They (Phot. Formulary) have a modified Windisch Pyrocatechin developer
they made up for Tech Pan. Is that the one you mean? I don't have their
catalog.
I developed something like that myself (a pyrocat. formula) for use with
Tech Pan. It did a wonderful job on containing the scale throughout. I
don't use tech pan though, because I LIKE GRAIN! Also, I found that when
the overall contrast was brought into line, the specific areas tended to
lose something in liveliness, and the ability of optics to seperate tonal
subtleties seemed to be severely tested.
It seems to me that the grain in small negatives provides a kind of
texture within seperate tonal regions which provides a visual interest
that is not needed in larger negatives, where the subject itself can
provide sufficient texture. These are very subtle things, and probably
have a lot to do with personal taste, I should think. But, for me, it
might just be the main reason to use a small camera rather than a large
one. Convenience doesn't count for much when you have to decide between
using a pack animal while shooting on the one hand, or on the other,
doing a heck of a lot of foolin' around in the lab after you get back.
It was a very interesting experiment but IMHO not very practical. To be
fair, I suppose I should retry these tests with contemporary optics, but
I probably won't. Maybe it's just prejudice, but to me, technical pan is
a supremely uninteresting film. At least, it doesn't satisfy my personal
aesthetic needs.
However, if anyone wants me to dig this stuff up out of the files, I'd be
happy to. Have a good zone system profile, as I recall. And who knows.
Maybe someone out there will like the way it looks!
Larry Bullis
Skagit Valley College