Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
Aaron wrote: >I haven't seen the film flatness issues that you've experienced in your >645 in my 67, though I'll confess I haven't gone out of my way to look >for the problem. Are the transports similar? No the transports are not similar. I don't think film flatness is a big issue with the 67. It's the bending backwards of the film on the 6 X 4,5 system that produce the film flatness problem. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
On Monday, January 21, 2002, at 01:04 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > Very skilled > guy--he made Tech Pan look almost as good as an ordinary full-range > panchromatic pictorial film. Otherwise, my advice is, pick an normal > film > and improve your technique. Tech Pan ain't no magic bullet. Mike...what would be the point of making Tech Pan look just like everything else? Reminds me of a gag in The Great Muppet Caper -- Fozzie's in a fancy restaurant, pouring sugar into his champagne glass, because "if you put enough sugar in this stuff it tastes just like ginger ale!" I like Tech Pan with a deep red filter, shot around ISO 100 and processed in Rodinal. It's contrasty, but very smooth, and with an odd look to it that is very hard to describe. I like Technical Pan in the same way that I like infrared films. IR is (if you ask me) frequently used as a gimmick to gussy up what would otherwise be a boring image. I've seen some striking IR images (one that sticks in my mind belonged to PDML's own Glenn), and I've seen a lot of...well...dull scenery. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
Perhaps I'll stick with Tri-X(the best film in the world). : ) Evan - Original Message - From: "Mike Johnston" > Right. To say nothing of the fact that it's a very slow film (exacerbating > subject movement and lighting problems) and it's tonally butt-ugly. > > Forgive me for being cynical, but when you edit a technical photography > magazine as I did there are some things you quickly get a surfeit of. > Submissions of photographs "that I made with the Zone System!" "That were > developed in pyro / amidol!" "that were toned in !" "That uses a totally > new technique I invented myself!" "That were made with Tech Pan, the BEST > FILM IN THE WORLD!" > > Buncha hooey. Most of those submitters wouldn¹t know a good print if it > snuck up behind them and sank its fangs into their ass. Some of them didn't > even recognize other gross technical faults--like the guy who submitted the > Tech Pan portfolio that had all the corners so far out of focus that the neg > in the enlarger must have vaguely mimicked the shape of a parachute. > > I did once see ONE good Tech Pan portfolio--by Bob Clemens, who was a > full-time staff photographer for Eastman Kodak for 25 years. Very skilled > guy--he made Tech Pan look almost as good as an ordinary full-range > panchromatic pictorial film. Otherwise, my advice is, pick an normal film > and improve your technique. Tech Pan ain't no magic bullet. > > --Cynic Mike, tired of Tech Pan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
Got some and haven't tried it in my 645 yet, but now you've got me thinking about it ... - Original Message - From: "Evan Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:29 AM Subject: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan > Ok MF shooters has anyone used Tech Pan and are the results as amazing as I > would believe. > > Evan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
On Monday, January 21, 2002, at 09:29 AM, Evan Hanson wrote: > Ok MF shooters has anyone used Tech Pan and are the results as amazing > as I > would believe. I've shot Technical Pan in 6x7, and it's pretty nifty. What developer are you going to use? I've become a fan of Tech Pan in Rodinal, which gives you a contrasty but very sharp and smooth neg. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
>> Ok MF shooters has anyone used Tech Pan and are the results as amazing as I >> would believe. > > > I've not tried Tech Pan but in my experience (645) the limitations for > Pentax MF is lens quality and film flatness so I doubt it would be THAT > amazing. Right. To say nothing of the fact that it's a very slow film (exacerbating subject movement and lighting problems) and it's tonally butt-ugly. Forgive me for being cynical, but when you edit a technical photography magazine as I did there are some things you quickly get a surfeit of. Submissions of photographs "that I made with the Zone System!" "That were developed in pyro / amidol!" "that were toned in !" "That uses a totally new technique I invented myself!" "That were made with Tech Pan, the BEST FILM IN THE WORLD!" Buncha hooey. Most of those submitters wouldn¹t know a good print if it snuck up behind them and sank its fangs into their ass. Some of them didn't even recognize other gross technical faults--like the guy who submitted the Tech Pan portfolio that had all the corners so far out of focus that the neg in the enlarger must have vaguely mimicked the shape of a parachute. I did once see ONE good Tech Pan portfolio--by Bob Clemens, who was a full-time staff photographer for Eastman Kodak for 25 years. Very skilled guy--he made Tech Pan look almost as good as an ordinary full-range panchromatic pictorial film. Otherwise, my advice is, pick an normal film and improve your technique. Tech Pan ain't no magic bullet. --Cynic Mike, tired of Tech Pan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
On Monday, January 21, 2002, at 09:53 AM, Pål Audun Jensen wrote: > I've not tried Tech Pan but in my experience (645) the limitations for > Pentax MF is lens quality and film flatness so I doubt it would be THAT > amazing. I haven't seen the film flatness issues that you've experienced in your 645 in my 67, though I'll confess I haven't gone out of my way to look for the problem. Are the transports similar? -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 645 or 67 and Tech Pan
Evan wrote: >Ok MF shooters has anyone used Tech Pan and are the results as amazing as I >would believe. I've not tried Tech Pan but in my experience (645) the limitations for Pentax MF is lens quality and film flatness so I doubt it would be THAT amazing. Pål - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
645 or 67 and Tech Pan
Ok MF shooters has anyone used Tech Pan and are the results as amazing as I would believe. Evan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
