scientist with a "brilliant new formulation of film and developer". <br> Acquaintance with one's equipment, lenses and developers is the secret to satisfying photography. Those that chop and change and keep searching for photographic Nirvana are destined to fail.<br> I'm not knocking anyone who does like to chop and change - I do this myself but I'm doing it for the novelty, for the challenge, for the science - FOR THE FUN. If, on the other hand, you're after the best photographic results, stick with one camera, one set of lenses, one developer and don't change unless the developer becomes unavailable or your equipments gets lost or stolen.<br> As for developers that "are good for shadows" "Good for highlights" "good for this and good for that", let me point out that some show stopping, mind bogglingly fantastic photographs were produced by people who had poor, old fashioned equipment, poor developers and unsophisticated lenses. I think the analogy might be Rembrandt with hopelessly worn out paintbrushes and rough canvases could have made a better job than a lesser artist with the best equipment.<br> I am a serial experimenter. - I'm fiddling around with 510 Pyro at present and when I get bored with that, I'll move on to something else. I've done this for many a year. Occasionally, I turn out a pleasing photo. This is more blind luck than anything else. That's a bonus but it's not what floats my boat. Experimentation floats my boat. If that's the same for you, fine but don't worry about accutance, highlights, tonal gradation, grain, compression, "rich deep blacks" or anything else. <br> Do decide what it is you're searching for in photography and stick with that philosophy.<br> FWIW, in the 1970's, I exclusively used PROMICROL. Its main developing agent was HEAP Sulphate (not paraphenylenediamine, as some erroneously say.) HEAP sulphate (2 beta, hydroxyethyl aminophenol sulphate) hasn't been made since 1988. <br> Promicrol gave a genuine increase of speed (about 1/2 to one full stop) and actually reduced grain size, even after increasing the film speed. The shadow detail was legend and the highlights rarely blew out. I thought it <em>was</em> "developing Nirvana" but since HEAP isn't available, it's gone and I had to go on this silly odyssey, trying to find a substitute. <br> Microdol-X was fairly good but wasn't sharp.<br> XTOL tries to be all things to all men but somehow leaves me wanting a lot more<br> Rodinal lasts forever and is sharp but I can't live with the ugly grain.<br> D76 is the Ford Fiesta of developers. Cheap, efficient, does a decent job - YAWN!<br> Blah, Blah, Blah Blah.<br> Find someone to remanufacture HEAP Sulphate and you can forget about every other developer. It really was that good. (There is a developer sold as "Promicrol" currently but it isn't remotely like the original formulation and could be fairly described as "yeuch").</p> <p>I'll stop rambling on now and get back to reformulating my subtly altered Pyro 510.<br> Pax vobiscum<br> Ian</p>

The great thing about shooting color is that you've got a built-in raft of filters. If you shoot color and scan, then convert to black and white, you can increase or decrease each color channel at will and have effects that could never be achieved with pan film. My advice? If you have color film, get it developed in color. Your results will end up far better.

Some cameras (ie Nikon) have a focal plane shutter that travels vertically, not horizontally. If there is a partial shutter jam, the top part of the film won't be exposed. Another issue is that the spiral in the developing tank was not tethered down by the friction collar that is put around the central post. Even with adequate development fluid, if the spiral is too high, the liquid level only gets up to an inadequate film height The third possibility is that you undercalculated the quantity of developer fluid needed.