The second part of my adventure with Kodak Technical Pan. TL;DR: I shot the only roll of Technical Pan I’ve had in a Zenza Bronica GS-1 and developed it despite having no Technidol, its designated developer.
Read more about the first part of my adventure with Technical Pan!
Quick overview, first: I was shooting a roll of Technical Pan in a Zenza Bronica GS-1, in its standard 6×7 back, with the sharpest lens of the system, the Zenzanon-PG 80mm F3.5. Since the film expired in 2001, according to the general rule of thumb of decreasing film sensitivity one stop for every decade after the expiry date, I was supposed to shoot it at 6 ASA. That would require shooting on a tripod, and I really wasn’t happy doing that, so I took a chance and guesstimated it as only half as expired, meaning I was shooting it at 12 ASA.
Shooting the film
Shooting with an 80mm lens from the hand meant keeping the exposures above 1/80 to minimise the camera shake. Luckily, Zenzanon-PG lenses have a leaf shutter built in, reducing the amount of shake, but there’s still a significant mirror slap. At 12 ASA, that meant I had to keep the apertures pretty wide, well below ƒ/8, where I would like them to be. The resulting shallow depth of field is clearly visible in more than one photo, and I wasn’t expecting that effect to be this obvious – I was nowhere near the minimal focusing distance.
At one moment, I was left with the final three photos, but I was running out of daylight fast, so I threw the caution away and cranked the ASA dial to a shocking 25 ASA! I basically just skewed the camera’s light meter a stop; despite the setting sun, it was still a bright day, one stop less shouldn’t make a deal-breaking difference.
Development
After finishing the film, I had to develop it somehow!
As I’ve read on the ‘net, Technical Pan is a notoriously difficult film to develop correctly; it is difficult to tame its contrast while keeping the sharpness and minimal grain. Historically, using Technidol – its recommended developer – would do the trick, but it was discontinued at the same time as the film, in the early 2000s, and buying a bottle of a special-purpose developer just for one roll would be an overkill. I’ve had a few options left – Rodinal, Perceptol, FX-39 or XT-3. Xtol (XT-3 in Adox nomenclature) is what Kodak recommends as an alternative but for film metered at below 10 ASA – something I certainly didn’t prepare for.
My options were like this:
| Developer | Dilution | ASA | Time | Temp |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FX-39 | 1+19 | 25 | 7 | 20°C |
| Perceptol | 1+1 | 25 | 9 | 22°C |
| Rodinal | 1+50 | 25 | 4.5 | 20°C |
| Rodinal | 1+100 | 25 | 8 | 20°C |
| Rodinal | 1+100 | 25 | 60 | 20°C |
| Rodinal | 1+150 | 25–64 | 7 | 20°C |
| Rodinal | 1+300 | 25–64 | 12 | 20°C |
| Technidol LC | stock | 16–25 | 5-11 | 20°C |
| Technidol LC | stock | 25–32 | 7-18 | 20°C |
| Xtol / XT-3 | 1+5 | 10 | 15-16 | 21°C |
In the end, I decided to go with FX-39 because of reasonable development time and because I had it open and ready to use. I’ve decided to develop the film at its box speed, 25 ASA, with no compensation for pulling it to 12 ASA, simply because I had no idea how long I should develop it. YOLO, and see how it would turn out; what could possibly go wrong!?
After 7 minutes of development, some fixing and washing, the film was ready for drying.
Results?
Absolutely amazing!
Negatives are well exposed and well developed, sharp, with a full tonal range, from deep blacks to shiny whites, all in the right places – deep blacks in deep shadows and bright whites on top of the clouds.
I’ve reached the limits of my flatbed scanner; scans are as good as I can get them at the moment. Negatives look like they have a bit more dynamic range and are sharper, but without a better scanner, this is all I can get.
