Anyone Want Return of Panatomic X?

[Gerald C Koch]

I am considering Ferrania P30 as a possible substitute. In my experience Ilford Pan F and EFE 25 are both too contrasty for my tastes.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

I've seen some scans of P30 and they sure have delivered a good film, not too contrasty and very fine grain, surprising since it's supposedly a more old fashioned high silver content emulsion.

 

[MattKing]

a more old fashioned high silver content emulsion

sigh
Just means more wasted silver, to no good effect.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I believe that the "silver rich" notion was debunked as a marketing ploy.

 

[Cholentpot]

I believe that the "silver rich" notion was debunked as a marketing ploy.

A great ploy non the less.

 

[bernie lomax]

Panatomic gave me some of the best BW shots I ever took. Both in negative as well as reversal processed. I still have 2 100' rolls in the freezer. And one half bulk roll that is fogged like a SOB, and still makes great photos.

 

[msage]

No, I used it when it was available and like other films better.
I would buy HIE in 4x5 or 120 though. A sad day when Kodak discontinued that!

 

[Born2Late]

YES!

 

[jimgalli]

YES!

+++1! I've got a bunch in the freezer but I'd love to see fresh Pan X on the market. To me it's much cleaner than Tmaxx which Kodak decided was the do all end all.

 

[Eric Rose]

I don't miss it. There are better films available today.

 

[BradS]

No. I'm very pleased with the current TMY and 400TX products.
None of the old stuff is anywhere near as good as these two modern films stocks.
I'd like to see Kodak fix its quality issues (with roll films) and bring down retail prices of its current offerings.

If I were to wish for Kodak to revive a film, I'd wish for Ektachrome E100G in 4x5 sheets

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Having used Panatomic-X back when you could get it at every good camera shop and having shot way to few rolls since then I would actually more appreciate a good Plus-X replacement at no more than 1 to 1.5 dollars per roll with 100 foot rolls for 20-25 dollars.

 

[mdarnton]

Since they think they're going to get back into multi-layer films, I wish they'd pump out some of the Greatest Film of All Time--Verichrome Pan. And I wish they'd do it in all formats this time, too.

 

[Zathras]

Since they think they're going to get back into multi-layer films, I wish they'd pump out some of the Greatest Film of All Time--Verichrome Pan. And I wish they'd do it in all formats this time, too.

I could not agree with you more! Verichome Pan was an incredible film. Some people may have dismissed it as a "Box Camera" film, but I loved the results I got using it in my various TLR's and other MF cameras. I liked to shoot it at ASA 100 and develop it in HC-110 diluted 1+15, AKA "Dilution H".

 

[faberryman]

Kodak is too busy futzing around with bitcoin miners and cryptocurrency to focus on something fundamental like film. This is all pie in the sky.

 

[GRHazelton]

I could not agree with you more! Verichome Pan was an incredible film. Some people may have dismissed it as a "Box Camera" film, but I loved the results I got using it in my various TLR's and other MF cameras. I liked to shoot it at ASA 100 and develop it in HC-110 diluted 1+15, AKA "Dilution H".

I recall shooting it in my Komaflex S. I almost certainly processed it in Beutler's formula (my Father and I rolled our own) which was my standard for 35mm Plus-X. IIRC the Verichrome gave nice results, smooth tonality and good sharpness. I'd be happy to see it back for my MF cameras, and I'd welcome the return of Plus-X. I wish that 127 film were much cheaper; the Koma needs shutter work - the auto diaphragm won't close down - and I've been told the cost of repair is considerable. Anyone know of a good shop for its repair?

 

[Bill Burk]

Panatomic gave me some of the best BW shots I ever took. Both in negative as well as reversal processed. I still have 2 100' rolls in the freezer. And one half bulk roll that is fogged like a SOB, and still makes great photos.

Can’t be fogged.
Did you know for 35mm Panatomic-X ... base tint (for anti-halation) is about 0.25

 

[Bill Burk]

Just look at that Base Density line - looks like 0.25 to me

 

[Bill Burk]

And some of my B+F measures are 0.3 which means I have about 0.05 fog!

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

I would definitely stock up on one or two hundred foot rolls...

 

[Lachlan Young]

Simple reality check for everyone: a minimum production run would equate to about 30000 36-exposure rolls of 35mm & would have to be sold within 2 years of coating. Would those of you clamouring for FX be willing to buy and use that much film on an ongoing basis (no stockpiling!) or are we talking about 2-3 rolls a year level of usage?

Cost of coating the batch would likely be 6 figures. Persuading Adox to make something not unlike APX25 on their smaller coater might be more realistic.

 

[nosmok]

Went out for Xmas vacation and shot some PanX (expired 1983) at Mono Lake on a crisp winter day, Showed a print to my friend who is a professional cinema DP. His comment: "Wow, that really gets everything.". With old PanX going for 9 plus bux for a 120 roll, and nearly unfindable in LF, heck yeah I'd buy some. PanX and Verichrome Pan are the ne plus ultra of B+W films as far as I'm concerned, especially because of the excellent results they give in Caffenol, my preferred developer since I have to do my processing in my kitchen!

 

[Jan-Peter]

Oh yes!

Honestly I would buy several 100 ft. cans of 35mm Panatomic and at least 50 or more Pro-Packs of 120 film. I used these in the Mid-Seventies to the begin of Eighties - and enlarged these on Agfa Record Rapid in Kodak Selectol - one of the finest of all my enlargements!!

Best regards from Southern Germany - Lake of Constance
Jan-Peter

 

[Henning Serger]

Simple reality check for everyone: a minimum production run would equate to about 30000 36-exposure rolls of 35mm & would have to be sold within 2 years of coating. Would those of you clamouring for FX be willing to buy and use that much film on an ongoing basis (no stockpiling!) or are we talking about 2-3 rolls a year level of usage?

Cost of coating the batch would likely be 6 figures. Persuading Adox to make something not unlike APX25 on their smaller coater might be more realistic.

Exactly.
Panatomic X was discontinued already at the end of the 80ies! During the 'film boom era'. And why was it discontinued? Lack of demand! I still have an official statement from Kodak here from that time.
So even in the film era there were not enough users of this film. Now the market is a tiny fraction of the former market.
Therefore it would now impossible for Kodak to get enough users.

And we should not forget that currently Eastman Kodak is in very severe economic troubles because of their failure in their main business field industrial printing.
Now burning even much more money in such esoteric projects would be the most stupid thing they could do!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

No matter how much "realists" try, we will always have a recurrence of these threads in which a few people will buy several hundred feet and others several bricks of it as if that was enough evidence to make an incontrovertible case for film X's restart.

I wonder why the realists even bother to give facts about what is needed to make it viable. Your contributions are an attempt to educate and are not needed nor welcomed. You are party-poopers and for the party-goers enjoyment, you must stay away

pentaxuser