Anyone Want Return of Panatomic X?

[GRHazelton]

Yes, Plus-X was cringe-worthy crap.

You misinterpreted my plea. I loved Plus-X. It was my go-to film for yearsl

 

[pentaxuser]

We need infrared (not the high-speed stuff, but the old Kodak Infrared from the 1960s).

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
pentaxuser

P.S. Anyone else who knows can feel free to answer as well.

 

[alanrockwood]

Yes, bring back Panatomic X, and Plus X too if possible.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

You misinterpreted my plea. I loved Plus-X. It was my go-to film for yearsl

FP4 was far, far better. FP4 Plus is astonishingly good.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

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
pentaxuser

P.S. Anyone else who knows can feel free to answer as well.

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

 

[Craig]

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?

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

 

[nosmok]

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...

 

[pentaxuser]

Nihil Abstat, thanks for the reply on 1960s Kodak Infrared

pentaxuser

 

[BAC1967]

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.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g...XTAE#v=onepage&q=panatomic-X latitude&f=false
https://books.google.com/books?id=g...XTAE#v=onepage&q=panatomic-X latitude&f=false
These next two are from 1989 after it was discontinued. They talk about how TMax 100 was intended to be a replacement.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/02/style/pastimes-camera.html

"The Great Yellow Father in Rochester says the technologically superior T-Max 100 can do everything Pan-X could do, only better"
https://books.google.com/books?id=y...oMAE#v=onepage&q=panatomic-X latitude&f=false

 

[Lachlan Young]

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...

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.

 

[bernie lomax]

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

 

[bernie lomax]

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.

 

[BradS]

I never used it when it was commonly available. Would not buy nor use it today.
TMX100 or Delta 100 serve this need today and are in some ways far superior.
and as for Plus-X...I used it, liked it ok but always preferred Tri-X and still do.

Today, we have available to us some of the best films ever...why wish for old stuff to be resurrected?

 

[braxus]

How can you say its inferior when you've never used it? Some here have already said it has a look like no other slow speed film that hasn't been replicated today. Some films may be closer, but not exact. Pan X was the only slow film I know of that had normal contrast, not high like other slow films. And it was really good for mid tones.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

never used it when it was commonly available. Would not buy nor use it today.

You never used it, but now you are an expert on its characteristics? What compels you to tell the world you would not buy or use it today?

 

[BradS]

...What compels you to tell the world you would not buy or use it today?

Whoa, dude...take it easy man...chill.
It is not personal.
I was just answering the question asked by the OP.

 

[braxus]

I think he has a relevant point, I'd like to hear the answer to it too, as I posed the question as well.

 

[MarkS]

Please note that the Panatomic-X Aerographic mentioned above is not the same emulsion that was formerly available in 135.
Kodak just re-used the name as they so often did (see "Polymax").
Although it's probably quite usable as a camera film, don't expect it to match whatever you saw back in the day from the yellow box with the tan label.
And if I could get Kodak to re-introduce a b/w emulsion, it would be Verichrome Pan (and in sheet sizes). Only FP4+ comes close in in tone rendition to VP (yrmv).

 

[braxus]

As far as I know, the 35mm, 120, and 4x5 emulsions were all the same. It was in the 70s the 4x5 was dropped, but it still was available in 35mm and 120 up to late 80s when it was discontinued.