How does Technical Pan handle underexposure? : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

I was unexpectedly out last night with two of my regular models, and all I on me had was 6 rolls of Tech Pan; all they had was one, 60Watt tungsten bulb stuffed into little desk lamp. We decided to have some fun, and I ended up shooting them with that setup. The best I could do was f1.4 @ 1/15 second, and even then, I was spotmetering at 1 to 3 stops under my normal method, i.e., I was underexposing in the worst cases by 3 stops. I am sure I'm S.O.L., but does anyone have any advice for development? I am most interested in skin Zones (V-is VIII-ish lows to highs). I use Technidol for now at about 8 minutes. Thanks all. Shawn

-- shawn gibson (, August 09, 1999


Sorry. Zones V-ish to VIII-ish...

-- shawn gibson (, August 09, 1999.

Sorry again. I was, of course (?), at ISO 25.

-- shawn gibson (, August 09, 1999.

Tech pan doesn't take well to underexposure(as does any slow film). I've never tried to push process it. A couple of clip development tests might yield some useful information with technidol, starting at 10 minutes and going up to say 20 minutes.

If you can get hold of some Ethol TEC, it yields an E.I. of 100 and might be able to save them. Also a couple of Photographers Formulary developers might work as they also claim to get an E. I. of 100( I've not tried them).

-- Gene Crumpler (, August 09, 1999.

I think Gene's got the right idea, if you need these shots to come out. If you want to extend your bag of tricks...

I shot some sheet TP this weekend and accidentally metered at 320 rather than 25. Thought the speeds were funny but didn't stop myself. So, for kicks, I used Dektol 3'30", 68F: two-tone negs with some greyscale detail that was nearly unprintable. On the proper subject it could work, however. Was your model cross-lit? Did the shadows define the texture and shapes or was the light flat?

-- John O'Connell (, August 10, 1999.

I just phoned 8Elm about PMK pyro, and the guy said for Tech Pan and pyro, it is reccommended that the film be underexposed by one stop; so this might save me. And I've been dying to try pyro. I'd rather try diafine for this, but I can't find it anywhere. Shawn

-- shawn gibson (, August 10, 1999.

As for the lighting, it was direct tungsten bulb lighting with a very small 180 degree oval reflector and no diffusion (it was really a desk lamp). It was very close to the models, approximately 1 to 1 1/2 feet away from their faces, on which I was concentrating. I think the light is going to be fairly flat on their faces, but where there are shadows, I expect they will be very strong and defined.

-- shawn gibson (, August 10, 1999.

NEW QUESTION: how much of a grain increase can I expect with TechPan in PMK over Technidol?

-- shawn gibson (, August 10, 1999.

Flat lighting on subject area: forget high contrast development of TP.

Grain increase with PMK? It's another low-speed compensating developer, like Technidol. Before Technidol, Kodak recommended the POTA compensating developer for fine grain with TP. You shouldn't see much on an increase in grain. Additionally, the stain PMK imparts lessens the appearance of grain, from what I understand.

What size prints are you making from TP that grain is a real concern?

-- John O'Connell (, August 10, 1999.

I'm usually doing 11x14 on fibre, but I have been hoping to do a few 16x20's sometime soon. I'm glad I can use PMK...cheaper, and I I keep hearing wonderful things with it. I'm looking forward to trying this on Friday. Do you have any recommended times for Tech Pan with PMK?

-- shawn gibson (, August 10, 1999.

Response to how does tech pan handle underexposure?

Shawn if you are in Toronto, Canada you can get Diafine at Alt camera exchange on Queen street.

-- Michael Haas (, August 10, 1999.

Photographer's Formulary has a developer called TD-3. Supposedly this gives TP an extra stop of speed. The recommended development times are long though. 20-23 minutes @ 68F. This might help. They say it doesn't affect grain size at all. Good Luck, Liz

-- Liz Perolakis (, August 12, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ