>> 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 XXXX!" "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 wouldn�t 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 .
