Kodak Panatomic-X, circa 1987, and D76

Down Under · Nov 2, 2015

Hello, all... A friend who has now given up photography, recently emptied the contents of his film fridge for me. The prize of the lot, I think, was 42 rolls of Kodak Panatomic-X, 20 and 36 exposures, apparently dating from one of the last batches produced by Eastman, which would maybe date it to 1987. I used a lot of this film in the 1970s and 1980s and in many ways I have never forgiven Eastman for having discontinued it, altho I've found Tmax 100 to be almost as good. My query is, how would you process this film? My preferred developer for films is Kodak's D76, but in a pinch I can mix up a batch of Thornton's two-bath (aka fine-tuned Leica two-bath). I used the Leica two bath in the 1960s as a teen photographer in Canada, and I now occasionally return to my old B&W negatives (mostly 120) from that period and marvel at how easy they print. Even Kodak Verichrome Pan. We had it so good in those long ago days. Given that the original film speed for Panatomic-X was EI 32, should I shoot it at box speed? 25? 20? At my age handholding a Nikkormat EL at 1/30 can be somewhat of a trial... I can use my Contax G1, of course, but as I shot endless miles of Panatomic with the EL back then, it seems the most logical camera to use with this film, for nostalgia's sake. In many ways I am looking forward to revisiting one of my youthful passions (B&W film, that is) for perhaps the last time. I want to reshoot many old locations in Australia, Southeast Asia and my old home turf, eastern Canada in the next few months. 2016 will be a year of travel, perhaps my last global jaunt. The Panatomic-X, if it's good, along with a few rolls of Plus-X I have left, will see me thru all that. Any advice on shooting and processing this wonderful old emulsion, would be greatly appreciated.

zanxion72 · Nov 2, 2015

Shoot it at box speed. Here is a roll I have exposed at box speed and developed in Rodinal and came out perfect. The only problem I had was some hair lined marks due to being badly stored exposed in direct sunlight.

Awesome drawing on a door

DWThomas · Nov 2, 2015

I've been nibbling at a bulk roll that as far as I know was stored at room temperature. Metering at 25 (and using my Argus C-3!), developed in HC110 1+63 for about 9:30, produced decent images. The bulk roll was by way of a friend of a friend and I don't know its early history; the box shows December 1988 as an expiration date! I guess with the slow speed, the time related deterioration is way less pronounced than with the "hot" films.

I have seen an occasional spot which I can't analyze as to coming from deterioration, loose dirt in old camera, or improvised bulk loading (hanging from a nail on the darkroom door frame) so I wouldn't shoot once in a life time stuff with it -- or at least shoot duplicate frames. I was actually amazed at how well it worked. 28 year old film in a 58 year old camera -- and my first digi-snapper died in ten years!

gone · Nov 2, 2015

The Contax won't help and could even be worse, as the heft of the Nikkormat would help steady your shots at slow shutter speeds.

You're going to get a lot of different advice, but since you have a stash, why not try metering one shot at box speed, another of the same scene at 20, and another at 15. Repeat as necessary till you finish the roll, and develop normally. I always preferred Tri-X, but suspect there are just Tri-X people and Pan X people.

nosmok · Nov 2, 2015

I shoot a lot of PanX from the 80s, starting about four years ago. It's good to go at box speed. Hell, it's probably good to go with a two stop push as well (I did this a couple years ago and the results were fantastic on the one roll I tried.). I use Caffenol C 20 c/ 68 f for 6-10 minutes, agitate 3x per minute after the 1st minute and it works great.

PanX becomes tricky when the expiration is before 1960, but even then I haven't had a roll fail on me. I rate 1958 expired PanX at 10 - 16 and it's low contrast but every shot came out.

Nokton48 · Nov 2, 2015

I traded a year ago for a 100' roll and spooled it all off into thirty-six exposure rolls. Those went into the deep freeze.
I have shot one roll but haven't developed it yet. I think I will use D-76, that always worked well with Pan-X for me, back in the seventies.

Bill Burk · Nov 2, 2015

I worked up to 10 minutes in D-76 1:1 with Panatomic-X 35mm in a small tank with four reels. I get between 0.5 and 0.6 contrast.

I am surprised to find the speed is still 32 and Base+Fog is 0.25 - Not much fog when you consider the antihalation dye is about 0.2

Athiril · Nov 3, 2015

I've got some from late 60s or early 70s, comes out perfectly fine without base fog, box speed, though easy to overdevelop.

Dr Croubie · Nov 3, 2015

I can't share samples because I'm at work, but I shot a roll from 1978 at "about" half box speed (anywhere between half and box speed, never let it be said I'm accurate with my metering). Caffenol-L-C semi-stand for about an hour, agitations around 1/4/10/30 mins. Better results than most fresh films than when I follow developing instructions.

ps, just noticed you're another aussie. For my caffenol it's Woolworths Home Brand gutrot coffee (white tin with red writing) and washing soda flakes also from woolies, clear bag with green writing iirc.

paul ron · Nov 4, 2015

i loved panatomic developed in microdol. i got exceptionaly fine grain and plenty of beautiful midtones.

last time i used it was 1971...

nice score!

dynachrome · Nov 4, 2015

My favorite combination for it was shooting it at an ISO of 64 and developing it in Edwal FG-5 1:15 with plain water (no sodium sulfite) for the time recommended by Edwal. Sharpness and grain were excellent and the combination worked well with high or low contrast scenes. The old FG-7 was sold in brown glass bottles and lasted a very long time. Once the switch was made to the white plastic bottles the shelf life went way down. For a while I transferred the contents into smaller brown glass bottles.

Nokton48 · Nov 8, 2015

Lots of great info here for those of use who are lucky enough to have some

Down Under · Nov 11, 2015

Many thanks, everyone, for the wealth of good information contributed to this thread. Heaps and heaps of useful data for me, and others also. I will be going out this weekend with Panatomic-X loaded in one of my Nikkormat FT2s, to test the roll at various EIs from 32 down. At least two posters have suggested I do this test. I should have thought of it myself...

xanzion, a fine photo posted, one anyone would be proud to have taken.

DM Thomas, you and I have a Perkeo in common, I have checked your web site and noted your excellent documentary photos taken with this little gem of a camera. Good one!

Ian C, a particular note of thanks for all your information. Also others, but Ian gave me valuable processing tips, and I will be putting these to good use in the next few days.

I hope to return the favor to other threads in future. Need I say, all this is why so many of us continue to use rangefinderforum, and post.

DWThomas · Nov 12, 2015

ozmoose said:
...

D[W] Thomas, you and I have a Perkeo in common, I have checked your web site and noted your excellent documentary photos taken with this little gem of a camera. Good one! ...

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, the Perkeo is an awesome little camera for when one wants a decent sized negative for an occasional shot without carting around a 'blad or Bronica. I won't claim those are totally equal, but the Perkeo gives a good account of itself -- and, it can fit in a jacket pocket or even hip pocket (if one's hips are big enough ).

Down Under · Mar 10, 2016

A late return to this thread. I recently shot a test roll in a Nikkormat at EI 25 (one third stop below the original box speed), and processed half the roll in D76 1+1 per times and advice from Bill Burke in this thread. Fine results, similar to yours. Thank you, Bill!

The second half was processed in my old 'signature' soup, Leica Two Bath hyped up for somewhat higher contrast as recommended by The Great Ansel. Similarly fine results. Both satisfactory. Test prints from both lots show almost no differences.

Six 120 rolls of Panatomic dating to the mid 1980s also recently came my way with some other films, a gift from an elderly photographer. DW, I ran one through my circa 1952 Perkeo I. The Color Skopar, a legend in its time and even today, lived up to its reputation and gave me twelve small engravings. Amazing that 65 year old lenses and 30 year old emulsions can unite to produce such perfection.

Like so many Kodak products of that time, Panatomic-X (like Verichrome Pan) was a film that seemingly could do no wrong. Anything you throw it into will produce results.

DWThomas · Mar 10, 2016

ozmoose said:
[ . . . ]

Six 120 rolls of Panatomic dating to the mid 1980s also recently came my way with some other films, a gift from an elderly photographer. DW, I ran one through my circa 1952 Perkeo I. The Color Skopar, a legend in its time and even today, lived up to its reputation and gave me twelve small engravings. Amazing that 65 year old lenses and 30 year old emulsions can unite to produce such perfection. [ . . . ]

Awesome! Glad to hear of the successful outcome. Alas, never tried Panatomic-X in medium format. I believe 1987 was the last of its manufacture and at this point I would rather optimize my use of available materials, as opposed to tormenting myself with what could have been. In this recent case, the 35mm Pan-X fell into my hands, so I'm playing with it. I also still mourn the much more recent loss of Plus-X.

As to the old folders, people today are so conditioned to out-with-old-in-with-the-new without any particularly objective evaluation they are occasionally shocked to see what that "silly antique stuff" can do. Being just a guest, I was able to play eccentric uncle and shoot some B&W with the Perkeo at a nephew's summer wedding on a beach a few years back. A year or two later, having seen the shots, my sister badgered me to be sure and do it again at my niece's wedding. (Which I did, under somewhat adverse circumstances -- after dark outdoors with my Canon 188A flash and a hot shoe adapter!)

Gerald C Koch · Mar 10, 2016

In the past I used a lot of Pan-X. My favorite combination was with the Beutler formula, I used an EI = 80 to get extremely sharp negatives.

Bill Burk · Mar 10, 2016

DWThomas... Of course any time you buy a brick or bulk roll of any material... it suddenly becomes available to you. I really had planned on moving on to TMX and TMY2 but everywhere I look I keep getting a little more Panatomic-X.

ozmoose, I'm really happy to hear you had success with my recommendation.

braxus · Mar 28, 2016

I think the last dated Pan X I've seen is 1989. I know 1987 was the last year they produced it. I have a small stash of this film in 35mm, 120, and even 4x5. I don't find the grain in this film quite as small as say Efke 25 or APX 25. But contrast is lower then those other films.

Bill Burk · Mar 28, 2016

Well, contrast is something that responds to development. When I explained the low contrast I was finding with APX-25, PE told me there is a gelatin hardening effect that occurs over time that makes it take longer to develop film to the same contrast... when it is many years past expiration.

So I've come to expect longer development times for my old, slow film.

But I have been finding no fog!

Kodak Panatomic-X, circa 1987, and D76

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency