Discontinuation of Kodak Technical Pan

If you are going to stock (I'm debating it) should you wait until the
expiration date to throw it into the freezer or just throw it into the freezer
when you get home? I've heard that once film goes into the freezer, it is not
advised to take it out until you're ready to use it.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Michael A. Covington" wrote
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#040921

On which it is written:
In fact I probably haven't bought a roll of Technical Pan in
ten years... and now they've discontinued it.

Yes, that does seem to have been the case with a lot of people.

Then there are those who go through two 20 roll packs a year.

It makes a _great_ snapshot film. Same ASA as K25, so what the bitching
is about with it being "too slow" I do not understand. I even use it in a
Yashica T4; you have to glue a bit of ND .6 filter over the photocell,
though, as the camera defaults to 100 ASA w/o a DX code.

It keeps well forever. I shot a 20 year old roll I found in a box of
camping gear just to see what happens: same as a new roll, and with no fog.

Stock up now.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

If you are going to stock (I'm debating it) should you wait until the
expiration date to throw it into the freezer or just throw it into the freezer
when you get home? I've heard that once film goes into the freezer, it is not
advised to take it out until you're ready to use it.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Michael A. Covington" wrote
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/...ex.html#040921

On which it is written:
In fact I probably haven't bought a roll of Technical Pan in
ten years... and now they've discontinued it.

Yes, that does seem to have been the case with a lot of people.

Then there are those who go through two 20 roll packs a year.

It makes a _great_ snapshot film. Same ASA as K25, so what the bitching
is about with it being "too slow" I do not understand. I even use it in a
Yashica T4; you have to glue a bit of ND .6 filter over the photocell,
though, as the camera defaults to 100 ASA w/o a DX code.

It keeps well forever. I shot a 20 year old roll I found in a box of
camping gear just to see what happens: same as a new roll, and with no fog.

Stock up now.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message news:%j44d.9104
But then there is the matter of red sensitivity.
Techpan with a 25A filter is superb. And your lens
becomes a functional apochromat. There is quite a
difference in resolution with and without the 25A.

Hmmm... "monochromat"?

I would think that a narrow green filter would work even better than a red
one. The aberrations in the lens are corrected for the visible spectrum, so
by using only red light, you eliminate chromatic aberration but you don't
get the optimum for everything else.

Incidentally, one of my lenses (Olympus Zuiko 180/2.8) got demonstrably a
tiny bit sharper when a skylight (1A, almost-clear) filter was added. It
had a lot of chromatic aberration in the violet and near UV (as I
demonstrated doing astrophotography, but the effect of the filter was also
evident in terrestrial photos). And putting a yellow filter on a telephoto
lens to sharpen it is an old astrophotography trick.

wrote in message
...
If you are going to stock (I'm debating it) should you wait until the
expiration date to throw it into the freezer or just throw it into the
freezer
when you get home? I've heard that once film goes into the freezer, it is
not
advised to take it out until you're ready to use it.

I don't know why that would be. Kodak has been storing it in the freezer
for years and then taking it out and selling it to us. What little I have
left, I have in the freezer.

wrote in message
...
If you are going to stock (I'm debating it) should you wait until the
expiration date to throw it into the freezer or just throw it into the
freezer
when you get home? I've heard that once film goes into the freezer, it is
not
advised to take it out until you're ready to use it.

I don't know why that would be. Kodak has been storing it in the freezer
for years and then taking it out and selling it to us. What little I have
left, I have in the freezer.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:06:19 GMT, wrote:

If you are going to stock (I'm debating it) should you wait until the
expiration date to throw it into the freezer or just throw it into the freezer
when you get home? I've heard that once film goes into the freezer, it is not
advised to take it out until you're ready to use it.

Throw it in right away, if you buy a brick, then leave the rolls in
their boxes, you can optionally mark the brick with the date you froze
it, when you expect to use the film, take it out of the freezer a few
days before you need it, but leave it in the packaging, until you
actually do use it.

W

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:06:19 GMT, wrote:

If you are going to stock (I'm debating it) should you wait until the
expiration date to throw it into the freezer or just throw it into the freezer
when you get home? I've heard that once film goes into the freezer, it is not
advised to take it out until you're ready to use it.

Throw it in right away, if you buy a brick, then leave the rolls in
their boxes, you can optionally mark the brick with the date you froze
it, when you expect to use the film, take it out of the freezer a few
days before you need it, but leave it in the packaging, until you
actually do use it.

W

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:00:32 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:

Unlike other recent film discontinuations,

Such as APX25 ? Which was nearly as fine grained and sharp as
TP without the odd spectral sensitivity and processing mandates.

this one has no substitute that is anywhere close.

I have to differ. TMX may not resolve quite as high but if you
pull it to EI32 and develop in D23 or Microdol-X it is nearly as fine
grained and sharp as TP.

As to "It's also probably the end of the hydrogen
hypersensitization era." I don't think a lot of astro-photographers
are going to care. As noted at :


http://www.backyardastronomy.com/cha...e%20sect-49534

"With today's much-improved films, faster optical systems and
auto-guiders for effortless long exposures, we've found hypering
simply is not worth the effort. Results that rival those achieved by
hypered film are now possible with off-the-shelf films right out of
the box."

Remember that there is still the theory that some new
technologies in film emulsion engineering are going to be introduced
and with significant advances in image quality and film speed. I know
the technology was developed but I doubt it will ever make it to the
factories. R&D investments have been slashed and manufacturers are
simply profiting from products that are "good enough".

Do I decry the discontinuation of TP ? You betcha ! But I
resigned myself to this when Kodak discontinued Elite, Kodabromide,
Ektalure, Verichrome Pan, Pan Masking Film, Ektapan, Plus-X Pan Pro
and SO-132. Add in Ilfords' discontinuation of Delta 400 and Pan-F+
above the 120 format, the discontinuance of all 220 films and their
recent cutbacks in marketing along with Agfa's plight. These companies
are dinosaurs that were made to serve the need of government-sized
institutions and have no method of being profitable with the smaller
volumes. They certainly have no capability to cater to such small
markets as art photography and frankly they don't even care to try.
"Bigger, better, faster and cheaper." The American Dream in one
sentence.

Yes ladies and germs, welcome to the 21st century where "all
your images are belong to us" in glorious digital. A time when aging
Baby Boomers with unrealistic expectations for their financial
investments are now steering the boats of companies all over the globe
and running nearly every one of them aground !! But that's OK because
it's their money and they damn well better get their 16% ROI or
someones butt is going to be in a sling !!

In short, are you beginning to get the feeling that artistic
photography (and therefore the photographers) don't matter one whit to
these companies ? You don't.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:00:32 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:

Unlike other recent film discontinuations,

Such as APX25 ? Which was nearly as fine grained and sharp as
TP without the odd spectral sensitivity and processing mandates.

this one has no substitute that is anywhere close.

I have to differ. TMX may not resolve quite as high but if you
pull it to EI32 and develop in D23 or Microdol-X it is nearly as fine
grained and sharp as TP.

As to "It's also probably the end of the hydrogen
hypersensitization era." I don't think a lot of astro-photographers
are going to care. As noted at :


http://www.backyardastronomy.com/cha...e%20sect-49534

"With today's much-improved films, faster optical systems and
auto-guiders for effortless long exposures, we've found hypering
simply is not worth the effort. Results that rival those achieved by
hypered film are now possible with off-the-shelf films right out of
the box."

Remember that there is still the theory that some new
technologies in film emulsion engineering are going to be introduced
and with significant advances in image quality and film speed. I know
the technology was developed but I doubt it will ever make it to the
factories. R&D investments have been slashed and manufacturers are
simply profiting from products that are "good enough".

Do I decry the discontinuation of TP ? You betcha ! But I
resigned myself to this when Kodak discontinued Elite, Kodabromide,
Ektalure, Verichrome Pan, Pan Masking Film, Ektapan, Plus-X Pan Pro
and SO-132. Add in Ilfords' discontinuation of Delta 400 and Pan-F+
above the 120 format, the discontinuance of all 220 films and their
recent cutbacks in marketing along with Agfa's plight. These companies
are dinosaurs that were made to serve the need of government-sized
institutions and have no method of being profitable with the smaller
volumes. They certainly have no capability to cater to such small
markets as art photography and frankly they don't even care to try.
"Bigger, better, faster and cheaper." The American Dream in one
sentence.

Yes ladies and germs, welcome to the 21st century where "all
your images are belong to us" in glorious digital. A time when aging
Baby Boomers with unrealistic expectations for their financial
investments are now steering the boats of companies all over the globe
and running nearly every one of them aground !! But that's OK because
it's their money and they damn well better get their 16% ROI or
someones butt is going to be in a sling !!

In short, are you beginning to get the feeling that artistic
photography (and therefore the photographers) don't matter one whit to
these companies ? You don't.

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email

"John" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:00:32 -0400, "Michael A. Covington"
wrote:

Unlike other recent film discontinuations,

Such as APX25 ? Which was nearly as fine grained and sharp as
TP without the odd spectral sensitivity and processing mandates.

For pictorial photography, yes. (I miss Panatomic-X.) TP was never a very
good material for pictorial photography; it was super-fine-grained but very
tricky to work with, since you had to abuse it (by a special kind of
underdevelopment) to get normal pictorial contrast.

My point was that Kodak was offering no substitute for TP for scientific
work. It's (so far) been relatively uncommon for Kodak to discontinue a
product without even *claiming* that there is a substitute. Sometimes not a
very good substitute, of course.

As to "It's also probably the end of the hydrogen
hypersensitization era." I don't think a lot of astro-photographers
are going to care. As noted at :
http://www.backyardastronomy.com/cha...e%20sect-49534

"With today's much-improved films, faster optical systems and
auto-guiders for effortless long exposures, we've found hypering
simply is not worth the effort. Results that rival those achieved by
hypered film are now possible with off-the-shelf films right out of
the box."

Actually I tend to agree. I have not used hypered film in about 10 years.

Elite Chrome 100, for example, is virtually free of reciprocity failure.
Though not as sharp as TP, it is sharp enough to do justice to the lenses we
are likely to be using (at f/4 or wider). And you get color images, and
good keeping properties, and easy processing (E-6).

Remember that there is still the theory that some new
technologies in film emulsion engineering are going to be introduced
and with significant advances in image quality and film speed. I know
the technology was developed but I doubt it will ever make it to the
factories. R&D investments have been slashed and manufacturers are
simply profiting from products that are "good enough".

I think we got some of that, with almost no fanfare, with the "new" E100.
(About a year ago E100 got a LOT finer-grained, and it wasn't advertised.)
Kodak tells me E200 is slated for the same improvement soon (assuming they
can afford it and don't lose interest!). Of course, the speed-grain ratio
has been improving, and reciprocity failure has been DRAMATICALLY
diminishing, for a long time.

I don't know how much more black-and-white darkroom work is in my future.
For me, "film" is, at present, E100 and Fuji Astia and a few of the close
relatives of both. I do my terrestrial photography with a digital camera.

--
Clear skies,

Michael A. Covington
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html