Anyone Want Return of Panatomic X?

[Peter Schrager]

The new(er) T-grain films are exceptionally good but they are NOT the same as the old Panatomic-X.

As jnanian said (#56), the grain in Panatomic was greatly different from the TMax films - I too found Panatomic super easy to print in the darkroom, and my first time print results were always (well, usually) satisfactory enough that I didn't have to reprint, as I nowadays often do with my TMax and other T-train negatives.

Someone else asked what currently produced films most closely match Panatomic. Sadly, the only film I found that ever came close to it was the now-defunct Efke 25, and even then it had to be processed very cautiously. Ilford Pan F has too much contrast for me, and my tests proved that whatever I did to it in the darkroom, my end results were inconsistent even in the same batch of films processed with the same developer. Usually I find I can easily lower film contrast by using D76 1+1. but even this oft-tested combo failed me with Pan F. Even Thornton's (= Leica) two-bath also gave unsatisfactory results with this tilm.

mhanc (#76), the best ever developer I found for Panatomic was Agfa Rodinal Special, which vanished from the Australian retail market around 2000. Last week someone I often email for darkroom chat and advice commented that Rodinal Special is again being produced, perhaps under a new label and a different name. I will look into this and try to get some from Vanbar when I am next in Melbourne.

I still have about 40 rolls of frozen 35mm Panatomic-X, and am saving it to shoot with during our gala return visit to New Mexico and Eastern Canada in early 2018. We plan to drive across the continental USA from California to Maine and I hope to revisit many of the Confederate battlefields I saw and photographed in 1979. For me, to shoot all these places again with Panatomic will put me into a state of nostalgic bliss, even if my images end up matching those I took 38 years ago.

Sorry to tell you but it's you not the tabular film
TMY400 COULD BE THE BEST FILM EVER MADE..in the same breath FP4 AND HP5 AINT ALL THAT BAD EITHER
Why lament the past when there is great product we can use now
.

 

[eddie]

Why lament the past when there is great product we can use now.

I agree. With a few exceptions (HIE or similar), I don't think we're limited, film-wise. I also think there's a new appreciation for the craftsmanship involved in making images in our chosen manner. All in all, I think this is a great time to be a film/darkroom user.

 

[Athiril]

I wouldnt shoot it unless the new film had some technical advantage over T-Max making me want to use it for landscapes etc.

I tried some old Pan-X and could never exceed 40 lp/mm with it (despite hitting 90 on even FP4+), old but had zero base fogging and very fine grain, otherwise perfect.

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/38552878@N02/28520637600/in/photostream/lightbox/
Panatomic-X was a thin emulsion film with visual sharpness from edge effects when in acutance developers.
The tabular grain films get their sharpness mainly from native acutance, not edge effects.

 

[Jerevan]

I hear alot of people refer to "silver rich" emulsions...
I wonder, how much silver is actually used in each emulsion/liter in the various films, old vs new?

Paul, here is a good thread for that ol' cat stuff, in which you yourself actually did take part -> (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As for the Panatomic-X: even if you get the exact recipe, it won't be the same cake as your grandmother made.

 

[paul ron]

Thanks, I remember that thread. It did touch on amounts as a general measurement kodak used, but nothing specific to the different films Kodak made. Although this is a most interesting general statement by PE......

The higher the Silver, the higher the speed, contrast, and the lower the grain. Sharpness goes down as Silver goes up.

so panatomic must not have as much silver as believed and not actually a silver rich film? Does that mean the old TriX was silver rich but not as sharp, and had less grain than panatomic? I don't understand. Everyone loved panatomic for its lack of grain and sharpness.

Dont get me wrong... I loved the film n used it extensively back in the day. But the newer T-grain films such as TMY 400 seem superior speed and image wise, why go back?

Film has improved immensely, today's papers suck though.

 

[chipphoto]

Pan-X in Rodinal was wonderful. I recently printed some 30 year old negs and I don't think I can do much better today with a newer film. TMY-400 is a great film also and I would buy Pan-X again if they made it.

 

[Born2Late]

I applaud the return of Ektachrome and plan to use and process it. With that said, I would appreciate Pan-X even more. While T-Max might be fine grained..... it is a pain to process.

 

[removedacct1]

Film has improved immensely, today's papers suck though.

Really?? I recently started up a darkroom after "retiring" from silver gelatin printing in 1997, and I tried several modern papers, including Bergger's Warm Tone FB, which I find superior to anything I ever used in the 1990s (or 1980s or 1970s). Its a wonderful paper.

 

[Arklatexian]

Quite right. In fact the characteristic curve of TMax 100 isn't even that different than Pan-X, certainly not different enough to notice. TMax 100 is the superior film. Some people just want old stuff to come back, and/or they see what they want to see.

Yes except in 120, here in the USA, we haven't been able to get TMax 100. If it is unobtainable, I don't care how superior it is, I can't use it! I am going to try Ilford Delta 100 but both that and TMax 100 are, to me, medium speed films and 400 speed films are fast speed films. I don't know about your cameras but film that requires me to only use 1/400 (1/500) of a second at f:16 is not a very useful film on a bright sunny day unless you use ND filters which I think might degrade the lenses you are putting it in front of. I don't use available darkness much in my photography......Regards!

 

[removedacct1]

Ilford Delta 100 in 120 roll format is magnificent film. I wouldn't hesitate to adopt that as an alternative to Tmax 100.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Hmm. Surprised so many think Pan-X was nothing special, and actually find T-MAX 100 anything the same. I guess it is all down to personal preference alone, so won't hate those who can't see the joy in an old favorite of mine.

I do have several emulsions now that I quite like, but few deliver with the ease that Panatomic-X did (for me). Call me what you will, but I'd like that back.

 

[removedacct1]

Hmm. Surprised so many think Pan-X was nothing special, and actually find T-MAX 100 anything the same. I guess it is all down to personal preference alone, so won't hate those who can't see the joy in an old favorite of mine.

I do have several emulsions now that I quite like, but few deliver with the ease that Panatomic-X did (for me). Call me what you will, but I'd like that back.

Pan-X was great, of course. But what's the point of wishing for an emulsion that has been retired for decades and is not coming back?? Use what is available now and make it work for you. Plenty of superb films available to us.

 

[kreeger]

To me, the closest thing still made to Panatomic-X is Ilford Pan-F+, they were the fine grain champions of their day in the Kodak vs Ilford debate as I was learning my craft in the 70s.

Historically, Panatomic-X in 35mm still stands for as the only film that I ever tested against the box speed as being off by 1 stop to much in exposure. I tested it with several cameras, it always came out as ASA 64 instead of 32. I recently printed some 40+ year old negatives I made with it set at ASA 32 and developed it in Microdol-X 1:3, and then some I made 5 or so years later once I had the ability to test my exposure and development times with a densitometer. If you rated it at 64 and developed it in something else, I used D-23 to tame contrast, also used FR's old X-22 developer for acutance. What Pan-X showed me was that if I desired, I could do medium format quality work in a 35mm camera up to 8x10 prints.

Equipment wise, it showed me proof in a print that I needed a tripod and a cable release to get the best clarity out of my gear... once I did that... it proved the difference between an OEM lens, like Minolta and the knock off brands like Soligor were in a different league in terms of resolution in the corners.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Pan-X was great, of course. But what's the point of wishing for an emulsion that has been retired for decades and is not coming back?? Use what is available now and make it work for you. Plenty of superb films available to us.

I'm not wishing, just replying that I'd love to have it back. For despite current choices I do like, there isn't one that is as good for much of what I shoot these days. If it came back I'd buy a bunch for the freezer.

 

[removedacct1]

Sorting through the "odds and Ends" cache of film in the freezer, I was surprised to find I have one of these:

 

[DREW WILEY]

With Pan F and Acros both on the market, how would they ever make a buck reviving Pan X? TMX has a whole different personality - long straight line and fine grain but disappointing edge effect. Want it all? - that would be Efke 25. Too bad their plant got dusty toward the end. I've got a lot of rolls of it in the freezer with blimps already in the skies!

 

[Ian Grant]

With Pan F and Acros both on the market, how would they ever make a buck reviving Pan X? TMX has a whole different personality - long straight line and fine grain but disappointing edge effect. Want it all? - that would be Efke 25. Too bad their plant got dusty toward the end. I've got a lot of rolls of it in the freezer with blimps already in the skies!

I still have quite a bit of EFKE PL25 left maybe 100 sheets of 10x8, it's a great film I've used a lot of it since the early/mid 1970s. It's a 50 EI emulsion in daylight as is Tmax 100 (for my use), I've processed them both in the same tank for the same time and negatives print the same grade.

I don't think there's a market for Pan-X, Agfa dropped APX25 because a chemical needed was no longer available and the potential sales were to low to cover re-formulation. Kodak's consumer B&W films sales are much lower than Ilford's so I doubt re-introduction would be feasible, Tmax films are used in the Motion picture industry which keeps them at the cutting edge.

Adox claim that their CHS100 ahs similar characteristics to the old EFKE 25. a modern emulsion with similar fine grain but higher speed, I've not used ot so can't comment.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

Heading out right now, really, with two rolls of Panatomic-X for the week. Realizing that's not enough, I'm grabbing a roll of Plus X

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMY400 is becoming one of my favorite films of all time, in all formats. I use TMX100 mostly in the lab for unsharp masking etc. But when I don't need the speed or deep shadow detail, I shoot FP4 in 4x5 and 8x10 to save money. ACROS is another favorite, though it too is getting expensive in sheets. Was out in extreme contrast intricate details in the woods two days ago, but breezy too. Only a film like TMY can handle that we'll - excellent detail, long scale, and reasonably fast speed.

 

[Bill Burk]

There aren't any stores that carry TMY2 it up here (Huntington Lake) so I'll have to shoot the Panatomic-X

One funny thing about it, it's long toe makes me comfortable shooting it at 32 while most other films I prefer to downrate 2/3 stop.

It felt strange shooting it handheld today but I left my tripod in the tent and didn't get back up there til now. (ps I left the tripod here last year and Dan found it and got it back to me.)

I know it's not high wilderness here at Scout camp, but it's way better than city for me.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...ACROS is another favorite, though it too is getting expensive in sheets...

It's also getting gone (in sheets). Discontinued.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If I had rolls of Panatomic X, why would I want to return it?

 

[Bill Burk]

If I had rolls of Panatomic X, why would I want to return it?

You may return it to me.

I treat TMAX 100 and Panatomic-X the same, they are "high resolution", "fine grain" black and white film to me. I have already proven to myself they are usable, interchangeably, for my 35mm "better quality" work.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

Panatomic-X is one of the least known Kodak 35mm films i would say, my dad who in the 80s shot black and white during winter preferred Panatomic-X 32 and Plus-X Pan 125 to the Tri-X which had more grain.