It would sure be nice if someone would come out with a Panalure paper replacement.

[Born2Late]

It occurred to me that Photo Warehouse is an APUG sponsor. I wonder if they would pony up a sample to a responsive member to do a subjective test and report back? No, I'm not volunteering, just a thought.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ugh. I'd love to try this, but I stopped doing business with them some years ago after an unpleasant experience.

But no one else is doing this. Sigh.

I'd like to try some of the 4x5 for paper negatives in my 4x5 camera, as well as under the enlarger and just see how it does, and also how it response (especially if it's basically grade 4!) to a Selectol-soft type paper developer.

Simon said they couldn't recommend it, but didn't really say WHY. I've found that manufacturers are most often way more conservative about what they consider acceptable than we photographers are. Witness the almost ridiculously conservative keeping times Kodak lists for their chemical stock solutions, for example. I'm sure they measured the change over time and settled on those times, but in practice I can keep, for example, D76, far, far longer than Kodak recommends with no problems at all.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Even when Kodak made Panalure it was a niche product and sales were not strong. It would be unreasonable to think that some company especially in today's analog market would invest in bringing something like it to fruition.

 

[Roger Cole]

Unreasonable to expect a big company to do so. As film becomes a boutique market we already see more small companies doing niche products.

I think one thing that hurt Panalure back in the day was that the old Panalure was pretty unimpressive. They really improved it and the last iteration was quite good (aside from the fact that Kodak never made a B&W RC paper with a surface I liked.) But I think people had tried the old version and made up their minds, or at least some I knew had.

I'd like to try the Ilford stuff. Grade 4 is contrasty but I'd far and away rather have a too-contrasty single grade than a too-soft one. There are at least two quite easy ways to lower contrast, flashing and soft working paper developers, and they can be used together.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think one thing that hurt Panalure back in the day was that the old Panalure was pretty unimpressive. They really improved it and the last iteration was quite good (aside from the fact that Kodak never made a B&W RC paper with a surface I liked.) But I think people had tried the old version and made up their minds, or at least some I knew had.

I think you are probably right. I remember not being terribly impressed with the results. Kodak's illustrations always looked far nicer.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have a print or two made on the last version. If I get time and remember I will scan and upload here.

 

[Darko Pozar]

My recollection was that Panalure had a horrible smell. Sure the images were imprssive from a colour neg, but I gor satisfying results printing on Ilford Glossy Multigrade at grade 5...

 

[removed account4]

I used panalure occasionally. I didn't see much difference from Kodabromide insofar as color reproduction was concerned.
Juan

me too juan, not kodabromide though, can't remember what it was, but it didn't bother me the results i got.
then again i make paper negatives so i am use to the "ortho" look of paper emulsion of a color scene.

i hate to suggest the OP make a b/w copy negative of his color negative using b/w film ( panchromatic )
it might be easier than using papers that aren't designed for under the enlarger &c, and it could be a quick operation.
use a light meter, get the exposure, make it, and develop the film ... otherwise embrace the orthochromatic look of color on b/w.

good luck !

john

btw if you haven't heared of ultrafine/photowarehouse they are good folks who have been around for decades and have supported film users for a long time
i have bought thousands of sheets of paper and film from them over the years, never had a problem, and i have been trying for 12 years
to get a master rolls of film shipped to them so they can cut it to custom sizes for "boutique" format cameras ( ulf, pinhole, weird sizes &c ). unfortunately, even
in the midst of their death-roll, kodak wouldn't sell them a master roll which would have been sold almost by the time it arrived ! can't win them all i suppose ...

 

[Xmas]

There is no reason for the reciprocity to differ by colour.

I would have said that too.
A mono film is not like a tripack film.

 

[MattKing]

I would have said that too.
A mono film is not like a tripack film.

It is panchromatic, so is therefore sensitized to all colours of visible light. Its sensitivity is adjusted to take into account the orange mask and the relative behavior of all the dies in the colour negatives.

Why would you assume that the multiple sensitizing agents in the paper would respond identically to large changes in exposure time?

 

[AgX]

The reciprocity effect is a effect of the halide, not the sensitizers.

There are indeed other effects related to spectral sensitisation, but they can be neglected here.