Has Interest in Panatomic X Picked Up In Recent Times?

[Nicholas Lindan]

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).

Panatomic-X in Microdol-x was close to Tech Pan in its lack of grain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tech Pan has distinct grain - it's just very very fine. I used it for its primary application, as a forensic film in applications like infrared light sleuthing of evidence of art fraud in painting, and for high-definition copy and restoration work. I still have a quantity of 8x10 sheets left. Just like probably most of us, at one time I did experiment with it for pictorial applications in 120 format - the tonality was easy enough to tame using special developers, but the contrast range and edge acutance were quite disappointing. And in 35mm format, the fineness of grain means very little when there are so many inevitable little tiny voids in the emulsion which show up in skies. That seems to be a predictable in films approaching the microfilm range. I saw it in the Agfa 25 redux film too. A friend of mine was a 120 Tech Pan addict for years and had especially good camera gear. The shots were incredibly sharp - but ohhh, every one of his prints had that annoying "soot and chalk" emptiness in the highlights and deepest shadows.

 

[Down Under]

This thread revived my interest in Panatomic-X, especially as I have a fair stock of it still in my freezer.

I went into my archive boxes and found one of my last remaining photo notebooks from the 1960s. It was a bit like rereading the history of ancient Rome. Full of names and brands that have long vanished. Much deja vu.

Panatomic was unique in that you could process it in almost anything and get usable negatives. I never did it as a reversal film tho my notebook mentioned in the first notes I wrote on the film, that it could be reversal processed. I recall Eastman Kodak even sold a kit to do this, but I may be wrong on this. If someone has better recollection than I, please advise.

I did a lot of my Panatomic in Kodak DK60a, a long-ignored general purpose film developer that has not really survived the passing of the decades but was surprisingly good for its time. You could develop almost any film in it and get usable results. My 120 negatives from 1963-1975 print superbly well and even the little Tri-X I shot in those days (which was never a popular film in eastern Canada where I lived) has barely noticeable grain. I did a lot of Verichrome Pan and Ansco Versapan in it and also got excellent results. Does anyone sill remember those two films?

As I've said in my earlier post, for me Kodak's TMax films (also Ilford FP4) have filled the gap for me but I find the TMaxes not easy to process. When done properly they do scan beautifully but I find they lack the unique low-grain pattern I got from Panatomic.

If Kodak decided to again produce Panatomic (dream on, I!) I would have all my film cameras CLA'd and buy this film in in kilometer bulk rolls if I could afford it. My darkroom would also get a major revamp.

Ah, how time passes...

 

[Bill Burk]

I would welcome a TMAX50

I did a few reversal kits but damned Paterson tank ruined the top edge of at least two rolls. It was fun but I don’t print those shots, and I always thought it was risky exposure-wise. 80 was the recommended reversal speed and it was fine, but if you messed up you would lose the shot.

I enjoy film I can get fresh now, there is plenty of different magical films out there. But almost every other film out there I would want to use fresh.

 

[braxus]

TMAX 50 is too close to 100 to be worth the effort. 25 speed would be more the effort. But its the random grain that makes old school emulsions like Pan X look as good as it does. I never fell in love with TMAX 100, no matter how close to Pan X its supposed to be.

 

[Alan Johnson]

..... in 35mm format, the fineness of grain means very little when there are so many inevitable little tiny voids in the emulsion which show up in skies. That seems to be a predictable in films approaching the microfilm range. I saw it in the Agfa 25 redux film too. A friend of mine was a 120 Tech Pan addict for years and had especially good camera gear. The shots were incredibly sharp - but ohhh, every one of his prints had that annoying "soot and chalk" emptiness in the highlights and deepest shadows.

I have noticed this as well with other emulsions I suppose to be of the near monodisperse type. I wonder if it is unavoidable.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is no TMax 50. Nor does it resemble Pan X. Did you make a typo, braxus? Or were you speaking hypothetically, in response to Bill's idea? But something like a hypothetical 25, having a very long scale just like TMX100, did in fact exist not long ago - Efke 25. Different spectral sensitivity (orthopan rather than pan). But it could handle high contrast superbly, was very fine-grained, and had better edge definition than TMax. Too bad the quality control went to hell toward the end, when they were unable to still properly maintain the plant. I still have several 120 rolls of it left, which I'll never shoot because I know the whole batch is contaminated with conspicuous bits of dust or unfiltered loose gelatin particles in the emulsion. It also had a poor antihalation backing, so you had to be extra careful to load and take out 120 rolls, always in the shade; and was also quite sensitive to all but minor stop batch acidity. TMX itself is a far better product in terms of overall quality and versatility.

 

[braxus]

My response on TMAX 50 was in response to a previous post of a film they could consider making. It wasn't a typo. Personally TMAX 100 lost whatever character that Pan X had that made it special. It looks flat/boring to me.

 

[mmerig]

In the late 1960's through early 1980's, I used Panatomic-X in 135-format sometimes, but have recently used some old-stock 120-format to try and match some earlier images that I am re-taking for research purposes. The earlier negatives (from 1939 to 1940, summer in Rocky Mountains) are 620-format and were developed in Kodak DK-20 (high contrast developer). I used Ilford Pan-F in ID-11 and this gave a pretty good match to the Panatomic-X, but not quite the shadow darkness. I just started using the old-stock film, but they were very snowy winter scenes, developed in ID-11, so hard to compare, but they look good and the film held-up fine (expiration 1981). The 1939-1940 negatives print well on Ilford MGIV Deluxe paper with #1 and #1.5 filters mostly. The 1939-1940 negatives were properly exposed, print easily, and look very nice. The negatives have a striking look to them, but I think it's the DK-20 rather than the film itself.

 

[Wallendo]

I never shot Pan-X when it was available, but several years ago I bought a bulk loader that just happened to have about 2/3's of a full roll of Panatomic-X. I enjoyed shooting it and I liked the way it looked when developed in D-76 1+1. I would buy it if it was fresh, but don't feel like paying exorbitant prices for long-expired films. I have never warmed up to Ilford Pan-F 50 - maybe if I experimented, I would find a look I like. I am currently shooting a bulk roll of TMAX-100, but still prefer the Pan-X look. I haven't tried Adox's offerings because I avoid films requiring special developers.

Maybe I should pick up a bulk roll of Pan F 50 and try different development routines and developers. I primarily use XTOL 1+1 now and Pan-F 50 just looks bland to me. Maybe Rodinal would be a better option.

I don't really care about technical attributes, I just liked the way Pan-X looks.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I am still using my stash of 120 Panatomic-X. A friend sent me a roll of Pan F Plus, which I had never used before. I exposed it at EI=32, incident measurements. On an overcast and drizzly day, it turned out really well. I am not sure if I will use it as a substitute when the Panatomic-X runs out, and I want to compare with 120 size Acros 100. Another project for a future day:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/03/another-film-treasure-ilford-pan-f-plus.html

(you can click any frame to see at 1600 pixels wide)

 

[Donald Qualls]

I wonder, has anyone who was a Panatomic user tried ORWO DN21, aka Lomography Kino 13? Slower than Pan-X (ISO 12 at reasonable CI), but it's really fine and has excellent tonality. Made for the negative stage of producing B&W movie film prints. Available in 100' rolls from ORWOna.com (may have to use their contact form and ask for this format, the one I bought seems to have been hand rolled to this length), or in 400' camera rolls from any ORWO outlet.

 

[NB23]

If you need that kind of slow, ultrafine grained film, why not shoot ADOX CMS20II? Yes, it needs special developer -- but I seem to recall FX did best in specialized developers, too. I've shot the old CMS20 -- developed in a version of Caffenol, printed to 8x10 from 35mm, a grain focuser was almost useless, good tonality, and the film was better than the lens (even with a Super Takumar 50/1.4). CMS20II is readily available, pending COVID-19 issues, and much more reasonable than $20/roll.

I used adox cms 20 and developed in hc-110 (old) 1:100 with 5 seconds agitation every 30 seconds with good results. High impact rendering because of its high contrast. I used 20 films within a project and I was delighted.

 

[NB23]

Like you, I can't speak specifically to APX 25, but I've found Pan-F pretty controllable - I think that like TMX, it can have a slight propensity for contrast to take-off for the unwary with wayward process controls - from what I've seen, FX seems to have required quite a bit of extra development to get it from a 0.55-0.6-ish CI to well over 0.7, but with Pan-F, it can be less than a minute's difference. From Agfa's data, the same issues may have been the case with APX 25 - and would inherently lead to the description of it as 'shorter scale'. I keep finding references to 1+3 dilutions supposedly making these materials 'better behaved' and that, to my mind, suggests that it's a development rate issue rather than an inherency of the emulsion itself.



There were at least 3 production eras of FX - 1938-49, 1955-73 and 1974-88 (Shanebrook, pg.401) - the film that is under discussion is likely largely based on the latter production era, although it is not clear how much the emulsions changed in their structure, sensitisation, coating methods etc, between those changeovers. I suspect that the 1955 version was quite a radical upgrade in terms of grain growth technology & sensitisation methods. Efke 25 was quite a simple single-run emulsion, dip coated.

Pan-f is beautiful! I would advise to always shoot it at iso 25. At iso 50 it’s a stretch and I believe this is why a lot of people talk about thin negatives with Pan-f.
Iso 25 always gives nice negatives.

 

[Don_ih]

a lot of people talk about thin negatives with Pan-f

You get thin negatives with PanF50 if you wait a couple of weeks to develop the roll. If you wait a couple of months, you may as well shoot the film again, because it'll be almost blank. (A bit of an exaggeration, but PanF does lose the image quite quickly).

 

[NB23]

You get thin negatives with PanF50 if you wait a couple of weeks to develop the roll. If you wait a couple of months, you may as well shoot the film again, because it'll be almost blank. (A bit of an exaggeration, but PanF does lose the image quite quickly).

that’s the myth I keep on reading about but it has never happened to me. That film cannot take underexposure very well , so shoot it at 25 and don’t worry, you will get crazy fine negatives all the time.

 

[NB23]

@NB23 how do you use Pan-F? I have never tried it. The description says "high contrast", and slow films generally have smaller tonal range, which means shooting lower-contrast scenes on overcast days and yet, it's best at ISO25. Not sure what to make of this contradiction.

cms-20 is high contrast. Develop for 5 minutes with rodinal or hc-110 @ 1:100 to 1:50 (you decide), 5 inversions every 30 seconds. No grain at all.


Pan-F at iso 25 will give a wide range of tones obviously, but with a punch.

Tmax 100 @ iso 80 or iso 40 for an endless range of tones and almost grainless images.

 

[NB23]

About pan-f image latency, that’s the myth I keep on reading about but it has never happened to me, I believe there is a lot of nonsense in this. How can a film regenerate? Ailver halides losing sensitivity abd regaining it back? Nah. That film cannot take underexposure very well , so shoot it at 25 and don’t worry, you will get crazy fine negatives all the time. Even a slight underexposure of 1/3 stop will show! use at 25 and don’t worry at all.

 

[Wallendo]

I have had one experience suggesting Pan F images fade. I shot a roll of 120 Pan F where half the roll was shot4 months prior to development, and the other half was shot just days before development. The earlier shots were much thinner than the latter. Maybe I just accidentally underexposed the earlier films, but I doubt it. To be honest the film was likely expired and the backing paper mottling, basically ruined all the shots anyway.

 

[NB23]

I have had one experience suggesting Pan F images fade. I shot a roll of 120 Pan F where half the roll was shot4 months prior to development, and the other half was shot just days before development. The earlier shots were much thinner than the latter. Maybe I just accidentally underexposed the earlier films, but I doubt it. To be honest the film was likely expired and the backing paper mottling, basically ruined all the shots anyway.

I can’t comment with authority and I’m not a chemist (and don’t want to be one). But when I shoot a 10 year old expired pan-F film and it develops with very, very clear side markings, this tells me that there is no image latency problems.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I think the problem is related to Pan F rolls that have been shoot and stored for sometime before developing. I had the issue with the 2 rolls of Pan F I used.

 

[Dirb9]

I can’t comment with authority and I’m not a chemist (and don’t want to be one). But when I shoot a 10 year old expired pan-F film and it develops with very, very clear side markings, this tells me that there is no image latency problems.

Ilford states on their datasheet "Important Note: Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – we recommend within 3 months." While 3 months seems like while, none of their other films make the same remark, in addition, Simon Galley admitted at one point (can't find the exact thread) that the poor latent image retention was an issue/compromise Ilford had to make in the process of producing the film.

 

[Don_ih]

that’s the myth I keep on reading about but it has never happened to me

It's happened to me - images at the start of a roll were pretty much gone (I had only made three exposures and then didn't touch the film for 6 months). But I can test it - I have a bulk roll sitting in my darkroom. It's no big deal to shoot a strip, cut it in half, develop one half right away, develop the second half three months later (if I can remember to do it. Most likely scenario is I find the film in 5 years and wonder what it's supposed to be). Ilford says "Important Note: Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – we recommend within 3 months." Well, they think it's important. But they also say expose at 50 for best results and I completely agree with you that 25 is better.

 

[Bill Burk]

My response on TMAX 50 was in response to a previous post of a film they could consider making. It wasn't a typo. Personally TMAX 100 lost whatever character that Pan X had that made it special. It looks flat/boring to me.

I agree, ISO 25 is a logical next step, 50 is too close to 100. It's like getting a 40mm lens to go with your 50mm lens. What kind of difference will it make in your pictures?

Character of the grain is a valid reason to choose film. Especially 35mm. I won't say the grain of TMAX film is "beautiful" - I will just say to me it's "acceptable".

I like the TMAX line of film. On a print the grain doesn't look significantly different to me than traditional grain.

I've internalized the tradeoffs implied by Kodak's advice to use 100TMAX as replacement for Panatomic-X.

I like the way its development time to achieve the same contrast index is similar between 100TMAX, TMY-2 and Tri-X. I'm used to the curves by now.

I like that you get greater speed and the 'built-in' yellow filter gives you yet another stop of speed.

But I don't like the marginal tradeoffs they made between Graininess and Resolution. They are right on the edge between T-Grain 100 and Traditional Grain 32.

Yeah TMAX finer grain, by a smidgen, but worse resolution... again by a smidgen.

This is where Kodak could have given us a 50TMAX that would have been "better than" Panatomic-X all the way around.

Of course 25 or even 12 TMAX might knock the socks off the nature prints I could pull from a 35mm negative. I'd be thrilled to have that too.

 

[relistan]

I read through this thread and don’t see mention of ADOX HR-50/Scala 50. I recently shot some frames of this film and am really impressed. I think people may be put off by the special purpose developer, but I developed it in my home grown two bath and it looks great. There is extremely fine grain, excellent tonal range. Here’s an example using my 2B-1 two bath. This is at EI50. Henning Serger suggests EI25 so that will be my EI for my next roll. (Test shot here with intentional backlight. Yes I’ve slightly missed the focus)