Anyone Want Return of Panatomic X?

[EdSawyer]

the next-closest thing to is is Polaroid 55, (some of the 2008-09 stuff is still viable), which was basically using a thinner version of Pan-X as it's negative.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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

Just to throw this into the mix, if 1000 people bought 30-40 rolls per annum at 8-10GBP/ roll (not unreasonable for a specialty product) over and above current materials, then it might be viable. The equivalent quantities would be needed for 120 and sheet film. Perhaps we should start campaigning for Ilford to replace Pan-F with the Delta25 they R&D'd...

 

[Ian Grant]

When Kodak first released Tmax 100 they claimed it gave results equivalent to or better than Pan X, it was only a touch faster in reality (it failed the ISO tests until Kodak had them changes). I found they weren't wrong Tmax 100 is a superb film.

I'd love a slower film particularly for LF work, but reality was I shot EFKE Pl25, and Tmax 100 at the same 50EI, same dev times the EFKE was only 25 ISO in Tungsten lighting.

Delta 25 would be great if they over0came the poor latent image issue of Pan F, I loved APX25 and used it with a 6x9 back on mt Wista 45DX quite a lot 30 years ago.

Ian

 

[braxus]

IS there really much of a market for slow films like this? There was APX 25 which was loved and gone. Rollei Pan 25- gone. Pan X- gone. Efke 25- gone. All these films people really liked, but they didn't stay on the market.

 

[Bill Burk]

The joke's on film manufacturers when it comes to slow film. I can't use it up very fast.
As a photographer who considers a fine grain, high resolution 35mm negative to be a "good thing", quite different from it's coarser grained cousin the 400 speed film, I will always be in the market for it.
But because I can replace a box of 4x5 film with a roll or two of 35mm...
I get a better value and the manufacturer gets fewer sales dollars when I shoot slow film as a substitute for 4x5 film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

IS there really much of a market for slow films like this? There was APX 25 which was loved and gone. Rollei Pan 25- gone. Pan X- gone. Efke 25- gone. All these films people really liked, but they didn't stay on the market.

I suspect that the core market was a subset of the amateur 35mm sector, at least some of whom liked testing lenses and/ or claiming that by way of deeply arcane practices they could make images on 135 that pretended to MF or LF. It's a segment that has largely disappeared. Furthermore, Acros/ Delta 100/ TMX are generally faster, sharper, have a more useful curve and are at least as fine grained/ high-resolving. A Delta 25 would be interesting because it could potentially go beyond those films.

 

[Mark Minard]

deeply arcane practices

Tripod, cable release, MLU

 

[Bill Burk]

Tripod, cable release, MLU

That's what I was thinking... it is the subset of amateur photographers who use those.
But MLU is one step too far... I just don't want handhold blur.

 

[MattKing]

The cameras that lock the mirror up when you use the self timer give you the best of all worlds.

 

[Craig]

I went back and looked at some of my FX negatives because of this thread. I had shot the same subject a few days apart on TMX, so I have a nice comparison. Honesty, I can't see much difference between them, I'd take TMX simply for 2 more stops of speed which will reduce motion blur.

 

[Mark Minard]

Never in my life have I shot a roll of TMX. PXP and FP4 all the way with the occasional Delta 100 thrown in. Thanks to this thread I'm going to give it a try.

 

[Craig]

I doubt you'd see much difference in TMX compared to Delta 100.

 

[Bill Burk]

I shot a roll of TMAX 100 yesterday, oddly I carried a tripod on the 12 mile hike and hardly ever used it. I hate when that happens.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

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.

Coincidence. Kodak could easily just raise the price. The cost of health care benefits is greater than that of silver, in each roll of film!

 

[Kodachromeguy]

OK, once again, I'll say I would like Panatomic-X to return. But it won't; it is an old friend who has departed forever. This is a world of instant gratification; only a few of us here would use it. Here is an example from Eagle Lake, Mississippi, taken on a hazy morning with a Hasselblad, 80mm Planar CB lens, tripod-mounted, mirror pre-release.

 

[Bill Burk]

Beautiful that’s what it’s good for.

 

[naaldvoerder]

The only thing that really would excite me is if Kodak would resurrect HIE. There is nothing now that cores anywhere near that film.

 

[GRHazelton]

Plus X???? Pleasssseeeee!

 

[Mark Minard]

Plus X???? Pleasssseeeee!

2nd on that. Plus-X I miss most of all..

 

[Sirius Glass]

Plus X???? Pleasssseeeee!

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.

 

[lantau]

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.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

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).

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Plus X???? Pleasssseeeee!

Yes, Plus-X was cringe-worthy crap.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

 

[lantau]

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.