How "standard" is Tech Pan development for pictorial B&W work?
Mxsmanic
basis, including generic black-and-white development and printing. I
get pretty good results from them for T-Max and Tri-X. My question is:
If I shoot some Kodak Tech Pan for general pictorial work (street scenes
and the like), and I bring it to them, will their "standard" development
chemistry produce acceptable results? All I know is that it is Ilford
chemistry and that it produces good results with the aforementioned
films. If this would work with Tech Pan as well, what EI should I use
when shooting the Tech Pan?
Essentially I just want to experiment with Tech Pan, but I don't have a
darkroom of my own. I'm curious about the ultra-high resolution of the
film. I've read that it can be used for general pictorial work, but
everything I've read is accompanied by complicated explanations of just
exactly how to develop it, and I don't want to develop myself. Is there
a chance that my preferred one-hour lab can do the job? I prefer to
avoid going to a fancy pro lab for development if I don't have to (that
would almost make home development start to look good).
The developed negatives would be scanned directly, not printed, if that
makes a difference.
christoph manz
a one-hour will _very_ likely blow it... do it yourself, bring it to a
pro lab or use other film such as TMX or APX for fine grain...
techpan has very high contrast, therefore needs a low contrast
compensating developer... while developing the film is not really
complicated, it still has to run in a special batch...
my advice is to do it yourself, all you need is a tank, some cheap
rodinal dev and a standard fix... it won't cost you more than $ 0.50 per
roll... check rec.photo.darkroom in the deja archives...
++ christoph ++
______________________________________________________________________
++ for direct responses use <zemfilms *at* crosswinds *dot* net> ++
QDB
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
> There's a one-hour lab near me that does all sorts of work on an express
> basis, including generic black-and-white development and printing. I
> get pretty good results from them for T-Max and Tri-X. My question is:
> If I shoot some Kodak Tech Pan for general pictorial work (street scenes
> and the like), and I bring it to them, will their "standard" development
> chemistry produce acceptable results? All I know is that it is Ilford
> chemistry and that it produces good results with the aforementioned
> films. If this would work with Tech Pan as well, what EI should I use
> when shooting the Tech Pan?
>
> Essentially I just want to experiment with Tech Pan, but I don't have a
> darkroom of my own. I'm curious about the ultra-high resolution of the
> film. I've read that it can be used for general pictorial work, but
> everything I've read is accompanied by complicated explanations of just
> exactly how to develop it, and I don't want to develop myself. Is there
> a chance that my preferred one-hour lab can do the job? I prefer to
> avoid going to a fancy pro lab for development if I don't have to (that
> would almost make home development start to look good).
>
> The developed negatives would be scanned directly, not printed, if that
> makes a difference.
>
>
had trouble getting even development. I'm thinking of trying again with
6x7...
At it's best, Tech Pan is unsurpassed. But don't expect the average
hight St lab to be set up to devlop it properly. It needs a low
contrast developer like Technidol, or (I've heard) very dilute Rodinal.
I'd have a go at doing it yourself.
Check the rec.photo.darkroom group where there are a couple of current
messages on this topic, plus a suggestion posted in reply to a question
I asked about Tech Pan development (anyone else have development
suggestions?????)
--
QDB
Mxsmanic
news:1efox5r.1o9crw71ygwpe6N%zem_...@usa.net...
> a one-hour will _very_ likely blow it...
I gave them a roll of Technical Pan today. They warned me in the
strongest terms that it would be ruined, but I figured I'd give it a
try. When I got it back 30 minute later, it wasn't ruined, but the
contrast was blinding (as they had told me to expect), and most of the
shots seemed overexposed (I exposed the film at EI 25). Since I scan
rather than print, I tried scanning these and adjusting them in
Photoshop, but there is so much data concentrated at the high end that
it posterizes in an unpleasant way when I try to spread it out to lower
the contrast (this is a general problem I have when scanning B&W--maybe
the scanner has a harder time penetrating metallic silver--but in other
cases I can compensate for it). So it _almost_ worked, but not quite.
The high resolution was there, though.
> do it yourself, bring it to a
> pro lab or use other film such as TMX or APX
> for fine grain...
TMX (TMX is T-Max, right?) has not impressed me. I have had TMX 100
developed both by the one-hour place and by a pro lab, with identical
results, namely, way more grain than I had been led to expect. I
thought the one-hour place was developing it wrong, but when I got the
same results from the pro lab, I figured that's just the way that T-Max
is (?).
What I'd really like is a B&W film that has the same grain as Provia
100F, either at ISO 100 or (thinking wishfully here) at ISO 400. While
the grain of Tri-X has a certain appeal (and in fact I've been shooting
a fair amount of Tri-X lately just to try it out), it makes images so
blurry that there is little point in scanning them at full resolution,
as all you get is an enlargement of the blur. Some grain is okay but I
still like to see details.
Anyway, the one-hour place has machines that they use for B&W. They
told me that the chemistry is Ilford (I don't know the details), that it
takes place at 25 degrees Celsius, and that it involves "heavy
agitation." I don't know what any of this means.
> techpan has very high contrast, therefore needs
> a low contrast compensating developer... while
> developing the film is not really complicated,
> it still has to run in a special batch...
Assuming I have the right developer, would it be any more difficult than
something like Tri-X?
> my advice is to do it yourself, all you need is
> a tank, some cheap rodinal dev and a standard fix...
Tempting, but I live in a one-room apartment (plus bathroom and a little
corner for the kitchen). Any kind of lab would have to be _really_
simple.
Can I get buy with just a developing tank, bottles of the right stuff
(developer, stop, fix, ready to use), a can opener and a bag to load the
tank, and a watch and thermometer? Could I just keep all the stuff at
room temperature, note the temperature when starting and adjust times
accordingly, and just go develop-stop-fix-rinse, without all these fancy
temperature controlled baths and PhotoFlo and all that stuff? How much
money would the rock-bottom minimum cost? I don't shoot very much
black-and-white (I shoot mostly E6, and E6-at-home is kind of a
contradiction in terms), so spending $500 to buy equipment to develop it
myself is not an option. However, if it isn't too expensive and would
allow me to develop, say, Tri-X and (hopefully) Technical Pan or maybe
other B&W (with the right developers), it might be worth it over time.
I never make prints so I just need clean negatives that I can scan.
Ralph Aichinger
> What I'd really like is a B&W film that has the same grain as Provia
> 100F, either at ISO 100 or (thinking wishfully here) at ISO 400. While
I'm no expert at all, but have you tried Kodak T400CN? This is a 400 speed
monochrome film that is developed C41. I tried it at a 1 hour lab recently
and was impressed. IMHO this is the only way to go, if you want cheap
and hassle-free B/W prints (and don't mind the slight premium and possibly
worse long time archval characteristics). Almost no grain (at least on
my cheap 1 hour lab prints). A lot more expensive than TMAX or other
true BW films though.
/ralph
Bill Tuthill
>> What I'd really like is a B&W film that has the same grain as Provia
>> 100F, either at ISO 100 or (thinking wishfully here) at ISO 400. While
Provia F is rated RMS 8, Tech Pan is rated RMS 5, Tmax 100 is rated RMS 8,
and T400CN is rated RMS 9.
Are these numbers comparable, or do they use the same RMS rating system
for B&W film as for print film?
Ralph Aichinger <ra...@sondermuell.oeh.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
> I'm no expert at all, but have you tried Kodak T400CN? This is a 400 speed
> monochrome film that is developed C41. I tried it at a 1 hour lab recently
> and was impressed. IMHO this is the only way to go, if you want cheap
> and hassle-free B/W prints (and don't mind the slight premium and possibly
> worse long time archval characteristics). Almost no grain (at least on
> my cheap 1 hour lab prints)...
T400CN is not very sharp, however, especially compared to Supra 400 or
a modern C-41 color film like that. It's so unsharp that Kodak doesn't
even provide the MTF graph as they do for regular B&W films.
christoph manz
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "christoph manz" <zem_...@usa.net> wrote
> > a one-hour will _very_ likely blow it...
>
> I gave them a roll of Technical Pan today. They warned me in the
> strongest terms that it would be ruined, but I figured I'd give it a
> try. When I got it back 30 minute later, it wasn't ruined, but the
> contrast was blinding (as they had told me to expect), and most of the
> shots seemed overexposed (I exposed the film at EI 25). Since I scan
> rather than print, I tried scanning these and adjusting them in
> Photoshop, but there is so much data concentrated at the high end that
> it posterizes in an unpleasant way when I try to spread it out to lower
> the contrast (this is a general problem I have when scanning B&W--maybe
> the scanner has a harder time penetrating metallic silver--but in other
> cases I can compensate for it). So it _almost_ worked, but not quite.
> The high resolution was there, though.
sorry i should have been more specific - that's what i meant with
"blow it": very high contrast... the reason for the overexposure is that
the ei of 25 ASA counts for normal contrast negatives.. if you go for
high contrast the film will be somewhat around 160-200 ASA...
actually to get normall contrast your pull processing [over
expose-under develop] the film in a special developer... you could
prolly get better results if you'd expose the film at 50 ASA and tell
the lab to pull process the film by two stops... be warned: the
negative will still have high contrast and the risk of uneven
development is high...
resolution should not be a problem with any slow film for scanning
purposes... actually the only reason to bother with techpan is to get
12x16 inch prints without grain from a 35mm neg...
> > do it yourself, bring it to a
> > pro lab or use other film such as TMX or APX
> > for fine grain...
>
> TMX (TMX is T-Max, right?) has not impressed me. I have had TMX 100
> developed both by the one-hour place and by a pro lab, with identical
> results, namely, way more grain than I had been led to expect. I
> thought the one-hour place was developing it wrong, but when I got the
> same results from the pro lab, I figured that's just the way that T-Max
> is (?).
if you get too much grain with either TMX [T-Max100] or Delta100 then
your processing is most likely not optimal for the film...
APX 25 is nearly grainless if processed properly and has much better
tone rendering than techpan...
scanning b/w films can increase apparent grain though, as scanners are
designed for color negs and slides...
> What I'd really like is a B&W film that has the same grain as Provia
> 100F, either at ISO 100 or (thinking wishfully here) at ISO 400. While
> the grain of Tri-X has a certain appeal (and in fact I've been shooting
> a fair amount of Tri-X lately just to try it out), it makes images so
> blurry that there is little point in scanning them at full resolution,
> as all you get is an enlargement of the blur. Some grain is okay but I
> still like to see details.
again the problems are processing and scanning... if you need the negs
for scanning only, true b/w films don't make much sense... you'll very
likely get better results with a color neg film [Fuji Reala at ASA 100
or NPH at ASA 400] or a c-41 processed b/w film such as Ilford XP-2 or
Kodak T400CN [both at ASA 400 with very fine grain]
most scanners handle color negs much better than true b/w films and you
can even manipulate the color chanels before you convert them to b/w
which gives nice variations of the same picture... and you don't have
to pay for expensive processing either...
the main advantage of true b/w films is that you can controll processing
yourself and get beatuiful grayscales on photopaper...
> Anyway, the one-hour place has machines that they use for B&W. They
> told me that the chemistry is Ilford (I don't know the details), that it
> takes place at 25 degrees Celsius, and that it involves "heavy
> agitation." I don't know what any of this means.
"Ilford chemistry" doesn't say much... most manufacters make similair
chemicals under different names... the developer [for that's thae one
that forms the image] could very well be ID-11 which is identical to
Kodak D-76, a standard developer...
the temperature will mainly affect the processing time...
"heavy agation" usually increases contrast, not something you want to do
with techpan - the fact that they told you those points indicates that
they know what they're doing...
> > techpan has very high contrast, therefore needs
> > a low contrast compensating developer... while
> > developing the film is not really complicated,
> > it still has to run in a special batch...
>
> Assuming I have the right developer, would it be any more difficult than
> something like Tri-X?
well, techpan is somewhat tricky as it's thin base can cause uneven
development if not processed properly... there were many discussions at
rec.photo.darkoom that can be found in the archives of www.deja.com
that said, i never had any problems with it, but i don't use Kodak
Technidol developer either as it's expensive and difficult to work
with... Agfa Rodinal does just fine for me..
> > my advice is to do it yourself, all you need is
> > a tank, some cheap rodinal dev and a standard fix...
>
> Tempting, but I live in a one-room apartment (plus bathroom and a little
> corner for the kitchen). Any kind of lab would have to be _really_
> simple.
it is... i'm doing this in a small appartment myself...
> Can I get buy with just a developing tank, bottles of the right stuff
> (developer, stop, fix, ready to use), a can opener and a bag to load the
> tank, and a watch and thermometer?
yes that's what i use, except for the stop and the can opener [what
would you want this for, it's not beer..;]
> Could I just keep all the stuff at
> room temperature, note the temperature when starting and adjust times
> accordingly, and just go develop-stop-fix-rinse, without all these fancy
> temperature controlled baths and PhotoFlo and all that stuff?
if your room temperature is somewhere between 18 and 24 degree celcius
[errr.. 68 deg farenheit +/- something] you're set...
i go develop-waterrinse-fix-wash, and a rinse with distilled water at
the end to avoid calc spots... so two chemicals is all that i need...
> How much
> money would the rock-bottom minimum cost? I don't shoot very much
> black-and-white
let's see...
a new plastic tank [500ml or 1000ml size as you use very dilute Rodinal
for TechPan] - $30-50
a bottle [125ml] of Rodinal that processes at least 20 rolls and will
keep forever - $5
a bottle [1000ml] of fix that can be reused several times for fixing
many rolls - $7
> However, if it isn't too expensive and would
> allow me to develop, say, Tri-X and (hopefully) Technical Pan or maybe
> other B&W (with the right developers), it might be worth it over time.
> I never make prints so I just need clean negatives that I can scan.
well, while you can use Rodinal for Tri-X, i normally don't as the neg
gets a bit grainy and you'll loose about one f-stop in speed [expose at
ASA 200]... if you more than a roll a year, it might be worth to buy
some D-76 [or ID-11, as Ilford has 1 liter packs] and go with that...
dilute it 1:1 and dump it after use...
as said before, if you only need the negs for scanning, shooting color
films and converting them will probably do the job better... the only
disaventage i can see is that you don't have the fun of processing them
yourself - and the usual scratches and fingerprints from careless lab
folks of course
hope that cleared things up
++ christoph ++
[posted and mailed]
christoph manz
> > Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> What I'd really like is a B&W film that has the same grain as Provia
> >> 100F, either at ISO 100 or (thinking wishfully here) at ISO 400. While
>
> Provia F is rated RMS 8, Tech Pan is rated RMS 5, Tmax 100 is rated RMS 8,
> and T400CN is rated RMS 9.
>
> Are these numbers comparable, or do they use the same RMS rating system
> for B&W film as for print film?
i don't know much about numbers... however, i _do_ know that techpan has
less grain than nearly every other film...
from the number you quoted i'd say that you can't compare color neg, b/w
neg and slide films anyway...
++ christoph ++
> Ralph Aichinger <ra...@sondermuell.oeh.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
> > I'm no expert at all, but have you tried Kodak T400CN? This is a 400 speed
> > monochrome film that is developed C41. I tried it at a 1 hour lab recently
> > and was impressed. IMHO this is the only way to go, if you want cheap
> > and hassle-free B/W prints (and don't mind the slight premium and possibly
> > worse long time archval characteristics). Almost no grain (at least on
> > my cheap 1 hour lab prints)...
>
> T400CN is not very sharp, however, especially compared to Supra 400 or
> a modern C-41 color film like that. It's so unsharp that Kodak doesn't
> even provide the MTF graph as they do for regular B&W films.
Mxsmanic
message news:8nu0s6$pc6$1...@async101.edvz.uni-linz.ac.at...
> I'm no expert at all, but have you tried Kodak
> T400CN? This is a 400 speed monochrome film that
> is developed C41.
I haven't tried it because I've heard a lot of negative comments about
the long-term stability of the negatives and the results on prints.
> IMHO this is the only way to go, if you want cheap
> and hassle-free B/W prints (and don't mind the slight
> premium and possibly worse long time archval
> characteristics).
I'm looking for negatives that I can scan, at low cost, with very fine
grain. I've read about Ilford Pan F Plus, but I'm having trouble
finding it, and I'm wondering how well it does in the "standard"
one-hour B&W processing of my local one-hour lab (going to a pro lab is
not an option--they want around $30 a roll for development of anything
other than "standard" B&W).
> A lot more expensive than TMAX or other true BW
> films though.
If it costs that much, it is usually easier to just shoot Provia and
desaturate the result in Photoshop.
Mxsmanic
news:sq5a0e...@corp.supernews.com...
> Provia F is rated RMS 8, Tech Pan is rated RMS 5,
> Tmax 100 is rated RMS 8, and T400CN is rated RMS 9.
Does Tmax 100 require special processing to achieve that rating, or will
the "standard" processing of my one-hour lab be sufficient?
Where does Ilford Pan F Plus fit in? I've heard about it, although I
haven't seen it yet. Also Agfa APX25, which I have also heard about but
not seen (although I have a few hesitations about buying film from
anyone other than the major players).
Mxsmanic
> ... actually the only reason to bother with techpan
> is to get 12x16 inch prints without grain from a 35mm neg...
I'd like to get at least 80 lp/mm (my scanner does about 60 lp/mm);
anything beyond that is invisible to my scanner anyway. Which B&W films
would provide this kind of resolution? Tri-X would be great if it had
this kind of resolving power, as it looks nice in other respects, but
the grain just drives me nuts if I'm not in an "artistic" (i.e.,
extremely tolerant) mood.
> if you get too much grain with either TMX [T-Max100]
> or Delta100 then your processing is most likely not
> optimal for the film...
The lab is vague on their development. I know it uses Ilford chemistry,
runs at 25 degrees Celsius, and involves a lot of agitation, but that's
it.
> APX 25 is nearly grainless if processed properly and
> has much better tone rendering than techpan...
And what about this Ilford Pan F Plus stuff?
Will APX25 and Pan F develop reasonably well in the catch-all
development used by the lab? I want to avoid anything that requires odd
development.
> scanning b/w films can increase apparent grain though,
> as scanners are designed for color negs and slides...
I didn't notice anything like this with the Tech Pan (a few shots did
come out acceptable).
> most scanners handle color negs much better than true
> b/w films and you can even manipulate the color chanels
> before you convert them to b/w which gives nice variations
> of the same picture... and you don't have to pay for
> expensive processing either...
The lab I use charges 2.5 times more for E6 than for B&W, and the E6
film itself is about 4 times more expensive.
> "heavy agation" usually increases contrast, not something
> you want to do with techpan - the fact that they told
> you those points indicates that they know what they're doing...
They seem to be surprisingly conpetent (many of the employees seem to be
amateur photographers themselves). The main problem is simply that, as
a low-cost, high-volume lab, they cannot afford to stray very far from
"standard" processing procedures.
> well, techpan is somewhat tricky as it's thin base
> can cause uneven development if not processed properly...
Oh great. And I am having trouble finding a place that sells Technidol,
too. I'm thinking that maybe at-home development is not really the
answer.
> that said, i never had any problems with it, but i don't
> use Kodak Technidol developer either as it's expensive
> and difficult to work with... Agfa Rodinal does just fine
> for me..
Isn't Technidol required to get proper results with Tech Pan for
pictorial work?
> ... and the can opener [what would you want this for,
> it's not beer..;]
To open the film cartridges.
> if your room temperature is somewhere between 18
> and 24 degree celcius [errr.. 68 deg farenheit
> +/- something] you're set...
It is usually between 22 and 24 degrees Celsius, year-round
(amazingly!).
> i go develop-waterrinse-fix-wash, and a rinse
> with distilled water at the end to avoid calc
> spots... so two chemicals is all that i need...
You don't need stop? I thought the minimum was three, develop/stop/fix.
If two gives the same results, so much the better!
> let's see...
> a new plastic tank [500ml or 1000ml size as you use
> very dilute Rodinal for TechPan] - $30-50
> a bottle [125ml] of Rodinal that processes at least
> 20 rolls and will keep forever - $5
> a bottle [1000ml] of fix that can be reused several
> times for fixing many rolls - $7
That seems very reasonable.
> as said before, if you only need the negs for scanning,
> shooting color films and converting them will probably
> do the job better...
That's what I would do, except that color processing (particularly slide
processing) costs a lot more. Also, for unusual stuff such as this
fascinating Tech Pan, I have no choice but to use B&W film.
Bill Tuthill
Beats me. As far as I can tell, Ilford does not publish RMS
or resolution data on any of their films.
I remember reading someone's remark that FP4 Plus (ISO 125)
seemed lower grain then Pan F Plus (ISO 50).
Agfa Pan 25 resolves 200 lp/mm in high-contrast areas, with
grain rating RMS 7, and sharpness comparable to Tri-X 400.
christoph manz
> "Bill Tuthill" <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:sq5a0e...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Provia F is rated RMS 8, Tech Pan is rated RMS 5,
> > Tmax 100 is rated RMS 8, and T400CN is rated RMS 9.
>
> Does Tmax 100 require special processing to achieve that rating, or will
> the "standard" processing of my one-hour lab be sufficient?
while there is special processing to get finer grain with TMX [Tmax-100]
i wouldn't recommend to do so... grain, sharpness, speed and tonality
depend on each other.. means, if you go for one, the other three will
get worse... as TMX is very fine grain anyway, it's a good idea to
focus on the other three characteristics...
however, the only way to do so [and the only way to get b/w photos
exactly as you want them] is to process them yourself...
> Where does Ilford Pan F Plus fit in? I've heard about it, although I
> haven't seen it yet. Also Agfa APX25, which I have also heard about but
> not seen (although I have a few hesitations about buying film from
> anyone other than the major players).
it's very difficult to compare films as everyone has it's own
benefits... grain from TMX and Pan F could be about the same [i.e. very
fine] ... Pan F gives a bit better tonality while TMX gives better
sharpness and more speed...
APX 25 is extremly fine grain and tonality and very good sharpness but
obviously kinda low speed...
all the above are just general statements and will vary with different
processing..
considering your hesitations: i don't get the point... Agfa makes some
great products and it is a major player [at least here in europe]
++ christoph ++
christoph manz
> I'm looking for negatives that I can scan, at low cost, with very fine
> grain. I've read about Ilford Pan F Plus, but I'm having trouble
> finding it, and I'm wondering how well it does in the "standard"
> one-hour B&W processing of my local one-hour lab (going to a pro lab is
> not an option--they want around $30 a roll for development of anything
> other than "standard" B&W).
>
> > A lot more expensive than TMAX or other true BW
> > films though.
>
> If it costs that much, it is usually easier to just shoot Provia and
> desaturate the result in Photoshop.
well, as pointed out several times before, if you need the negs only for
scanning, shoot color neg [or slides if you insist] and render them to
b/w using the color channels...
this will be:
a) cheaper - any consumer lab will do it
b) faster - any one-hour lab will do it
c) more consistant - C-41 process is standarized, b/w processing is not
d) finer grain at it's speed - at least when scanning
e) more options to play with - color, b/w and rgb channels
try any ASA 100 neg film for extremly fine grain, my advise would be
Reala
christoph manz
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "christoph manz" <zem_...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:1efrxz5.sxe4h31li58y6N%zem_...@usa.net...
>
> > ... actually the only reason to bother with techpan
> > is to get 12x16 inch prints without grain from a 35mm neg...
>
> I'd like to get at least 80 lp/mm (my scanner does about 60 lp/mm);
> anything beyond that is invisible to my scanner anyway. Which B&W films
> would provide this kind of resolution? Tri-X would be great if it had
> this kind of resolving power, as it looks nice in other respects, but
> the grain just drives me nuts if I'm not in an "artistic" (i.e.,
> extremely tolerant) mood.
grain is cool with certain subjects and ugly with others... lp/mm is a
pretty dodgy subject as it depends on a lot of factors... nearly all
ASA 100 films or lower should scan at the resolution you want if done
propely..
> > if you get too much grain with either TMX [T-Max100]
> > or Delta100 then your processing is most likely not
> > optimal for the film...
>
> The lab is vague on their development. I know it uses Ilford chemistry,
> runs at 25 degrees Celsius, and involves a lot of agitation, but that's
> it.
well, b/w film deveopment depends on a lot of parameters, the only way
to make sure it's done the way you like it is doing it yourself...
> > APX 25 is nearly grainless if processed properly and
> > has much better tone rendering than techpan...
>
> And what about this Ilford Pan F Plus stuff?
Ilford Pan F is great as well.. slightly larger grain than APX25 but
again it depends what you want..
> Will APX25 and Pan F develop reasonably well in the catch-all
> development used by the lab? I want to avoid anything that requires odd
> development.
this are conventional b/w films that can be developed by any lab doing
b/w without special care... it will hardly look as good as if you're
doing it yourself but it will look good enough for most but the most
critical work
> > scanning b/w films can increase apparent grain though,
> > as scanners are designed for color negs and slides...
>
> I didn't notice anything like this with the Tech Pan (a few shots did
> come out acceptable).
well, that's probably because TechPan has no grain to beginn with...
and propably also because of the high contrast [grain shows the most in
the middletones]
> > most scanners handle color negs much better than true
> > b/w films and you can even manipulate the color chanels
> > before you convert them to b/w which gives nice variations
> > of the same picture... and you don't have to pay for
> > expensive processing either...
>
> The lab I use charges 2.5 times more for E6 than for B&W, and the E6
> film itself is about 4 times more expensive.
well, that's why i keep telling to go color neg [it's the last time i
promise] - you'll have much more exposure tolererance as well
> > "heavy agation" usually increases contrast, not something
> > you want to do with techpan - the fact that they told
> > you those points indicates that they know what they're doing...
>
> They seem to be surprisingly conpetent (many of the employees seem to be
> amateur photographers themselves). The main problem is simply that, as
> a low-cost, high-volume lab, they cannot afford to stray very far from
> "standard" processing procedures.
jeah, that's true with most non-pro labs.. you get what you pay for
counts for photography as well...
> > well, techpan is somewhat tricky as it's thin base
> > can cause uneven development if not processed properly...
>
> Oh great. And I am having trouble finding a place that sells Technidol,
> too. I'm thinking that maybe at-home development is not really the
> answer.
i never had problems, see below..
> > that said, i never had any problems with it, but i don't
> > use Kodak Technidol developer either as it's expensive
> > and difficult to work with... Agfa Rodinal does just fine
> > for me..
>
> Isn't Technidol required to get proper results with Tech Pan for
> pictorial work?
nope, actually Technidol is one of the worst... expensive and difficult
to work with [it give good results if you master the process though]...
Kodak gives also guidelines to use dilute Xtol, but i usually use dilute
Agfa Rodinal [cheap] or Tetenal Neofin Doku
> > ... and the can opener [what would you want this for,
> > it's not beer..;]
>
> To open the film cartridges.
ah i see.. i usually just pull out the film as i don't wind the leader
back into the cartridge
> > if your room temperature is somewhere between 18
> > and 24 degree celcius [errr.. 68 deg farenheit
> > +/- something] you're set...
>
> It is usually between 22 and 24 degrees Celsius, year-round
> (amazingly!).
>
> > i go develop-waterrinse-fix-wash, and a rinse
> > with distilled water at the end to avoid calc
> > spots... so two chemicals is all that i need...
>
> You don't need stop? I thought the minimum was three, develop/stop/fix.
> If two gives the same results, so much the better!
stop is optional... some people use it, i [and some others] don't...
just rinse for one minute with at least 3-4 water changes
> > as said before, if you only need the negs for scanning,
> > shooting color films and converting them will probably
> > do the job better...
>
> That's what I would do, except that color processing (particularly slide
> processing) costs a lot more. Also, for unusual stuff such as this
> fascinating Tech Pan, I have no choice but to use B&W film.
true.. but there's color neg... oh never mind ;]
++ christoph ++
christoph manz
> I remember reading someone's remark that FP4 Plus (ISO 125)
> seemed lower grain then Pan F Plus (ISO 50).
hmm.. this sounds kinda odd [or even wrong to me]... but then, the
solution of this could be in "seemed" lower...
Rob
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> "Bill Tuthill" <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:sq5a0e...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Provia F is rated RMS 8, Tech Pan is rated RMS 5,
> > Tmax 100 is rated RMS 8, and T400CN is rated RMS 9.
>
> Does Tmax 100 require special processing to achieve that rating, or will
> the "standard" processing of my one-hour lab be sufficient?
>
> Where does Ilford Pan F Plus fit in? I've heard about it, although I
> haven't seen it yet. Also Agfa APX25, which I have also heard about but
> not seen (although I have a few hesitations about buying film from
> anyone other than the major players).
If you consider Europe, which has about twice the population of USA
and Canada combined, and many times as many active amateur
photographers, Agfa and Ilford, are, in fact, major players.
Rob
USA
Mxsmanic
> well, as pointed out several times before, if you
> need the negs only for scanning, shoot color neg
> [or slides if you insist] and render them to
> b/w using the color channels...
I don't do color negatives because they are hard to sort on a light
table, and because they are in strips, instead of convenient slide
mounts. Also, I understand that slides have better dynamic range,
although I find this hard to reconcile with their very poor latitude, so
I'm still confused on that.
The idea of the B&W was mainly to save money, as sometimes I like to
shoot pictures just for practice. I still like to have fine grain and
something decent to scan, though, just in case I accidentally produce
The Ultimate Photo.
christoph manz
> "christoph manz" <zem_...@usa.net> wrote
>
> > well, as pointed out several times before, if you
> > need the negs only for scanning, shoot color neg
> > [or slides if you insist] and render them to
> > b/w using the color channels...
>
> I don't do color negatives because they are hard to sort on a light
> table, and because they are in strips, instead of convenient slide
> mounts. Also, I understand that slides have better dynamic range,
> although I find this hard to reconcile with their very poor latitude, so
> I'm still confused on that.
hmm... what do you understand by "better dynamic range"? actually
slides have some adventages but it's wrong to think that they produce
"better" images...
concerning the latitude: that's actually simple to explain, negative
film has lower contrast [in the negative, not in the print!] and
therefore can record more detail than shown in the print... this means
that is you choose a wrong exposure you can just adjust the printing and
still get a descent image. with slides you get what you exposed for,
everything above or below is lost...
> The idea of the B&W was mainly to save money, as sometimes I like to
> shoot pictures just for practice. I still like to have fine grain and
> something decent to scan, though, just in case I accidentally produce
> The Ultimate Photo.
hmmm... if you really want to save money you'll have to do it yourself
as most labs charge more for b/w than for color neg [at least where i
live]...
for fine grain, see my other posts
Goodby Kodak
"To further confuse photographers, slide film RMS is measured
differently than print film RMS. Divide slide film RMS by 2.5 to get a
rough equivalent."
and
"Diffuse RMS (root mean square) measures the size of dye clouds, or
grain as it was called with black & white film. Film with RMS 5 is twice
as grainy as film with RMS 4. Resolution is lower in dark (low-contrast)
areas than in bright (high-contrast) areas, so is measured at 1.6:1 and
1000:1 contrast levels, specified in line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm);
double this number to get dots per millimeter. Sharpness is measured by
MTF (modulation transfer function) at different values of lp/mm; numbers
show where MTF crosses below 100%. Characteristic curves measure film
contrast and color saturation. Maximum values for blue, green, and red
are listed as a rough guide to the color saturation of different
films."
Tom
Bill Tuthill wrote:
>
> > Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> What I'd really like is a B&W film that has the same grain as Provia
> >> 100F, either at ISO 100 or (thinking wishfully here) at ISO 400. While
>
> Provia F is rated RMS 8, Tech Pan is rated RMS 5, Tmax 100 is rated RMS 8,
> and T400CN is rated RMS 9.
>
> Are these numbers comparable, or do they use the same RMS rating system
> for B&W film as for print film?
>
> Ralph Aichinger <ra...@sondermuell.oeh.uni-linz.ac.at> wrote:
> > I'm no expert at all, but have you tried Kodak T400CN? This is a 400 speed
> > monochrome film that is developed C41. I tried it at a 1 hour lab recently
> > and was impressed. IMHO this is the only way to go, if you want cheap
> > and hassle-free B/W prints (and don't mind the slight premium and possibly
> > worse long time archval characteristics). Almost no grain (at least on
> > my cheap 1 hour lab prints)...
>
> T400CN is not very sharp, however, especially compared to Supra 400 or
> a modern C-41 color film like that. It's so unsharp that Kodak doesn't
> even provide the MTF graph as they do for regular B&W films.
--
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power
in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the
whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior
to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised
in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the
Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets
to the Constitution of the United States (P. Lord, 1888).
Bill Tuthill
>
>> T400CN is not very sharp, however, especially compared to Supra 400 or
>> a modern C-41 color film like that.
>
> point to that illustrates this problem?
By "sharp" I mean clearly defined edge transitions. T400CN is easy to
get developed, prints well, has low grain, and is fairly easy to scan,
so I'm not saying it doesn't have its virtues. Two examples:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000kOa&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000t4I&topic_id=23&topic=
Mxsmanic
> hmmm... if you really want to save money you'll
> have to do it yourself as most labs charge more
> for b/w than for color neg [at least where i
> live]...
Actually, B&W costs a lot less at my favorite one-hour lab, which is why
it seduces me to a certain extent.
I almost bought lab stuff today, including some Technidol (I finally
found a place that has it). But I ended up buying a couple of rolls of
APX25 and Pan F Plus instead. We'll see how those turn out.
TheCharlie
>"christoph manz" <zem_...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:1efvjf0.11c8w42q4k0fkN%zem_...@usa.net...
>
>> hmmm... if you really want to save money you'll
>> have to do it yourself as most labs charge more
>> for b/w than for color neg [at least where i
>> live]...
>
>Actually, B&W costs a lot less at my favorite one-hour lab, which is why
>it seduces me to a certain extent.
This is VERY surprising!
Color used to be more expensive, back when color materials were less
common .. the now that color processing is the mainstay, black and
white materials are more expensive then ever before. And the equipment
to handle them is less available.. and the amount of qualified people
to handle each one is almost non-existant!
>I almost bought lab stuff today, including some Technidol (I finally
>found a place that has it). But I ended up buying a couple of rolls of
>APX25 and Pan F Plus instead. We'll see how those turn out.
Do it! Dig into it and see what it's all about! You'll love it, if
you have an interest in how things work.
But don't ignore the previous posts, as they are all correct.
In the end, you must go with what's in your heart.
TheCharlie
>"christoph manz" <zem_...@usa.net> wrote in message
>news:1efts3e.1j6p8f5hv7mrN%zem_...@usa.net...
>
>> well, as pointed out several times before, if you
>> need the negs only for scanning, shoot color neg
>> [or slides if you insist] and render them to
>> b/w using the color channels...
>
>I don't do color negatives because they are hard to sort on a light
>table, and because they are in strips, instead of convenient slide
>mounts.
Anyone who can mount slides can also mount negatives in the
same manner. If this is your criterion, ask the lab to mount your
negs. Problem solved.
> Also, I understand that slides have better dynamic range,
>although I find this hard to reconcile with their very poor latitude, so
>I'm still confused on that.
Dynamic range and lattitude are two entirely different issues.
Slides have a better dynamic range, meaning that they can capture more
of the highlights and shadows than negative film can. They get more
information in the whites and blacks than prints from negatives can
offer.
(negs have a greater latitude, in that they can accurately produce
either the lower portion of the density range OR the higher portion of
the density range, by the way they are printed. but NOT both at once.)
(slides have a better density range <as explained above> but there is
no way to compensate for exposure differences in the printing, because
the slide is the final product. With the neg, you at least have the
chance to change the final product in print.. Not so with a slide.)
That does NOT mean that negatives cannot produce a density range close
to what slides can.. but the negatives must ultimately be reproduced
onto color paper. And these papers are designed with the average
consumer (and the average consumer's needs) in mind.
For the average consumer, this means "I don't understand highlights or
shadows, so I'm not willing to pay more money to see them.. just give
me the mid-tones" .. and this is what the amateur papers do, and do
very well.
>The idea of the B&W was mainly to save money, as sometimes I like to
>shoot pictures just for practice. I still like to have fine grain and
>something decent to scan, though, just in case I accidentally produce
>The Ultimate Photo.
Somewhere in between, you will find your solution.
Good luck.
C
Mxsmanic
news:39aa5ce0....@news.erols.com...
> This is VERY surprising!
This lab does the B&W in a machine in about 20 minutes. They do a
pretty good job and I suspect it really isn't that expensive for them,
compared to E6 and C41. They seem to do a lot of it, too--they always
have a ton of B&W jobs waiting to be picked up.
> Do it! Dig into it and see what it's all about!
> You'll love it, if you have an interest in how things work.
I shot a roll of APX25 and had that developed at the one-hour place.
Unlike the Tech Pan, which came out too contrasty to be usable from the
one-hour lab, the Agfapan looked pretty good. However, the APX25 has
visible grain (very fine, but still there, if you look closely), whereas
the Tech Pan--even with the contrasty one-hour development--shows no
grain at all.
I'm still tempted to try developing some Tech Pan myself; I just wonder
if I have the resources and discipline to do it. I hate lab work, but
I'd love to see the results from some properly developed Tech Pan. Mmm.
Mxsmanic
> Anyone who can mount slides can also mount
> negatives in the same manner. If this is your
> criterion, ask the lab to mount your
> negs. Problem solved.
They use a machine to mount slides, and it looks for the black borders
between frames. Apparently they've tried using it with negatives, and
it tends to get lost. Mounting them by hand is not cost-effective for
them in their price range.
> Slides have a better dynamic range, meaning that
> they can capture more of the highlights and shadows
> than negative film can. They get more information
> in the whites and blacks than prints from negatives can
> offer.
Why is it, then, that I've read that everything on a slide should fit
within 5 stops, whereas negatives supposedly need everything to fit
within 7 stops? This seems to imply that negatives capture detail over
a wider range of intensities.
> With the neg, you at least have the chance to change
> the final product in print.. Not so with a slide.
That makes sense. So if I scan the slides, in theory I have more
flexibility, because I can adjust the scans of the slides, right?
QDB
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > This is VERY surprising!
>
> This lab does the B&W in a machine in about 20 minutes. They do a
> pretty good job and I suspect it really isn't that expensive for them,
> compared to E6 and C41. They seem to do a lot of it, too--they always
> have a ton of B&W jobs waiting to be picked up.
>
> > You'll love it, if you have an interest in how things work.
>
> Unlike the Tech Pan, which came out too contrasty to be usable from the
> one-hour lab, the Agfapan looked pretty good. However, the APX25 has
> visible grain (very fine, but still there, if you look closely), whereas
> the Tech Pan--even with the contrasty one-hour development--shows no
> grain at all.
>
> I'm still tempted to try developing some Tech Pan myself; I just wonder
> if I have the resources and discipline to do it. I hate lab work, but
> I'd love to see the results from some properly developed Tech Pan. Mmm.
>
>
>
>
right, are worth the effort. And its not *that* difficult.
--
QDB
Scott Daniel Ullman
> Anyway, the one-hour place has machines that they use for B&W. They
> told me that the chemistry is Ilford (I don't know the details), that it
> takes place at 25 degrees Celsius, and that it involves "heavy
> agitation." I don't know what any of this means.
It means they are guaranteeing bad results. 25 degrees Celcius, which
translates to about 77 degrees Farenheit, is *way* too high. The optimal
temperature for small tank development is 68 degrees Farenheit. The higher
the temperature, the coarser the grain. Film developed at a higher
temperature develops faster, so it sounds to me like they are trying to rush
the development with the higher temperature and the increased agitation.
As other people have said, the only way to guarantee good results is to
develop your black & white film yourself. You don't need to set up a
darkroom in order to develop film. All you need is a shelf to store the
chemicals and supplies on, as well as a light-tight room, such as a closet,
to load the film onto reels. (A closet or other windowless room can easily
be made light-tight without having to sacrifice the room for use as a
darkroom.
christoph manz
> "TheCharlie" <theCh...@erols.com> wrote
> > With the neg, you at least have the chance to change
> > the final product in print.. Not so with a slide.
>
> That makes sense. So if I scan the slides, in theory I have more
> flexibility, because I can adjust the scans of the slides, right?
no, exactly the other way round:
with slides, you get what is visible if you look at it... if you
missexposed or had too high contrast in the subject information will be
lost and not recoverable... with neg film there's more information
stored on the neg than on the "print" so you can adjust your scan to get
detail back..
Mxsmanic
news:MPG.1411f6d75...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Having developed Tech Pan, its a pain, but
> the results, when you get it right, are worth
> the effort. And its not *that* difficult.
Is it really necessary to drop the film into the filled tank, instead of
just pouring the Technidol in the top in the usual way? Trying to do
that all in a bag would be hugely difficult for me. I can thread film
onto a spool, but having an open tank of developer and putting it in and
putting the cover on and then getting it all out of the bag and agitated
correctly sounds problematic.
I don't need perfect results, just results that are a lot better than
the one-hour lab (most notably in terms of reducing contrast to
something I can effectively scan).
TheCharlie
>"TheCharlie" <theCh...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:39ab5df3....@news.erols.com...
>
>> Anyone who can mount slides can also mount
>> negatives in the same manner. If this is your
>> criterion, ask the lab to mount your
>> negs. Problem solved.
>
>They use a machine to mount slides, and it looks for the black borders
>between frames. Apparently they've tried using it with negatives, and
>it tends to get lost. Mounting them by hand is not cost-effective for
>them in their price range.
They're feeding you bull$#it.. The 'machine' doesn't look for the
black border.. the PERSON behind the machine does!
So.. tell them to look for a CLEAR border instead of a BLACK
border..(which is hard enough to find anyway! )
Trust me.. I do both. And it's easier to separate slides than it is
for negatives.
>> Slides have a better dynamic range, meaning that
>> they can capture more of the highlights and shadows
>> than negative film can. They get more information
>> in the whites and blacks than prints from negatives can
>> offer.
>
>Why is it, then, that I've read that everything on a slide should fit
>within 5 stops, whereas negatives supposedly need everything to fit
>within 7 stops?
It would be preferable if everything fell within 2 steps..
> This seems to imply that negatives capture detail over
>a wider range of intensities.
This is true. Negatives CAN capture a wider range than slides can..
(for the purposes of this argument) But they cannot DISPLAY this
amount of data in a single print, unless you do some severe damage to
the file or orint.
The problem is that you can NOT reproduce them in ONE print. If you
want to produce TWO prints from each negative (one for the shadows
and one for the highlights..) then you would understand.
You'd get one print that holds all of the shadow detail, and another
that displays all of the highlights.
Slides, on the other hand, display both. (possibly with the same
compression constraints I just outlined for film.. )
>> With the neg, you at least have the chance to change
>> the final product in print.. Not so with a slide.
>
>That makes sense. So if I scan the slides, in theory I have more
>flexibility, because I can adjust the scans of the slides, right?
Yes, that's exactly right. Yet at the same time, if you scanned the
same negative twice (once for highlights, once for shadows) You'd
gain more information than scanning slides a million times..
One is more user friendly, one contains more information.
Damn, I know this must be confusing.. and I swear, I'm not trying to
make it harder..
IF anyone can jump in, I'd appreciate it. If not, E-mail me again,
MX.. I'll try.
TheCharlie
>"TheCharlie" <theCh...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:39aa5ce0....@news.erols.com...
>
>> This is VERY surprising!
>
>This lab does the B&W in a machine in about 20 minutes. They do a
>pretty good job and I suspect it really isn't that expensive for them,
>compared to E6 and C41.
It's not much more expensive than either, provided you don't
want any prints. If you want prints, it's MUCH more expensive.
The cost depends on how many rolls they are doing at the time.
The more rolls at once, the more cost effective it is for them.
Either way, if you're only paying for processing, they aren't making
any money on you.
> They seem to do a lot of it, too--they always
>have a ton of B&W jobs waiting to be picked up.
Same here. I offer it as a service, and there's usually a ton of it
to be picked up. but it isn't showing an profit. It's just another
service we offer to the people who are bringing in color and digital
work.
>> Do it! Dig into it and see what it's all about!
>> You'll love it, if you have an interest in how things work.
>
>I shot a roll of APX25 and had that developed at the one-hour place.
>Unlike the Tech Pan, which came out too contrasty to be usable from the
>one-hour lab, the Agfapan looked pretty good. However, the APX25 has
>visible grain (very fine, but still there, if you look closely), whereas
>the Tech Pan--even with the contrasty one-hour development--shows no
>grain at all.
Hmm..
>I'm still tempted to try developing some Tech Pan myself; I just wonder
>if I have the resources and discipline to do it. I hate lab work, but
>I'd love to see the results from some properly developed Tech Pan. Mmm.
I understand hating lab work.. but how do you feel about doing your
own custom printing? (you might just love it so much it'll interfere
with your sleep .. trust me! )
Contrast and film grain can be adjusted in the film processing, but
unless you paid someone extra to adjust these, they wouldn't. You
either got the wrong processing for the films you shot, or you are
looking at the results of the film itself in it's true form. (I
suspect the former.. the lab said "hey.. it's B&W .. they get what
they get .." and that's not the correct way to process diferent
films.)
Since the Tech Pan is a 125 ASA film, and the APX25 has a finer grain,
I suspect that your lab just threw all of the rolls into something
like T-Max developer and let it ride. You can still USE this developer
for both films, but the have to be treated differently.
And, while popular, T-Max isn't the greatest 'all-round' developer
for B&W films either.
Do me a favor.. shoot a roll of each. Junk shots or whatever.. it
doesn't matter.. and e-mail me. I'll process them according to specs
for you. When you get the films back, you can decide what you like or
don't like.
give me a jingle..
QDB
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
I'm about to try some 120 roll film.
I did not plunge the film in to the chemicals, just poured the chemicals
in as usual, but otherwise I strictly followed Kodak's recommended
agitation proceedure. Most of the negs were fine, but I did
occasionally notice lighter areas close to the edge of the neg, where it
would have been up close to the spiral in the tank. One or two negs
also had slight uneaveness in development accross the neg. Most were
fine.
With the roll film, I will try to follow Kodak's instructions to the
letter. I have a darkroom, so its no problem.
I'd try and stick to Kodaks' instructions as far as possible, but don't
worry too much about plunging the film in to the developer. You should
still get reasonable results without doing so. You'll be amazed how
much better the results are than a 1 hour lab - smooth midtones and no
excessive contrast if you use Technidol.
Be prepared to experiment. Let us know how you get on.
--
QDB
QDB
says...
>Since the Tech Pan is a 125 ASA film, and the APX25 has a finer grain,
>I suspect that your lab just threw all of the rolls into something
>like T-Max developer and let it ride. You can still USE this developer
>for both films, but the have to be treated differently.
Tech Pan is 25 ASA, developed in Technidol. It has much finer grain
than Agfa APX 25.
--
QDB
Bryan Bowley
tank, try pre wetting the film. Use
distilled water at the same temp as the
developer. Agitate for 1 minute gently,
pour out the water and add the
developer. This will prevent streaking.
The first 15 seconds of development are
the most important. Don't use large (9
roll tanks) tanks. I pre wet film even
in the dark room. I have one tank for
the water bath and another for the
developer. I go dark for the stop
rinse. I remove the top to pour out the
dev quickly and am able to add the
water stop also quickly. Do the same
for the fix. Been doing it this way for
30+ years.
Bryan
www.phxcolor.com
Bryan Bowley
Bryan
QDB wrote:
>
> In article <JA%p5.526304$MB.80...@news6.giganews.com>,
> mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
Bryan Bowley
about. Do you mean machine prints? I
make custom prints that with dodging and
burning (That's custom) we can hold
detail in shadows as well as highlights.
Our digital prints are even better at
holding detail.
Bryan
QDB
> Pre wetting is essential for 120 film
> Bryan
>
results with other films without doing so.
--
QDB
Scott Daniel Ullman
>> Pre wetting is essential for 120 film
>> Bryan
>>
> No it isn't. Might be a good idea for Tech Pan but I have perfect
> results with other films without doing so.
I like to presoak T-Max films for about 5 minutes to help wash away the
purple antihalation coating.
--
Scott Daniel Ullman
sdullman@i_hate_spam.stanford.ude
(Remove "i_hate_spam" and change "ude" to "edu" to send e-mail.)
Scott Daniel Ullman
>> Tech Pan is 25 ASA,
>
> Apologies. I must have a different Tech Pan, as everything that
> is on my shelf is 125 ASA.
Are you sure it's not the "135" label that indicates that the film is 35mm
format? (i.e. Does it say "135-24" or 135-36"?)
TheCharlie
>In article <39aea04c....@news.erols.com>, theCh...@erols.com
>says...
>>Since the Tech Pan is a 125 ASA film,
>Tech Pan is 25 ASA,
Mxsmanic
> >Tech Pan is 25 ASA,
>
> Apologies. I must have a different Tech Pan, as
> everything that is on my shelf is 125 ASA.
Tech Pan does not have an assigned EI rating. The speed at which you
expose it depends on your application and intended development. For
pictorial applications, an EI of 25 is typical. For other applications,
the exposure EI can vary from 4 to 200, depending on the results wanted.
In general, the higher the EI, the greater the contrast, with contrast
tending to line art at the upper extreme (useful for microfiche and the
like).
The Tech Pan I have here in my hand does not mention an EI rating
anywhere on the package.
QDB
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
"normal".
Bill Baker
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"TheCharlie" <theCh...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:39af0a68....@news.erols.com...
>
>> >Tech Pan is 25 ASA,
>>
>> Apologies. I must have a different Tech Pan, as
>> everything that is on my shelf is 125 ASA.
>
>Tech Pan does not have an assigned EI rating. The speed at which you
>expose it depends on your application and intended development. For
>pictorial applications, an EI of 25 is typical. For other applications,
>the exposure EI can vary from 4 to 200, depending on the results wanted.
>In general, the higher the EI, the greater the contrast, with contrast
>tending to line art at the upper extreme (useful for microfiche and the
>like).
Actually, I tested this with a roll developed in the lowest contrast
developer on the Tech Pan data sheet other than Technidol. I think it
was HC-110, Dilution B. According to the specs the contrast index was
only supposed to be slightly higher, but my exposures turned out nearly
lithographic. There were almost no middle tones at all.
Photographer's Formulary TD-3 is supposed to be good for pictorial
work, but I rather doubt any standard developer will get you in a
usable contrast ballpark with Tech Pan.
The one other exception I can think of is PMK, but I haven't tested it
myself. Shawn Gibson, who moderates the people photography forum on
photo.net, shoots a lot of Tech Pan/PMK, but I haven't tried his times
& temps yet.
TheCharlie
>
>The Tech Pan I have here in my hand does not mention an EI rating
>anywhere on the package.
Hmm.. I'm going to have to go back and look harder at the
packaging.
I don't use it myself, and don't know enough about black and white
films to say with any sort of authority. Perhaps I'm thinking of the
Tri-X Pan ?
Apologies if I muddied the waters, I didn't mean to do that.
Mxsmanic
news:300820001339172749%w...@well.com...
> Photographer's Formulary TD-3 is supposed to be
> good for pictorial work, but I rather doubt any
> standard developer will get you in a usable
> contrast ballpark with Tech Pan.
Well, I'm planning to try to develop some Tech Pan on my own in the near
future, so I hope I can get it right. I haven't developed film since I
was eight, and I'm wary of doing it myself, so I keep finding excuses
not to do so, but I really would love to be able to use Tech Pan, and if
I can just develop it successfully myself, I'll be very happy. The part
I worry about most is threading the film on the spool, which I have not
done in a lloooonng time.
Is the developer the only crucial part of the Tech Pan secret? I got
Technidol for the development, but just some Ilfostop for stop and
Agfafix for fixing. My understanding (?) is that the developer is what
makes the negative, and the rest is just to halt development and wash
away the unused silver, so for the latter two parts almost anything will
do.
> The one other exception I can think of is PMK,
> but I haven't tested it myself.
What is PMK?
Mxsmanic
"Charlie" <cha...@aa.bb> wrote in message
news:0d1sqsotu6l5ceh8k...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 13:39:17 -0700, Bill Baker <w...@well.com> wrote:
> snip>
> >The one other exception I can think of is PMK, but I haven't tested
it
> >myself. Shawn Gibson, who moderates the people photography forum on
> >photo.net, shoots a lot of Tech Pan/PMK, but I haven't tried his
times
> >& temps yet.
> Bill - Have alook at the Minox based site
> www.slonet.org/-dkrehbie/2photo/film/choice/pers.htm
> also as above /film/develop/htm
> for a very full discussion and full tests of TP and other
superfinegrain films
> for pictorial use dev in Rodinal and PMK, Pyro etc. Real factual info
here you
> might find very useful. I have used TP rated 60 ASA with Rodinal at
1+400
> dilution - the anti contrast effect is quite remarkable, needs care
to use
> enough developer at these dilutions to fully develop!
> Charlie+
>
QDB
mxsm...@hotmail.com says...
mins. at 25 degrees c., stop bath and Ilford Hypam fixer. Negs look
great, nice smooth tones, not too contrasty, and very sharp. Just as
great as I remembered it from 35mm. Maybe I'm just lucky this time, but
I have no problems with uneaven development - but then I followed
Kodak's instructons to the letter, including plunging the film in to the
developer. Bit messy in the dark...
Looks like I'll be shooting more of this stuff on 120.
--
QDB
Bill Baker
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The one other exception I can think of is PMK,
>> but I haven't tested it myself.
>
>What is PMK?
That's Gordon Hutchings' formula for a pyrogallol developer. Look for
a copy of The Book of Pyro, his book on PMK, at a good photo store.
christoph manz
> The URL doesn't seem to work.
>
> "Charlie" <cha...@aa.bb> wrote
>> Have alook at the Minox based site
> > www.slonet.org/-dkrehbie/2photo/film/choice/pers.htm
^
i have a bookmark that says:
www.slonet.org/~dkrehbie/toc.htm
and it is about minox stuff too ;]
++ christoph ++
> > also as above /film/develop/htm
> > for a very full discussion and full tests of TP and other
> > superfinegrain films
> > for pictorial use dev in Rodinal and PMK, Pyro etc. Real factual info
> here you
> > might find very useful. I have used TP rated 60 ASA with Rodinal at
> 1+400
> > dilution - the anti contrast effect is quite remarkable, needs care
> to use
> > enough developer at these dilutions to fully develop!
> > Charlie+
> >
Mxsmanic
"christoph manz" <zem_...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1eg949m.1u0emrh8tosorN%zem_...@usa.net...
TheCharlie
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The Tech Pan I have here in my hand does not mention an EI rating
>>anywhere on the package.
>
>Hmm.. I'm going to have to go back and look harder at the
>packaging. Perhaps I'm thinking of the
>Tri-X Pan ?
>
>Apologies if I muddied the waters, I didn't mean to do that.
This turns out to be true.
I was thinking of the wrong film.
Bad Charlie!
christoph manz
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >The Tech Pan I have here in my hand does not mention an EI rating
> >anywhere on the package.
>
> Hmm.. I'm going to have to go back and look harder at the
> packaging.
>
> I don't use it myself, and don't know enough about black and white
> films to say with any sort of authority. Perhaps I'm thinking of the
> Tri-X Pan ?
if the package is yellow and reads ISO 125/22 then it will be very
likely Kodak Plus-X
> Apologies if I muddied the waters, I didn't mean to do that.
no worries... it'll clean up ;]
++ christoph ++
TheCharlie
>if the package is yellow and reads ISO 125/22 then it will be very
>likely Kodak Plus-X
>
>> Apologies if I muddied the waters, I didn't mean to do that.
>
>no worries... it'll clean up ;]
Thanks! That was it. I'm feeling cleaner already!