Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by braxus, Jul 12, 2017.
2nd on that. Plus-X I miss most of all..
Plus-X and HIE in 13 and 120
Tri-X 400 in 4"x5"
Reducing my weight by 40 pounds and my age by 40 years
All three have the same likelihood of occurring.
While I would potentially answer the question in the thread title with no, especially should the film be low contrast, maybe the odd Fan of this film might be interested to know that Foto Impex is having 70mm bulk rolls (double perforated) of Panatomic X Aerographic. I've known that for a long time, but only now remembered this thread as I once again browsed through their 120 films. Not quite cheap though. It's €713, or €599 without tax if you're having it shipped overseas. They are 215m rolls and they state that this is cheaper than ebay (not surprised). Expiration 2009, stored cool at all times.
No, not at all. There are too many slow and fine-grain films already. We need Royal Pan in sheet film, not Tri-X Pro 320. We need infrared (not the high-speed stuff, but the old Kodak Infrared from the 1960s).
Yes, Plus-X was cringe-worthy crap.
I would be thrilled if we could buy fresh Plus X again... but we need a "real" infra-red film. I bet if they coated a master roll of HIE and cut it mainly in 35, and 120, it would sell like hotcakes. I could be an annual thing... kinda like what Konica was doing with their IR film before they discontinued it.
Those coating lines use IR cameras and ilumination for process monitoring. At least Kodaks does. They'd have to fly blind to coat your master roll.
You misinterpreted my plea. I loved Plus-X. It was my go-to film for yearsl
What were the differences between the Kodak Infrared of the 60s and the HIE stuff that Kodak only stopped making a few years ago? Thanks
P.S. Anyone else who knows can feel free to answer as well.
Yes, bring back Panatomic X, and Plus X too if possible.
FP4 was far, far better. FP4 Plus is astonishingly good.
Kodak Infrared was slower, fine-grained, and could be loaded in ordinary light. I used it in sheet film in the 1960s.
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...odak Infrared film -"high speed" -HIE&f=false
Panatomic X was discontinued before digital became mainstream, so if it wasn't popular enough to stay viable in the height of the film days, why would Kodak ever consider making it again?
They probably wouldn't make it again, but one can wish for it.
IIRC (and some of the current and former Kodak people please correct me), they replaced PanX because it was hard to make, and also because the T-grain technology used in the Tmax films cut down on the silver used. PanX having the smallest consumer footprint at the time was the low hanging fruit-- it seemed to me at the time (late 1980s) that Kodak would have dropped all the X emulsions if they thought they could get away with it. They certainly had in their ad copy a lot of "Once you try these new Tgrain films you won't want anything else" kind of sentiment. They killed PX eventually, and have reformulated TriX several times rather than kill it outright, probably as a hedge against threads like this one. I wonder if many things that make PanX awesome-- fine grain, developable in anything, nearly immortal lifespan -- were intentional or not. I've seen early PanX ads that touted it as a "Medium speed fine grain" film, so time and technology do march on...
Nihil Abstat, thanks for the reply on 1960s Kodak Infrared
I just picked up a bulk film loader at an estate sale this weekend for $3 that still has some Panatomic-X in it. I loaded some into an Olympus OM-2n and fired off several test shots bracketing from ISO 32 down to 12. I developed it in Rodinal 1:50 for 11 minutes. The negatives look really good, I haven't scanned them yet to make a good comparison but I'm pretty excited to shoot this stuff.
I was doing a little research on this film and found a few interesting articles. This first one is from Popular Photography, June 1956. Following this article is an article on infrared film.
These next two are from 1989 after it was discontinued. They talk about how TMax 100 was intended to be a replacement.
"The Great Yellow Father in Rochester says the technologically superior T-Max 100 can do everything Pan-X could do, only better"
I think it had a lot to do with TMX being faster & better in most of the parameters that counted - and ignore all the stuff about using less silver, it's the ability to utilise as much of the silver as possible, not the quantity that counts, & the newer the technology, the better that has become. I think most of the nonsense about TMX being 'difficult' stems from an wilful unwillingness/ inability on the part of consumers to read & comprehend the datasheet & their assumption that TMX was to replace PX or other 100 speed films. Instead, as I understand it, FX & some other films (for colour separation etc) were to be replaced by TMX, various mid speed general purpose films in the 100-400 range by TMY & pushed Tri-X by TMZ.
That Tri-X was & is their biggest selling BW film complicated things & it now seems to incorporate layered dye technologies and various other advanced techniques from the latest generation of films. That said, I think most people (if double-blind tested) would have a hard time telling post-1990(possibly even earlier) TX generations apart on the basis of visual signature alone.
One roll has a dark base and one is still like new. Both rolls are from 1985 s I just thought one was stored better. Doesn't bother me at all tho.