Exposing and developing Panatomic-X

[removedacct1]

My karma must be in pretty decent shape - a kind person gifted me a few rolls of Panatomic-X this week via the mail!

This has been in a freezer all its life, and is dated 1982. Any idea just how much I should compensate for speed loss? I'm estimating its likely close to 8ASA now.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd start by shooting six or eight heavily bracketed frames under controlled lighting, cutting them out of the camera, and developing them. That will tell you everything you need to know for the rest of that roll and the other six.

 

[removedacct1]

I'd start by shooting six or eight heavily bracketed frames under controlled lighting, cutting them out of the camera, and developing them. That will tell you everything you need to know for the rest of that roll and the other six.

I should have stated that this is almost certainly going to be my approach to it, but I wanted to solicit other opinions too

 

[Donald Qualls]

Generally, loss of speed with age is a result of age fog -- much of which is thermal -- and the need to expose more to get your shadows out of that fog. Frozen film fogs much less than film stored at even "film cooler" temp around 50F. Further, slow films fog less than faster films. There's a good likelihood that Panatomic, at near 40 years beyond expiration, will be just like new film, or have lost at most a fraction of a stop.

 

[DWThomas]

Based on my expired December 1988 bulk roll that I believe was not refrigerated,I would not expect much deterioration. It's a slow film and appears to be remarkably stable.

 

[removedacct1]

Generally, loss of speed with age is a result of age fog -- much of which is thermal -- and the need to expose more to get your shadows out of that fog. Frozen film fogs much less than film stored at even "film cooler" temp around 50F. Further, slow films fog less than faster films. There's a good likelihood that Panatomic, at near 40 years beyond expiration, will be just like new film, or have lost at most a fraction of a stop.

Based on my expired December 1988 bulk roll that I believe was not refrigerated,I would not expect much deterioration. It's a slow film and appears to be remarkably stable.

Thanks for that info, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I'm going to make a test of 6 or 8 frames, bracketed from 32ASA on, adding half stops.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks for that info, that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I'm going to make a test of 6 or 8 frames, bracketed from 32ASA on, adding half stops.

Good luck! I've never been a slow film guy, but I've recently gotten a bulk roll of Orwo DN21 (ISO 13, or 12 as I learned the progression) and it's wonderful stuff when the sun's out.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Suppose @paulbarden finds out that the speed of his Panatomic film is now 8 ASA. Would he need to rework the reciprocity correction for this film? Does age fog and consequent speed loss affect the reciprocity failure characteristics of the film?

 

[David Lyga]

My karma must be in pretty decent shape - a kind person gifted me a few rolls of Panatomic-X this week via the mail!View attachment 257355

This has been in a freezer all its life, and is dated 1982. Any idea just how much I should compensate for speed loss? I'm estimating its likely close to 8ASA now.

I think that your specific Panatomic-X will suffer NO loss of speed. Use EI 32. I think that you will be surprised.

And I second Qualls' directive to shoot less than half a roll, but with the exception to shoot only one or two frames of a contrasty sunny scene with good shadow detail. THAT more than anything else will tell you what you need to know about film speed and development time. - David Lyga

 

[relistan]

I am very interested in these responses also because I have two rolls sitting here, too...

 

[David Lyga]

I am very interested in these responses also because I have two rolls sitting here, too...

Well, Panatomic-X is of the slower genre. I have some dated from then and kept at room temp. Good as new. This is why I like slow films. It is as simple as that. Too many people simply look at a film's age and make a generic assessment. This is Very wrong. Gosh, take a six month old roll of TMZ 3200 and you just might experience some fog!!! I have some Kodak ImageLink film (Unperf Microfilm) and I suspect that it will last about 100 years at room temp. Maybe I will not even be alive but maybe I will. - David Lyga

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I have about 10 or 12 rolls of 1989 expiration 120 Panatomic-X left in my freezer. I expose at EI=25, and from what I can tell, the film is responding just the same as ever. I do not see fog or any other issues. I just bought 3 rolls of 135 size Panatomic-X via a 'Bay seller with expiration 1991. I have not seen the results yet but I will let you all know later. A short article with some examples:
https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2017/05/panatomic-x-best-black-and-white-film.html

 

[gorbas]

I exposed a few rolls from 100' roll of Panatomic X expired in 1968. No idea how it was stored? It was good as new. Just enjoy it!

 

[removed account4]

hi paulbarden
I would also think about what developer you are going to use to process the film in... I hear HC110 is good and keeps fog down but they say the least amount of time in the developer the better with stuff that is old and may be foggy ( I've never used benzo .. so I can't speak for experience but some say that is a good restrainer too ) .. whenever I have had questionable old expired film I either process it in dektol ( d72 ) or ansco130 1:5 for 5 mins. I've never done the newspaper photographer's 3mins stand in straight dektol before but who knows it might be useful...
have fun with your film, I loved panx ...

 

[eli griggs]

I loved this film an shot quit a bit with it, early on in my first years of photography, so good for you and the kindness of whomever gave you this opportunity to enjoy it.

I will suggest you go ahead and shoot a roll, and bracket each shot three or four stops, one 1-2 stops high, normal and half speed, or one stop low,

I'm assuming its been some time since you've shot developed this film, so seeing a range of exposures in several lighting formats will help remind you what it takes to get THIS film to work for your needs.

It would be a huge help if you still have careful notes on your shooting and developing to your standards at 32 iso and any 'system' of shooting and processing for good negatives.

Do follow up on this thread, so we to might benefit from your good fortune and see for ourselves how well this film fairs in a camera today.

Take good shots you like, no hurry to completely hurry a roll, and well still be very interested in your results.

IMO.

Good Health, Fine Weather and Godspeed to all,

Eli

 

[braxus]

I also have some rolls of Pan X. Shoot it at 32 ISO and develop for normal times. This film simply doesn't age.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Good grief! The end of the world is nigh! There's a nearly unanimous opinion on Photrio, that Panatomic X of any age up to and including 50+ years is likely to be still good a box speed!

Suppose @paulbarden finds out that the speed of his Panatomic film is now 8 ASA. Would he need to rework the reciprocity correction for this film? Does age fog and consequent speed loss affect the reciprocity failure characteristics of the film?

I'm not certain it would matter. Panatomic X is a sunshine film, not something you'd normally load in a pinhole camera or shoot at night. And in sunshine, most 35mm cameras above the "Time Magazine psuedo-SLR viewfinder toy camera" level can still make hand held exposures at EI 8. That'd be what, f/8 at 1/30? That's even still stopped down enough to get some DOF.

 

[Down Under]

Karma, yes! There must be a huge stock of old Panatomic-X left in the world - so many seem to be lucky in finding it!!

Last year I was down to my last five or six rolls when a chance social encounter with a photo club ex-member resulted in an offer to buy his leftover stock at a true bargain price. I now have 100+ rolls of 120 and 35mm and THREE 100-foot rolls, an ample supply of this unique and wonderful thin emulsion film to last me for the rest of my film shooting days. Truly, the spirit of George Eastman was smiling down on me when I went to that coffee gathering...

As others have said, Panatomic really doesn't age. I've found that my new stock (dating to 1987 according to the seller, so probably the last ever batch by Kodak) shoots well at ISO/EI 32 on sunny days or 25-20 on cloudy days. A light yellow filter improves the mid tones. This film if overdeveloped was prone to higher contrast than I like, but with expired stock I've found that a +/- 10%-15% increase in development time adds a bit of 'zip' to the highlights and, for me, makes scanning much easier. I had a spell of processing it on a Jobo with home brewed Thornton's two bath developer but I found the contrast was a tad too low and I went back to good old D76 which I prefer 1:1, which may explain why a bit more time in the juice is needed. You should avoid bendotriazole if you can, I've been told it slows the film speed.

Best to do a test with part of a roll, vary the exposures EI/ISO 32-25-20, process for normal time and see which result you prefer.

Some have claimed TMax 100 is a better film than Panatomic but for me there has never been a film to equal it. Ilford Pan F+ has a higher speed but tends to soot and whitewash, and Rollei RPX 25 just doesn't cut the mustard for me as an orthopanchromatic emulsion I find it seems to have the worst quality of the two, much like the old Fuji Acros which never gave me the tones I wanted. To each their own but we all know what we like best and for me it's Panatomic-X.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Panatomic X is a sunshine film, not something you'd normally load in a pinhole camera or shoot at night.

It's interesting that you said this. There are indeed a few photographers who use this film for pinhole photography. Here is one and here another.

And why would one not use long exposures for this film if it gives as arresting a result as this and this.

 

[BAC1967]

This is Panatomic-X that expired 3/1963, exposed at an ISO of 12. It’s from a bulk roll so I had plenty to bracket test it. I have no idea how the film was stored for the last half century. I got good results at 25 but 12 seems to be the best. I would be surprised if you had to go any slower than 25, it’s probably fine at box speed. These were developed in Beerenol (Rainier Beer).

Chair Silhouette in Door by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

Old Work Boots by Bryan Chernick, on Flickr

 

[removedacct1]

I did a test, exposing six frames starting with what the meter suggested for 32ASA, and added 1/2 stop more exposure for 5 more frames. The clip was processed in D-76 1:1 for 7 minutes. The best frame was the one that had one full stop over, but this was in the shade under overcast conditions. The exposure was 1 second at f8 (using my Retina IIIC, with Retina-Xenon lens). I'm satisfied that I can meter for about 16ASA to get shadow detail I like. I plan on processing another test clip in PMK.

Great tonality, excellent sharpness.

 

[eli griggs]

Nice image.

As I recall, I only developed this in Kodak's Microphen developer, never D-76, etc, so that's one more thing I'd like to see more of, in this thread or others.

 

[Finn lyle]

I also have some rolls of Pan X. Shoot it at 32 ISO and develop for normal times. This film simply doesn't age.

This is absolutely the truth. I was lucky enough to come across a dozen rolls of this film in 120 which expired in ‘78 and shot at ASA 32 it was probably some of the cleanest negatives I’ve ever developed. I developed in HC-110 but I can’t imagine that any other developer would yield worse results. Even compared to T-max 100 it’s simply grainless. You’ve truly been gifted with a wonderful film

 

[GRHazelton]

Anyone have any Plus X in 35mm or 120 or 220? Back in the day this was my go-to film. My Father and I used home brew Beutler and got excellent results, up to 11x14 from 35mm. Larger might have been possible, but our enlarger and easel limited us..... Later on I used Plus X in D 76 with excellent results, but subjectively Beutler was better.

 

[removedacct1]

This is absolutely the truth. I was lucky enough to come across a dozen rolls of this film in 120 which expired in ‘78 and shot at ASA 32 it was probably some of the cleanest negatives I’ve ever developed. I developed in HC-110 but I can’t imagine that any other developer would yield worse results. Even compared to T-max 100 it’s simply grainless. You’ve truly been gifted with a wonderful film

As it happens, my benefactor included four rolls of Panatomic-X in 120 format as well (and 11 rolls of original Ektachrome 64), so I’ve got some treasures at my disposal!
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....