Digital BW, The Print

Hi,
I am in a situation which forces me to send my film out to the pro lab for processing.

I find that Tech Pan is only an option in the dullest of conditions (when it is fantastic); yet I've seen desert shots with Tech Pan, with a red filter, what's more.

In anything like sunny conditions, the highlights and shadows are totally lost.

Do you think that asking the lab to under-develop by 30% would be a good idea?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

thanks,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."
   --Anais Nin

Not sure what you mean by this statement, there are plenty of b&w film 
choices?
Mark

On Jun 25, 2004, at 7:04 PM, Richard Smallfield wrote:

>  I find that Tech Pan is only an option in the dullest of conditions 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In order to control the contrast of Tech Pan you have to use a compensating
developer. Kodak suggests Technidol. I used to use 2 bath development. I
used Beutlers which was similar to Neofin Blue (which I could not afford
then).

Do a Google search on 'compensating developer', without the quotes, of
course. Your lab may have their own favorite.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Smallfield [mailto:r.smallfield@...]
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 4:05 PM
To: Digital BW Print
Subject: [Digital BW] OT - controlling tech pan contrast


Hi,
I am in a situation which forces me to send my film out to the pro lab for
processing.

I find that Tech Pan is only an option in the dullest of conditions (when it
is fantastic); yet I've seen desert shots with Tech Pan, with a red filter,
what's more.

In anything like sunny conditions, the highlights and shadows are totally
lost.

Do you think that asking the lab to under-develop by 30% would be a good
idea?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

thanks,
Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."
   --Anais Nin

At 11:47 AM Saturday 6/26/04, you wrote:
>Not sure what you mean by this statement, there are plenty of b&w film 
>choices?
>Mark
>
>On Jun 25, 2004, at 7:04 PM, Richard Smallfield wrote:
>>  I find that Tech Pan is only an option in the dullest of conditions 

Sorry, I meant that, if I'm using Tech Pan, only in dull conditions is the contrast kept at a manageable level.

Thanks,
Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and
   nobody wants to read."
   --Mark Twain

At 12:44 PM Saturday 6/26/04, you wrote:
>In order to control the contrast of Tech Pan you have to use a compensating
>developer. Kodak suggests Technidol. I used to use 2 bath development. I
>used Beutlers which was similar to Neofin Blue (which I could not afford
>then).

Thanks for your reply - the lab say they stick to Kodak instructions. It would be easier if I could do it myself, but I live in the country and use tank water, which is discoloured!

Richard 
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and
   nobody wants to read."
   --Mark Twain

Richard, greetings.

There are ways to get good midtones with Tech Pan, if your lab is willing to use 
standard materials in slightly nonstandard ways.  Check out the "Massive Dev" chart 
over on DigitalTruth.com, which is an indispensable resource for recipes for 
developing B+W films.  The chart is at this URL:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Select "Kodak Tech Pan" chart from the box in the left margin.  As you will see, the 
Tech Pan chart is divvied up into three categories:  "High contrast," "High Contrast/
Continuous Tone," and "continuous Tone."  You want "Continuous Tone."  You will 
find over 20 recipes there.  If your lab is even marginally competent, they should be 
able to accommodate you wtih one of these.

As for me, I've shot Tech Pan and gotten really good results in sunny conditions, 
shooting through neutral-density filters to get a 30-second exposure, and then 
developing in Rodinal 1:100 for only four minutes.  (Yes, that's right, four minutes!) 
For an example of the results, see my photo at this URL:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28736293

I hope this helps.  Good luck with your lab.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield 
<r.smallfield@p...> wrote:
> Hi,
> I am in a situation which forces me to send my film out to the pro lab for 
processing.
> 
> I find that Tech Pan is only an option in the dullest of conditions (when it is 
fantastic); yet I've seen desert shots with Tech Pan, with a red filter, what's more.

> 
> In anything like sunny conditions, the highlights and shadows are totally lost.
> 
> Do you think that asking the lab to under-develop by 30% would be a good idea?
> 
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> --
> http://smallfield.vze.com
> http://photos.smallfield.vze.com
> 
>    "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."
>    --Anais Nin

-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Smallfield [mailto:r.smallfield@...] 
Sent: 26 June 2004 00:05
To: Digital BW Print
Subject: [Digital BW] OT - controlling tech pan contrast

Hi,
I am in a situation which forces me to send my film out to the pro lab for
processing.

I find that Tech Pan is only an option in the dullest of conditions (when it
is fantastic); yet I've seen desert shots with Tech Pan, with a red filter,
what's more.

In anything like sunny conditions, the highlights and shadows are totally
lost.

Do you think that asking the lab to under-develop by 30% would be a good
idea?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Rate the film speed at 15 ISO and reduce dev time by 25% then all will be
revealed, as they say in the trade.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Hello Richard, I own a pro B&W lab. I do a lot of tech pan film. It  depends 
which developer is bieng used. Technidol is recomended. For less  contrast I 
dilute the technidol to 1-1 and rate the film at 12. Most labs dont  do a god 
job with tech pan because they dont use the right developer. also tech  pan 
works best with a 5 minute pre soak before the developer is added. I hope  that 
this is a help to you. Steve


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Many thanks to you all for your contributions. I have forwarded your thoughts and the Massive Dev TP chart to the lab manager.

Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com

   "You can best serve civilization by being against what usually 
   passes for it."
   --Wendell Berry

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sandersnyc" 
<sandersm@a...> wrote:
> Richard, greetings.
> 
> There are ways to get good midtones with Tech Pan, if your lab is 
willing to use 
> 
>> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28736293
This a good example of why you should avoid short developement times-
 the uneven edges as seen in this shot are certain to occur.
Most commercial labs have never been good at black and white 
negative development-color is much easier to control and maintain 
chemistry- for tech pan you need a compensating type of developer 
that loses energy in the higher exposed regions as the lower tones 
keep developing. Simply under developing in standard developer won't 
work. With all the limitations of tech pan besides development-you 
would be much better off shooting a standard slow speed film and 
processing at a lab that uses xtol as the solution.

> 
> I hope this helps.  Good luck with your lab.
> 
me too 
jack

Jack, I was the original poster -- two quick replies.   First, I processed 
the film myself -- I didn't send it out to a lab.   Second, I prefer the way the 
film develops a bit unevenly at short times (and yes, four minutes for 
Rodinal is very short) -- what you consider a flaw, I consider a virtue.   In fact, 
everything about how I shot that image is "flawed," right down to using a 1910 
Kodak Model 3A with 120 roll film in place of the original 122 film (giving a 
6x14 negative) and hand-holding a stack of Hasselblad neutral-density filters 
in front of the lens during the exposure.   It's not a perfect negative -- it 
wasn't meant to be.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

In a message dated 6/29/04 8:15:56 AM, Jack writes:


> > http://www.pbase.com/image/28736293
> This a good example of why you should avoid short developement times-
> the uneven edges as seen in this shot are certain to occur.
> Most commercial labs have never been good at black and white
> negative development-color is much easier to control and maintain
> chemistry-
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> Jack, I was the original poster -- two quick replies.   First, I 
processed 
> the film myself -- I didn't send it out to a lab.   Second, I 
prefer the way the 
> film develops a bit unevenly at short times (and yes, four minutes 
for 
> Rodinal is very short) -- what you consider a flaw, I consider a 
virtue.   In fact, 
> everything about how I shot that image is "flawed," right down to 
using a 1910 

No offense intended-it is an interesting subject-as you know not 
everyone tries to make photos as worse as they can- it is usually 
the other way around

Just for the record, I currently use Tech Pan in my Bronica 645 RF.  I think
the medium format rangefinder, TP, a light tripod, and a Nikon 8000 scanner
make a great information capture system.

I've used TP off and on for years.  I even mixed my own POTA before Kodak
made their version (the original dry TP chemistry) and then the liquid
Technidol developer.  I was never really satisfied with the film until
scanning came along and I stopped using the enlarger with the TP negatives.

My current solution for TP is to develop it to a higher contrast than would
be suitable for enlarging.  A good scanner, however, is made to handle slide
film contrast/dynamic range.  This is great for TP because it is made for
high contrast and a wide dynamic range.  I set the scanner on "positive"
"grayscale" to get the full range to show on the histogram.

I now soup the film in Technidol for 9 min. at 75 F. degrees.  I test the
film and scanner together and find that I can capture 12 stops in a single
frame.  I've tried dozens of developers and just could not, overall, beat
the (over priced) Kodak solution.

Evenness is a huge problem with this film, especially with medium format.  I
agitate at 1 min. intervals, alternating between 20 vertical shakes (10 as
fast as possible, rotate 1/4 turn, 10 more) and 4 inversions (rather a
standard agitation).  I tested my process by looking at frames that were
even midtones (shot of a ground glass).

With the Nikon and GEM enabled, the MF negs enlarge to 22 x 28 with
virtually no grain -- very nice indeed.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

For UT2 & UT7 information, curves, and settings see:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Just for the record, I currently use Tech Pan in my Bronica 645 
RF.....  
> With the Nikon and GEM enabled, the MF negs enlarge to 22 x 28 with
> virtually no grain -- very nice indeed.
> 
Paul,

Were you able to make those enlargment sizes with 100Tmx and Xtol ?

Cheers,
Andre

Andre,

The short answer is that I don't know how Tmax with Xtol will do.  I intend
to give that a try at some point.

Tmax 100 in was my standard film for years, but I always emphasized the
sharpness in development to offset the softening of the enlarger, etc.
However, I found my Tmax negatives were grainier than I liked when I started
with digital.  I never liked Xtol with Tmax when using the enlarge due to
its lack of sharpness (even if the resolution is there).

I do think Xtol gives the softest grain for the speed.  So, it'll be an
interesting experiment to see how it does with Tmax 100 and a scanner.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
______________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre [mailto:am1000@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: OT - controlling tech pan contrast

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Just for the record, I currently use Tech Pan in my Bronica 645 
RF.....  
> With the Nikon and GEM enabled, the MF negs enlarge to 22 x 28 with
> virtually no grain -- very nice indeed.
> 
Paul,

Were you able to make those enlargment sizes with 100Tmx and Xtol ?

Cheers,
Andre






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jnhugo" <jacknadelle@h...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
> wrote:
> > Jack, I was the original poster -- two quick replies.   First, I 
> processed 
> > the film myself -- I didn't send it out to a lab.   Second, I 
> prefer the way the 
> > film develops a bit unevenly at short times (and yes, four minutes 
> for 
> > Rodinal is very short) -- what you consider a flaw, I consider a 
> virtue.   In fact, 
> > everything about how I shot that image is "flawed," right down to 
> using a 1910 
> 
> No offense intended-it is an interesting subject-as you know not 
> everyone tries to make photos as worse as they can- it is usually 
> the other way around


Jack, fair enough -- I'm sorry if I sounded defensive.  But I would disagree with you 
about what is "usual," at least in the world of fine art B+W photography, which is the 
concern of most here.  B+W is a level of abstraction beyond ordinary color 
photography, and I'm betting most here "usually" break the rules of focusing and 
exposure and processing in the pursuit of more creative avenues of expression.  
Witness, for example, the toy camera enthusiasts -- the Holgas and Dianas.  I have an 
especial fondness for uncoated lenses with a lot of spherical aberrations, like my 
1911 Goerz Dagor -- and judging from the prices they fetch on eBay, I'm not alone.  
Or diffuse-focusing lenses.  

I could go on with more examples, but the point should be obvious.  In photographs 
as in people, it is often their asymmetries and imperfections that make them 
memorable.

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> 
> With the Nikon and GEM enabled, the MF negs enlarge to 22 x 28 with
> virtually no grain -- very nice indeed.
> 
Paul,

Interesting. I see that you are using Nikon Scan as your scanning
software. Do you use a fix number for digital GEM or are you able to
judge before hand what level of grain reduction will be needed ?

Also, is Nikon Scan Unsharp Masking worth using for early
post-processing of b&w negatives and if so what level of unsharp
masking    would be a good starting point ?

Cheers,
Andre

Andre,

><paul.roark@v...> wrote:

>> 
>> With the Nikon and GEM enabled, the MF negs enlarge to 22 x 28 with
>> virtually no grain -- very nice indeed.


>Interesting. I see that you are using Nikon Scan as your scanning
>software. Do you use a fix number for digital GEM or are you able to
>judge before hand what level of grain reduction will be needed ?

I scan the negative twice.  With one scan GEM is turned off.  With the
second scan GEM is set to the maximum.  When the negative has not been
moved, it's easy then to clone over the sharp or grain-reduced (and a bit
softer) information as appropriate (the sky for GEM, in general).

>Also, is Nikon Scan Unsharp Masking worth using for early
>post-processing of b&w negatives ...

I never sharpen until I get into Photoshop.  I want the best raw scan
information as a starting point.  However, I've found GEM does a better job
than I could do in PS.  On the other hand, some of the 3rd party programs,
like Neat Image, are quite good and may even be used in addition to GEM.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Andre,

Contrary to my original response, I found that I had done the comparisons
between Tmax 100 in Xtol and Tech Pan in Technidol (the results were on my
old computer).

I can't say whether one would see a major difference in an enlargement, but
the TP image quality was significantly better on the monitor when scanned
images of my standardized test targets were viewed.  The straighter curve of
TP in Technidol scanned better in my workflow, which includes scanning
negatives as positives.  The grain of TP was somewhat finer, but this is not
where the big difference was.  The resolution was about the same for the
scanned images.  However, the most noticeable difference was the sharpness
and clarity of the fine detail of the TP.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
_____________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre [mailto:am1000@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:25 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: OT - controlling tech pan contrast

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Just for the record, I currently use Tech Pan in my Bronica 645 
RF.....  
> With the Nikon and GEM enabled, the MF negs enlarge to 22 x 28 with
> virtually no grain -- very nice indeed.
> 
Paul,

Were you able to make those enlargment sizes with 100Tmx and Xtol ?

Cheers,
Andre






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Paul,

Thanks for sharing your findings. My previous experience (several
years ago) with TP were with Rodinal (maybe not the best choice for
scanning) and FG-7 plus Sodium Sulfite with which I was able to get
better tonality than Rodinal.

Maybe I should take a look at TP with Technidol.

Cheers,
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Andre,
> 
> Contrary to my original response, I found that I had done the
comparisons
> between Tmax 100 in Xtol and Tech Pan in Technidol (the results were
on my
> old computer).
> 
> I can't say whether one would see a major difference in an
enlargement, but
> the TP image quality was significantly better on the monitor when
scanned
> images of my standardized test targets were viewed.  The straighter
curve of
> TP in Technidol scanned better in my workflow, which includes scanning
> negatives as positives.  The grain of TP was somewhat finer, but
this is not
> where the big difference was.  The resolution was about the same for the
> scanned images.  However, the most noticeable difference was the
sharpness

> and clarity of the fine detail of the TP.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> _____________________________

Andre,

I have tried dozens of developers with TP, and I think Kodak has the others
beat when all the various factors are taken into account.  I'm usually not
inclined to pay a big company monopoly rent, but in this case, I gave up and
think it is worth it to use Technidol.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
_______________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre [mailto:am1000@...] 
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:34 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: OT - controlling tech pan contrast

Paul,

Thanks for sharing your findings. My previous experience (several
years ago) with TP were with Rodinal (maybe not the best choice for
scanning) and FG-7 plus Sodium Sulfite with which I was able to get
better tonality than Rodinal.

Maybe I should take a look at TP with Technidol.

Cheers,
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Andre,
> 
> Contrary to my original response, I found that I had done the
comparisons
> between Tmax 100 in Xtol and Tech Pan in Technidol (the results were
on my
> old computer).
> 
> I can't say whether one would see a major difference in an
enlargement, but
> the TP image quality was significantly better on the monitor when
scanned
> images of my standardized test targets were viewed.  The straighter
curve of
> TP in Technidol scanned better in my workflow, which includes scanning
> negatives as positives.  The grain of TP was somewhat finer, but
this is not
> where the big difference was.  The resolution was about the same for the
> scanned images.  However, the most noticeable difference was the
sharpness
> and clarity of the fine detail of the TP.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> _____________________________





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links