Has Interest in Panatomic X Picked Up In Recent Times?

[takilmaboxer]

Back in the day I shot APX25 as well. But tell you the truth, the one I miss most is Efke 25, which was a technologically simple film and orthopanchromatic to boot.
This thread though is about the current popularity of Panatomic, which I feel is popular with users who are too young to have used in in the large quantities we oldsters often did. There has never been a perfect film, and human memory tends to have rose colored glasses. But hey-if they still made it, I'd still use it and I suppose that says it all.

 

[Down Under]

It was a unique film in its day. I bought it in 100-foot can in the 1970s and 1980s - those good ol' days when film was cheaper to buy in bulk - and shot many thousands of rolls of it, til Kodak decided to discontinue it in 1987 or 1988. I then bought whatever supplies I could get and hoarded it in my freezer. I still have about 50 rolls of 35mm and a dwindling stock of 120 rolls. Also two 100-foot cans, which I will likely unload on Ebay as this film is now worth a small mint and the hipsters are out looking for it.

The competition films were never up to Panatomic. Ilford Pan F gave soot and whitewash contrast. The European brands were fiddly and processing was always a problem.

I complained for years when Kodak discontinued Panatomic, in fact I wrote to Kodak Australasia back in 1989 or 1990 and told them I had found the perfect replacement film - from Ilford. Eventually took the advice of a few posters on this and other sites and went to TMax 100 and 400, which are just as good for the little black-and-white film I shoot nowadays.

This is not meant to be a technical post, but my negatives from Panatomic and TMax print to about the same contrast. I did have to adjust my film paper processing techniques a bit. TMax requires longer fixing times and fresh(er) fixer than Panatomic did. The early TMax produced a pink-purple stain on the film after processing but eventually I figured out how to remove it. I now print mostly on Grade 3 filtration whereas I did with Grade 2 before.

Processing Panatomic was not difficult as it responded well to every developer I was using - D76, Rodinal, two bath developers. TMax is more fiddly. It doesn't like constant agitation and I've had problems bringing up the contrast even to normal levels with the Thornton two bath.

Both films produce lovely mid tones if treated right. That's about it.

To sum this up, Panatomic-X is now history. In time TMax will go the same way. Time passes and all things change.

 

[removed account4]

where's mrFOTO1 when you need him ?

 

[Craig]

Would CMS20 be closer to Technical Pan, in terms of needing special developer?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Would CMS20 be closer to Technical Pan, in terms of needing special developer?

CMS 20 is arguably even more extreme than Technical Pan - it's definitely microfilm (quite possibly with a silver chloride emulsion), as opposed to Technical Pan which seems to have its origins in high altitude reconnaissance materials.

 

[Down Under]

Back in the day I shot both Pan X and Plus X. I preferred Plus X; It gave fine grain - I have a lot of more than acceptable 11 x 14 enlargements from 35mm (we used Beutler), and could yield a useable increase in speed. Would that it would return! Any suggestions for a modern equivalent!

Try Ilford FP4. Treat it gently and try to not overdevelop. In my experience it scans very well. Enlargements I have made with it needed grade 3 filtration, but that is what I mostly use these days. Oddly, I have to use grade 3 on my multigrade paper and the same negatives print beautifully on grade 2 graded Ilford Galerie (from the 1990s but carefully stored). I do not know why but long may it continue.

Memory may be failing me here (not unusual) but I recall Beutler was a speed reducing developer. Do you not have to slow down the ISO when using it? It has been 20 years since I last mixed up a batch of it, so I have forgotten more than I remember. Your advice will be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Bill Burk]

My interest in Panatomic-X has never waned. It is magical in so many ways.

My best example is the photos taken at Little Sur Creek forty years apart that look like they could have been taken the same day.

I know that faster film nearly matches its grain and resolution. But I like slow film on a tripod with long shutter times.

It smells nice and only needs 4 minutes in the fix.

Sorry about the hype but it deserves all the praise one can lavash.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

My interest in Panatomic-X has never waned. It is magical in so many ways.

Bill, I agree (but I also like Fuji Acros). Here are some more Panatomic-X examples:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-mississippi-delta-34-2012-road-trip.html

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2020/08/time-capsule-morris-ice-company-jackson.html

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2019/11/industrial-archaeology-redstone-quarry.html

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/10/photographing-cotton-compress-of.html

 

[GRHazelton]

Try Ilford FP4. Treat it gently and try to not overdevelop. In my experience it scans very well. Enlargements I have made with it needed grade 3 filtration, but that is what I mostly use these days. Oddly, I have to use grade 3 on my multigrade paper and the same negatives print beautifully on grade 2 graded Ilford Galerie (from the 1990s but carefully stored). I do not know why but long may it continue.

Memory may be failing me here (not unusual) but I recall Beutler was a speed reducing developer. Do you not have to reduce the ISO speed when using it? It has been 20 years since I last mixed up a batch of it, so I have forgotten more than I remember. Your advice will be appreciated. Thanks.

Thanks for the recommendation for a Plus X replacement. I'm not sure I can make any processing recommendations, its been 50 or 60 years since I used Beutler - My Father and I mixed it up. He was a PhD ChemEng, we had a little balance, etc. At that time Plus X was rated, IIRC, ASA 125, we found that shooting at about 300, souped in Beutler yielded slightly thin negatives but easily printable on Grade 3 Luminos paper. Luminos was the cheapest good paper at the time. Later on after I was out on my own - after college - I used again IRRC, D-76 on Plus X printing on Ilford grade 3. I preferred Beutler to D-76, though. This was before the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market on silver, the Ilford paper we'd used at $10/100 sheets of 8 x 10 jumped far up in price; after the Hunt's failure the cost of paper didn't come down. And so it goes.....
Lately I've been shooting Tri-X using D-76 1 to 1. I'll have to get some FP4 and the Beutler available from Photographers Formulary, or can you suggest other sources?

 

[Donald Qualls]

CMS 20 is arguably even more extreme than Technical Pan - it's definitely microfilm (quite possibly with a silver chloride emulsion), as opposed to Technical Pan which seems to have its origins in high altitude reconnaissance materials.

I'd agree with this -- aside from speed, it's similar to Copex Rapid (similar development will get EI 50-80 with Copex Rapid, with similar tonality to CMS20 at EI 20).

 

[pentaxuser]

Often I stumble over a strange thread title... How can interest pick up? At best someone can pick up interest.
Or interest may have peaked.

English can be a strange language where words are not used in a literal sense of doing something which we call transitive verb. Here "pick up" is an intransitive verb meaning to Increase and not a transitive verb which involves action of some kind such walking, reading etc. Pick up can be transitive as in I pick up a book but also intransitive as in sales of books picks up

I hope this explains it

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

English can be a strange language where words are not used in a literal sense of doing something which we call transitive verb. Here "pick up" is an intransitive verb meaning to Increase and not a transitive verb which involves action of some kind such walking, reading etc. Pick up can be transitive as in I pick up a book but also intransitive as in sales of books picks up

This might be the clearest explanation of this for non-native speakers that I've ever read. Like a lot of idioms, this is completely obvious to native speakers (especially of American English), but quite bizarre for those to whom English is a second (or more) language.

 

[warden]

This might be the clearest explanation of this for non-native speakers that I've ever read. Like a lot of idioms, this is completely obvious to native speakers (especially of American English), but quite bizarre for those to whom English is a second (or more) language.

It's so complex. (Thanks Pentaxuser)

I speak only English and have admiration for anyone that can communicate in a non-native tongue. A friend of mine is fluent in four languages and I can't imagine how that's even possible!

 

[Donald Qualls]

A friend of mine is fluent in four languages and I can't imagine how that's even possible!

I think one of the keys is to have learned more than one language as a child. If you grow up speaking two native languages, I think, it's much easier to learn additional ones.

 

[Auer]

I think one of the keys is to have learned more than one language as a child. If you grow up speaking two native languages, I think, it's much easier to learn additional ones.

I think so too, I grew up bi-lingual and have learned new languages fairly easily when needed to. English is my "third" language.

 

[nosmok]

Shot all of 1 roll of Panatomic X back in the day (mid-1980s for me). Then got back into photography this century and PanX is one of my favorite films. Easy to develop in Caffenol, looks great, and even ruined (have some moldy, blotched 4x5 from the 1950s that I'm carefully husbanding) still makes beautiful images. The stuff has a long life and a beautiful death-- we should all be so blessed.

 

[VinceInMT]

I used to shoot lots of Panatomix-X in medium format. I am currently scanning ALL of my film from when I started shooting in the early 1970s and just hit some batches of Pan-X. I'd forgotten what a clear base it had.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Probably some people here were not even born yet when that film went out of production.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd forgotten what a clear base it had.

I seem to recall it was the top choice for making B&W reversal slides back in the day. Kodak sold a reversal kit (long before the one for T-Max 100) that was made for Panatomic-X.

 

[DWThomas]

It's interesting to me, back about five or six decades I shot a few rolls of Panatomic-X, but decided I preferred Plus-X and ignored "that slower stuff." Fast forward (quite) a bit, in 2014 I was gifted a 100 foot bulk roll, expiration date December 1988. Storage conditions are unknown but it still works pretty well. Somehow it just feels good to use it in my 1957 vintage Argus C-3 for the annual Argus Day event!

 

[Alan Johnson]

There was a technical reason for doing so with all these old acutance films Pan-X, Efke 25, 50, 100, Plus-X, Agfaphoto APX 100 etc, all discontinued now.
It was a different craft to develop them in acutance developers like Beutler, Neofin Blue etc.
In some cases the results produced print grain and quality that cannot be replicated using films now available, eg 120 Efke in Beutler.
There is a factual basis to this, not nostalgia.

 

[LibraryTroll]

I seem to recall it was the top choice for making B&W reversal slides back in the day. Kodak sold a reversal kit (long before the one for T-Max 100) that was made for Panatomic-X.

I've been busy, but watching this thread for a few days so Donald beat me to the mention of it. I took a basic photography class in college just for fun to brush up on composition and also learn how to do the black & white reversal process. It was around 1988 or 1989 and the class used 135 Panatomic-X with a reversal kit that I've long since forgotten who made it. It was probably Kodak. I loved the results. The tones were nothing short of amazing to me! I photographed the same subjects over the years with negative film at about the same times of year and never really was able to duplicate the results. It was probably dumb to try, but I wanted to see if it could be done. For me... not really.

It was fairly easy to do if you followed the knowledgeable professor's recipe for ISO settings, consistent chemistry mixing and processing, etc. Once I started shooting 120 film, Panatomic-X was no longer made and the Kodak TMAX Reversal kits were available. I never pursued it further. There are many times that I wished I had tried the TMAX kits at least.

As to the original question posted... I agree with some of the other comments regarding the "hipster-ism" of it all, but the truth probably really rests with the fact that this film has not been made in 30 something years so the folks who did shoot it back in the day hoarded it in the final days and the rest is just a result of shrinking stocks of a long dead film product.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F has excellent acutance, what many of its users have described as "wire sharpness", especially if pyro developed, but combined with limited contrast range. Efke 25 had good edge acutance combined with an exceptionally long scale; too bad the quality control got bad toward the end. Tech Pan has very disappointing edge acutance, despite its capacity for a great amount of detail - two related but distinct topics! Perceived "sharpness" in a print is what counts, which depends mostly on edge effect, unless the grain is simply so large it becomes distracting.

The science behind Mackie edge effect is discussed in all kinds of photo literature over many decade. No myth about it.

 

[choiliefan]

Panatomic-X and H&W Control (with their chems) were the go-to films for us High School fine-grain enthusiasts in early-1970's Southern California.
As 120 film in a Mamiya C33, Panatomic-X produced some very fine images. Seems like the speed was about ASA 32...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've got a formula that I understood to be H&W Control developer, it's not hard to mix, and it gives excellent results with microfilm stocks like CMS 20 II, Imagelink, and Fuji HR. Not known for keeping well after mixing, but it's possible to mix it without the phenidone and keep that in a stock solution in 91% isopropyl alcohol, to be added immediately before use, or use such a phenidone stock to mix the entire developer just before use.

The beauty of Panatomic-X was that it gave roughly similar grain and sharpness to those microfilm stocks, and did it in D-76 (or even more so in Microdol-X).