Digital BW, The Print

Paul,

I don't know if its worth the trouble, but I remember quite a few people
claiming very good results using C41 developer for TechPan.  You
wouldn't use the bleach or blix -- just the C41 developer followed by
regular rapid fix.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I have been comparing the Kodak Technidol developer with the Photographers'
> Formulary TD-3 developer.
> 
> They are both winners.  For different purposes or "looks," each is best.
> 
> They are convenient liquids with, potentially, reasonably long lives.  The
> Kodak liquid packets I tested were more than 2 years old, but appeared to be
> producing results right where I expected from past tests.  TD-3 is a
> 2-solution concentrate that I mixed direct from the concentrates with
> syringes and scales.  (Syringes would be accurate enough.)  Photographers'
> Formulary told me that the concentrated solution A (developer) can be put in
> the refrigerator for a fairly long while (left unspecified).  (Solution B is
> an alkaline activator that does not need such treatment.)
> 
> Both developers produced reasonably even negatives -- no small
> accomplishment for Technical Pan ("TP").
> 
> They are both very sharp, with a very slight mid-tone sharpness advantage
> going to TD-3, and a highlight sharpness advantage to Technidol.
> 
> TD-3 is very much a "compensating" developer which, at the recommended 3
> minute agitation cycles, causes it to have a strong chemical sharpening
> ("adjacency effect") in the mid-tones.  (TD-3 has a smoother curve and
> better highlight contrast with its recommended 3-minute agitation cycle,
> when compared to a 1-minute cycle.)
> 
> The Technidol produces a straight-line characteristic curve, and I see
> little evidence of significant chemical sharpening.  (I used a 1-minute
> agitation interval with the Technidol.  In the past I've seen unevenness
> with longer agitation cycles on this faster developer.)
> 
> The TD-3's curve is very much an "S" shape.  When the highlights are
> equalized in contrast to the TP highlights the grain of the TD-3 is
> significantly rougher.
> 
> TD-3 developer does not appear able to reach a dmax that is very high.  It
> appears to be a low-contrast developer by nature.
> 
> The developing procedures recommended by Photographer's Formulary seem to be
> right on.  I, essentially, use Kodak's recommended procedures also, with
> some agitation modifications.
> 
> TD-3 probably has a longer range, or more latitude.  The Nikon 8000 was able
> to separate the full 13 stops of my test procedure with both developers.
> However at the high end, it appeared that Technidol was going flat.  So, for
> the very rare subjects with dynamic ranges above 12-13 (an extreme range),
> TD-3 may have an advantage.
> 
> Just below the shoulder, the Technidol scanned better.  Since I often like
> to expand the contrast in very bright skies, this could be an advantage.
> 
> Both have essentially equal speed, with Technidol having more contrast to
> minus 4 stops, and TD-3 possibly reaching into that next stop a hair.
> (Again, it's the difference between straight-line and "S" shaped curves.)
> 
> I'm ending my tests of TP for now.  (On to other things.)
> 
> Both Technidol and TD-3 are winners in their own ways.
> 
> I'm going use TP with Technidol for a while.  I like the way its
> straight-line curve is scanning.  I used to prefer a compensating developer,
> chemical sharpening, and the "S" shape characteristic cure.  However, that
> was pre-Photoshop.  I now want to see if the straight-line approach has an
> advantage in the highlights.
> 
> Thanks to all for the information you have sent on this issue.
> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com