Exposing and developing Panatomic-X

Pentode · Oct 19, 2020

GRHazelton said:
Anyone have any Plus X in 35mm or 120 or 220? Back in the day this was my go-to film.

This is what I learned on, developed in D-76 1:1. Wonderful stuff. I have a 400' roll of the cine version, Eastman 5231, which I haven't cracked open yet. I'm not sure if it's the same emulsion as the still film was.

paulbarden said:
Now if only I could go back in time and tell my 30 year old self to buy a dozen bricks of HIE and stick them in the freezer for use in 2020....

You and me both!! I have about 50 rolls frozen and I'm rationing them. Once they're gone....

I'll be watching this thread closely. I started late in photography, in my mid twenties and that was in the early 1990s. I just missed Pan-X by a couple of years and never got to use it. I am in possession of a 100' roll, though, and this thread is filled with useful info.

Wallendo · Oct 19, 2020

I bought a bulk loader off eBay that still had Panatomic-X in it. I got good results with ISO 25 or 32 with D76 1+1 (I can't remember the time right off). I did have artifacts on scans which liked like popcorn, but these went away when I pre-soaked the film prior to development.

I recently picked up a loader containing EktaChrome T160 - I an still trying to come with a plan for what to do with that.

KenS · Oct 20, 2020

Digging deep into my freezer recently, I 'found' an unopened box of 4x5 Tri-X ortho (dated March 1979)
Anyone interested? Make me an 'offer'

Ken

Kodachromeguy · Feb 10, 2021

Oops, I forgot to post an update on my 1991 expiration Panatomic-X. Results: it looks fine, with no obvious fog or other deterioration.

Nicholas Lindan · Feb 10, 2021

Process Pan-X in Microdol-X for finer-than-Tech-Pan grain.

That's in comparison to the post 1985 Tech Pan; the early '80's TP was finer grained.

My rule is fine grain film belongs in fine grain developer. That said, Tri-X in Microdol-X 1:3 is very nice.

Bill Burk · Feb 10, 2021

Wonder how I missed this thread.

Just developed 6 rolls and a sensitometry strip...

I goofed up time and temperature badly because it is so cold that my compensating timer probe probably didn’t match tank internal temperature, and I have to pour developer into the tall tank in the dark so I started the timer first then turned off the lights, opened the tank and poured, and I also cheated the 1:1 probably 1:1.3 mix...

So all this cost me contrast and speed.

I only got EI 32 (Delta-X speed of 50).
My negatives are fine but there are some thin frames here and there.

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 10, 2021

Prices of this film on ebay are ridiculous. Someone is even trying to sell an empty Pan-X 35mm cassette for $6!

Bill Burk · Feb 11, 2021

I’m bummed that I see fine scratches on the bulk loaded rolls. I might have to do hand rolling to avoid scratches.

Kodachromeguy · Feb 11, 2021

Andrew O'Neill said:
Prices of this film on ebay are ridiculous. Someone is even trying to sell an empty Pan-X 35mm cassette for $6!

Yes, you are right, the prices are pretty stiff. But so what? If you want to use it and can find some from a trustworthy seller, just go do it.

Being a slow speed film (I am using it at EI=20), it is a very deliberative material. Set up the tripod, frame carefully, take 1 or 2 frames using the best lenses at their optimum apertures. But honestly, if I could never use any more Panatomic-X, other fine-grain films would work perfectly well for me. I think Fuji Acros is just as fine resolution. TMax 100 and Delta 100 look different but both are fine products. Ilford Pan-F is another option but I have insufficient experience with it. Maybe Efke 25?

Pump house at the Mississippi Basin hydraulic model, Jackson, Mississippi (25mm Voigtlander lens)

Donald Qualls · Feb 12, 2021

I think Efke 25 is as gone as Panatomic X. Adox CMS 20 II would be a good alternative, though it does require some special processing to get normal contrast -- but being microfilm derived, it's plenty fine grained.

removedacct1 · Feb 12, 2021

michael_r said:
TMX gives you everything Pan-X had and more, with faster emulsion speed. In other words, Pan-X was eventually eclipsed by films with newer emulsion technology.

That's my attitude as well. While I am pleased to have recently been given a stash of Pan-X in 35mm and 120, I regard it as more of an exercise in nostalgia than an irreplaceable, unique opportunity. I will happily rely on Delta 100 or TMX when I want fine grain/high acutance results.

eddie · Feb 12, 2021

I don't shoot much, if any, 35mm. This thread sent me to the back of my 'fridge. Found a roll of Pan-x from '88, and 9 rolls of Plus-x from '91. Also some Gigabit film and developer from 2006. I should find something to do with them...

Exposing and developing Panatomic-X

Pentode

Wallendo

KenS

Kodachromeguy

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

Bill Burk

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Bill Burk

Kodachromeguy

Donald Qualls

removedacct1

eddie

Exposing and developing Panatomic-X

Advertiser

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency