Re: [Leica] Tech Pan

[Richard Comen <rpcomen@mcn.org>]

Mike, Regarding your assertion below that " >The stuff just plain and
simple appeals to hopeless dweebs searching for some crutch to make up for
the fact that they wouldn't >know a halfway decent picture if it was a
snake and bit them on the ass and >HUNG THERE." I guess I am one of those
hopeless dweebs. 
    I tried H&W control ( out of Vermont ) in the early 70s and loved it
except for the miserably slow speed rating. Ironically, in the Sept/Oct
issue of Darkroom and Creative Camera techniques appeared an article on
bleaching of negs prior to developing by David Kachel. The concept caught
my fancy and I thought why not for Tech Pan shot at ASA 100 and developed
in HC 110 dilution B. This could lower the contrast and still give me a
usable film speed for my first love, street photography. Why Tech Pan?
Because one can utilize just a portion of ones negative if need be ( yes I
am one who crops in the camera finder but also often finds that an image
improves with cropping in the darkroom ). Also I like the resolution the
film gives. Why use our fine Leicas and lenses and expect the most from
them and not expect the same from our film which carries the image to the
darkroom? I spent a month in Paris shortly after reading the above article
and shot TP at ASA 100. I returned and tried Kachels bleaching technique
and obtained some fine 11X14 prints for my walls ( I think the ultimate
satisfaction of our photography endeavors as an amateur is what pleases us
on our wall). 
However, the technique was not consistent and so I spent the next several
years working on a brew that I would find consistent for shooting TP at ASA
100 and capable of recording a wide range of tonality especially with the
modern split filtration methods. I found it and it is entirely to my
satisfaction. I now use TP for Pictorial, Portraiture, Stage and symphonic
photography under stage lighting, and above all my favorite street
photography. It is my favorite all purpose film and I have been trying them
all since the early 1930s. If this places me among the "Dweebs", thats me!

If you are flexible enough to see more examples of your hated Tech Pan go to:


http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4293382025


They might be crap to you but they look great on my wall!
Richard



At 09:48 PM 11/6/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Friends,
>Anyone who wants to shoot Tech Pan doesn't need my permission. Please, go
>ahead, and if it works for you, fine, and I'm sure I would like your
>pictures.
>
>However, I EARNED the right to think it sucks...
>
>I've paid my dues.
>
>For six long years putting out photo magazines one after the other, I had to
>put up with getting pelted with an endless stream of CRAPPY portfolios from
>people who were under the highly mistaken impression that using Tech Pan
>made their work s-p-e-c-i-a-l....oh so special...it was on TECH PAN...the
>BEST film...it had to be good....
>
>Man, did that stuff reek. The work, I mean. I mean, I never saw ONE good
>portfolio come in on TP. Never one damn lousy portfolio in the neighborhood
>of Halfway Decent. The stuff just plain and simple appeals to hopeless
>dweebs searching for some crutch to make up for the fact that they wouldn't
>know a halfway decent picture if it was a snake and bit them on the ass and
>HUNG THERE.
>
>
>JMB>>>TP is THE film. I use it for many purposes, astronomy, portraits,
>landscapes, document reproduction, photomicrography. <<<
>
>Okay, there's an exception to every rule. I already mentioned that Bob
>Clemens actually managed to produce some good prints with Tech Pan because
>he had to for the Kodak books, and he defends the stuff (although he doesn't
>use it now that he's retired!). Maybe only 97% of TP portfolios suck
>polluted swamp muck and the other 3% are dazzling. I'm willing to believe
>that. So PRESENT COMPANY EXCEPTED, please. Okay? I'm not insulting anybody
>specific here, JMB or anybody else. Please, use Tech Pan if you like it, if
>it works for you, and ignore me. Put a non-perfectly-planar filter on me. I
>don't tell you what to do. I'm sure you are confident enough to ignore my
>opinions. I'm sorry.
>
>But I haaa-a-a-a-a-aaaate that crap, and I'll never shoot a picture on TP
>again if I live to be a hundred. That's just what having to look at all
>those endless god-forsook, piss-poor, weak-ass alleged photographs has done
>to me; made me all cringy, like a whupped dawg.
>
>There it is. Now don't get me started on...no, I'm not even going to mention
>my other _betes noir_; no use tempting fate (like that stops me).
>
>--Mike
>
>
>