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 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 .
