Anyone Want Return of Panatomic X?

[removed account4]

If Pan-X were still around it would presumably have the same backing paper issues as TMX/TMY etc.

if that's the case forgetaboutit

 

[Cholentpot]

To all those who wonder why anyone would shoot Y over X when X is newer and better; film is not about better and newer anymore. It's about a certain look and nostalgia. That being said I love Tmax. If kodak brought back Plus-X I would buy some as it's the film (Along with Tmax) that I learnt on.

 

[DWThomas]

I have to admit I was never a big user of Pan-X, even way back, as I preferred the higher speed yet still decent grain of Plus-X. All that said, a few years back I was gifted a bulk roll of Pan-X, expiration date December 1988. I have occasionally shot some -- especially on Argus Day (Argust 17th this year! ) with my C-3, as that seemed appropriate -- and it has worked pretty nicely. But my last five rolls of 35mm shot were 400Tmax, so whatever!

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

How was the curve of Pan-X? The reason I use FP4 and not Pan-F is that it's response curve is straighter, and highlights and shadows still separate beautifully. In pyro, straight-line highlights go on forever. And I can get it in sheet film.

I would eagerly welcome a traditional, slow, very high-detail, straight-response, normal contrast film from a major manufacturer. It seems there's hole in the market for the slower, more measured abstract/landscape photographers who seek the utmost in quality and resolution, without the flimsy, soft film base and light piping of sub-par manufacturing (remember Efke?), or some exotic, requisite proprietary developer (CMS 20).

-Jarin

 

[Ai Print]

Nah, I'll pass.

Any great photographer can make the current crop of films not just sing but scream with amazing visuals. Really learn one or two great films and become a better photographer, learn how to interpret tones in color so that they work in B&W.

Otherwise, constantly pining for what is gone is like being oblivious to the smile of who could be your soulmate because you can't let go of the love you lost.....long ago.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Nah, I'll pass.

Any great photographer can make the current crop of films not just sing but scream with amazing visuals. Really learn one or two great films and become a better photographer, learn how to interpret tones in color so that they work in B&W.

Otherwise, constantly pining for what is gone is like being oblivious to the smile of who could be your soulmate because you can't let go of the love you lost.....long ago.

I know - I am indeed very happy with FP4 in the developer I'm using. Just while we're in "what if" land, I certainly would give a slow, traditional film a robust chance.

At one time Ilford did consider a "Delta 25".

The only real "hole" in the market (if there is one) might be for slow films, not high quality/resolution films. I'd argue tabular grained films such as T Max 100 and Delta 100 offer as much image quality as one could reasonably need. Older technology films had to be considerably slower to achieve the high resolution and fineness of grain offered by today's medium speed tabular grained films.

I imagine I'm not alone as one who would use a responsive, very high-resolution film without the flat tabular-grain look.

-Jarin

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Am I right in assuming that TMax 100 has perhaps the same granularity and sharpness/resolution? And all that at a couple stops more speed? So if they reintroduced Panatomic-X they would practically compete with themselves? And the sales of one product would eat into the sales of the other? Why would they do it?

That's why they dropped Panatomic in the first place.
I'd still buy it if it was reintroduced, TMax 100 has a different grain structure and I liked the tonality I got with the Panatomic

 

[Vaughn]

I would in sheet film. I used a lot of 120 Pan-X way back when...

 

[Lachlan Young]

I may be wrong, but I thought T-grain films required less silver than conventional films for a similar speed. If true, it would seem to be a smart financial decision by manufacturers to move to T- grain emulsions. If I recall, the push towards T-grain occurred close to the time the Hunt brothers were buying up silver.

More that they waste far less of the silver they contain through more sophisticated grain structures & sensitisation approaches. The consequence is a higher speed for a given grain size.

 

[mhanc]

The "look" is mostly imagined. People can't really tell the difference.

Nostalgia is right on.

i would very respectfully argue the other side.

i would posit that most people here, with practice, could correctly identify randomly shown b+w images from t-grain films and images from cubic-grained films with a statistically significant success rate. perhaps an extreme example, but i would also posit that if the sample were restricted to tmx/tmy and eastman 5222 that the success rate would be quite high.

besides... nostalgia is no longer what it used to be.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I used Delta films for 13 years or so, and saw a very marked difference in dimensionality, micro-contrast and subjective emphasis on detail when I switched to fp4 some years ago. But I also switched from a pyrocatechin to pyrogallol developer around the same time, so I'm not sure how much of the change was due to one or the other. I could try Delta in the new developer, but I like the results I'm getting right now so much that I have no further interest in playing around.

For someone with too much time, a fun apug game would be to see if folks could indeed identify the tab grain sample in a selection of two or three images of the same film speed and subject, taken with the same camera at the same time. The enlargement ratio should be low enough (6x6 neg and up) that grain is not part of the equation: just tonality and "look."

J

 

[Anon Ymous]

... but i would also posit that if the sample were restricted to tmx/tmy and eastman 5222 that the success rate would be quite high...

Totally unfair. Drop the 5222 and use a traditional, about equally fine grain film, regardless of speed. The success rate would drop to what would be expected from random choice, about 33%.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well, besides being finer grained, tabular grained films don't have a look. That's a myth.

Nonsense. In these newer films Sugar Ray would not look as athletic nor Jake LaMotta as dangerous in those Madison Square Garden contests

pentaxuser

 

[removedacct1]

Can you say the same thing about Kodak HIE?

I could have sworn this topic was about Pan-X, not HIE.

 

[Cholentpot]

i would very respectfully argue the other side.

i would posit that most people here, with practice, could correctly identify randomly shown b+w images from t-grain films and images from cubic-grained films with a statistically significant success rate. perhaps an extreme example, but i would also posit that if the sample were restricted to tmx/tmy and eastman 5222 that the success rate would be quite high.

besides... nostalgia is no longer what it used to be.

I would buy Pan-X just because I've heard so much about it and never shot it. I'm sure there are loads of people like me who feel the same way. Plus, saying Panatomic-X is loaded in my camera sounds friggin cool.

 

[Vaughn]

...Plus, saying Panatomic-X is loaded in my camera sounds friggin cool.

...and developed in Microdol-X 1:3...ahhhhhhh...

 

[Cholentpot]

...and developed in Microdol-X 1:3...ahhhhhhh...

I've got some Panatomic-x pulled to about ASA 25 in my F3. I'm using scale focusing, along with sunny 16 and a pre-ai lens. I developed the Pan-x in HC-110 from syrup in dilution G and did a semi stand. Water stop, fix and Ilford wash. Fotoflow and duped it with a DSLR.

See? I got the jargon down. Am I cool yet?

 

[Vaughn]

Definitely! But next time, capitalize the "X".

PS -- Panatomic-X (120) in Microdol-X (1:3) was my standard until I moved up to large format. Microdol-X stayed as my developer for a little while until HC-110 took over. I enlarged the 120 Pan-X to 15"x15".

 

[darkroommike]

Well, if you want a wish list:

1. TXP 120 (not at all the same as TX120)
2. Professional Copy Film in 4x5 (and though never available why not 120?)
3. Kodalith
4. Tri-X Ortho
5. HIE 120

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would not use it or rarely use it, so no. There are other films that cover this niche some of which have tabular grain,

 

[Cholentpot]

Definitely! But next time, capitalize the "X".

PS -- Panatomic-X (120) in Microdol-X (1:3) was my standard until I moved up to large format. Microdol-X stayed as my developer for a little while until HC-110 took over. I enlarged the 120 Pan-X to 15"x15".

Speaking of x. Eastman Double-X or XX always sounded drunk to me.

 

[Vaughn]

I still have a couple partial 100 sheet boxes (exp '87 and '94) of that in 4x5 in the fridge. Used it a bit way back then -- thick, soft emulsion! Have no idea if I will ever use it...but it is nice having in there!

 

[Bill Burk]

Panatomic-X has a long toe and a long straight line.

 

[zanxion72]

It is my all time favourite film. I still have two 17 meter rolls of 135 of it. I see many comparing it with Tmax-100, but they are quite different not any close.

 

[removed account4]

The "look" is mostly imagined. People can't really tell the difference

i don't think so ...
i can easily tell the difference especially if it is printed in a filed negative carrier.
it is pretty much a no brainer
between tmax100 and panatomic x ...
first you look at the negative under a loupe, you note the grain structure
or lack of it, the smoothness of the transition and micro contrast
even in printed form its easy ...
then you look at the rebate and it says exactly what it is.