Substitute for Tech Pan?

Donald Qualls wrote:
: John wrote:

: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:20:47 -0500, Frank Pittel
: wrote:
:
:
: Please stop feeding the troll.
:
:
: Yep. http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php
:

: Actually, John, I like Netscape -- it's had a good kill filter since
: 1996, about, except for a brief period after the jump to version 6.0.

: --
: The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use
: whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative
: objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions.
: -- Ansel Adams

At the local college of which I am a professional student they have in a number
of places the following quote.

The master of the medium is a technician
The master of the image is an artist

Unfortunatly they don't provide the source of the quote.


--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:31:51 +0000, Donald Qualls wrote:

Yep. http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php


Actually, John, I like Netscape -- it's had a good kill filter since
1996, about, except for a brief period after the jump to version 6.0.

I'll go with Mozilla but since AOL bought Netscape and subsequently
closed it , it's hands-off for general principle to me.

BTW, right now I'm using Pan under the latest version of Red Hat's Fedora
Core Linux. Even my wife is surprised at how well it's working.
--

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org
Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

Frank Pittel wrote:

The master of the medium is a technician
The master of the image is an artist

There is no master of the art without mastering the medium.

Just ask Picasso.

Frank Pittel wrote:

The master of the medium is a technician
The master of the image is an artist

There is no master of the art without mastering the medium.

Just ask Picasso.

John wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:31:51 +0000, Donald Qualls wrote:


Yep. http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php


Actually, John, I like Netscape -- it's had a good kill filter since
1996, about, except for a brief period after the jump to version 6.0.


I'll go with Mozilla but since AOL bought Netscape and subsequently
closed it , it's hands-off for general principle to me.

BTW, right now I'm using Pan under the latest version of Red Hat's Fedora
Core Linux. Even my wife is surprised at how well it's working.

Well, I'm not sure how "closed" Netscape is -- I just installed version
7.2 a couple weeks ago, which included a couple significant feature
improvements as well as whatever behind-the-scenes security fixes might
have been added. Development isn't going on at the breakneck pace it
had when the Gecko engine was new, but it's not really stopped either; I
think it just doesn't take much staff to select a stable version of
Mozilla and give it a repaint and new carpet to call it Netscape. And
why duplicate all that work being done for free?

--
The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use
whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative
objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions.
-- Ansel Adams

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

John wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:31:51 +0000, Donald Qualls wrote:


Yep. http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php


Actually, John, I like Netscape -- it's had a good kill filter since
1996, about, except for a brief period after the jump to version 6.0.


I'll go with Mozilla but since AOL bought Netscape and subsequently
closed it , it's hands-off for general principle to me.

BTW, right now I'm using Pan under the latest version of Red Hat's Fedora
Core Linux. Even my wife is surprised at how well it's working.

Well, I'm not sure how "closed" Netscape is -- I just installed version
7.2 a couple weeks ago, which included a couple significant feature
improvements as well as whatever behind-the-scenes security fixes might
have been added. Development isn't going on at the breakneck pace it
had when the Gecko engine was new, but it's not really stopped either; I
think it just doesn't take much staff to select a stable version of
Mozilla and give it a repaint and new carpet to call it Netscape. And
why duplicate all that work being done for free?

--
The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use
whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative
objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions.
-- Ansel Adams

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

John wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:31:51 +0000, Donald Qualls wrote:


Yep. http://www.forteinc.com/main/homepage.php


Actually, John, I like Netscape -- it's had a good kill filter since
1996, about, except for a brief period after the jump to version 6.0.


I'll go with Mozilla but since AOL bought Netscape and subsequently
closed it , it's hands-off for general principle to me.

BTW, right now I'm using Pan under the latest version of Red Hat's Fedora
Core Linux. Even my wife is surprised at how well it's working.

Well, I'm not sure how "closed" Netscape is -- I just installed version
7.2 a couple weeks ago, which included a couple significant feature
improvements as well as whatever behind-the-scenes security fixes might
have been added. Development isn't going on at the breakneck pace it
had when the Gecko engine was new, but it's not really stopped either; I
think it just doesn't take much staff to select a stable version of
Mozilla and give it a repaint and new carpet to call it Netscape. And
why duplicate all that work being done for free?

--
The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use
whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative
objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions.
-- Ansel Adams

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:29:02 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Hemi4268 wrote:

Hi

Originally Tech Pan replaced 5469 High Contrast Copy film sometime in the early
80's. It was really not a replacement since HCC had about 25% more resolution.
Kodak felt that the 100% more speed of TP was more important then 25% less
resolution of HCC.

Anyway, Kodak still made 5460 AHU Microfilm whick was almost identical to 5469
HCC. But unlike HCC, it only came in 100 ft 35mm rolls and 20 rolls was the
minimum order at $8 a roll in 1985.

Not sure if 5460 is still being made. Banks mostly used it to copy checks. It
was also the main film for microfish,

Larry

The only Kodak microfilms I've seen on their site are Imagelink family
-- HQ, high resolution, FS, high speed, and a selection of silver and
azo negative and positive copy films.

However, I did see a High Contrast Copy Film in the movie film section
of their site today, following that link posted by the troll. Don't
recall the emulsion designation, but yet, it looks like it might be a
replacement for TP if Imagelink isn't suitable (and Imagelink doesn't
come in either 35 mm or fiche, AFAIK).

Ah, yes, the reversal process film we MP guys shot our titles on. It
has a high maximum density and is still used for making masks for
split printing in optical work.

While in film school, a number of brave young souls shot live action
scenes and had the labs process it in standard negative solutions
using shortened develpoment times.

It might well serve the purpose of Tech Pan, but it is either Blue
sensitive, or Orthochromatic sensitized.

I now recall there was a panchromatic high contrast film that might
work, but the name escapes me.

Most MP stocks can be purchased in the form of "short ends", through
short end sellers in locations near significant MP activity.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:29:02 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Hemi4268 wrote:

Hi

Originally Tech Pan replaced 5469 High Contrast Copy film sometime in the early
80's. It was really not a replacement since HCC had about 25% more resolution.
Kodak felt that the 100% more speed of TP was more important then 25% less
resolution of HCC.

Anyway, Kodak still made 5460 AHU Microfilm whick was almost identical to 5469
HCC. But unlike HCC, it only came in 100 ft 35mm rolls and 20 rolls was the
minimum order at $8 a roll in 1985.

Not sure if 5460 is still being made. Banks mostly used it to copy checks. It
was also the main film for microfish,

Larry

The only Kodak microfilms I've seen on their site are Imagelink family
-- HQ, high resolution, FS, high speed, and a selection of silver and
azo negative and positive copy films.

However, I did see a High Contrast Copy Film in the movie film section
of their site today, following that link posted by the troll. Don't
recall the emulsion designation, but yet, it looks like it might be a
replacement for TP if Imagelink isn't suitable (and Imagelink doesn't
come in either 35 mm or fiche, AFAIK).

Ah, yes, the reversal process film we MP guys shot our titles on. It
has a high maximum density and is still used for making masks for
split printing in optical work.

While in film school, a number of brave young souls shot live action
scenes and had the labs process it in standard negative solutions
using shortened develpoment times.

It might well serve the purpose of Tech Pan, but it is either Blue
sensitive, or Orthochromatic sensitized.

I now recall there was a panchromatic high contrast film that might
work, but the name escapes me.

Most MP stocks can be purchased in the form of "short ends", through
short end sellers in locations near significant MP activity.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

I now recall there was a panchromatic high contrast film that might
work, but the name escapes me.

Most MP stocks can be purchased in the form of "short ends", through
short end sellers in locations near significant MP activity.

Okay, I went back to Kodak and found this in the "intermediate films"
section of the Cinematic group:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/intermediate/5369.jhtml?id=0.1.4.6.6.8&lc=en

Assuming that doesn't get mangled, that should go to Eastman High
Contrast Panchromatic 5369/2369/3369, "approximately 2 camera stops
faster than EASTMAN Fine Grain Release Positive Film 5302." They don't
give an actual speed, but I've heard Fine Grain Release Positive quoted
as something like EI 3 for pictorial contrast, so this might be ISO 12
equivalent when developed for continuous tone, possibly as high as 25 or
32 with a highly optimized developer along the lines of SPUR Nanospeed
or SPUR Imagelink (the same kind of developers that get EI 50 to 80 out
of Tech Pan and 100 to 125 from Copex Rapid).

There are also Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic Negative Film
5234/7234 (listed as "low speed" and without special exposure time
cautions on #10 safelight use, this is likely ISO 1 equivalent, or
slower), and Panchromatic Separation Film 2238 (safelight cautions
suggest a speed similar to Fine Grain Release Positive, perhaps ISO 3
equivalent) that might be candidates, though they don't have the high
contrast that seems related to the very high resolution of Tech Pan and
microfilms (high contrast seems characteristic of very small and very
consistent halide grains).

--
The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use
whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative
objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions.
-- Ansel Adams

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.