Kodak Royal-X Film - History ?

[Ian Grant]

For what it's worth. I checked my 1954 Kodak films book .No mention of Royal Pan X. Royal Pan was available only in sheets. Description , high speed, moderate contrast, low graininess, Exposure Index Daylight 200, Tungsten 160 .

There's no mention in my earlier 1950's Kodak Ltd Catalogues or BJP Almanacs of Royal Pan however I'd assume Panchro Royal was very similar, it the same ASA/BS speeds. There may have been some slight variation between the two but they weren't sold in the same markets. When Tri-X was re-introduced there were variations and some of the more professional Kodak developers listed different development times for films coated in the US, Canada, or UK.

Tri-X had been introduced just before WWII as a sheet film and was coated by Kodak Ltd in the UK as well as their new factory in Hungary (later to become Forte) it went out of production probably because a key component was no longer available during the war. It's odd that Kodak had no fast B&W film competing with HP2/3 until the introduction of Panchro Royal sheet film in 1953/4 and Tri-X roll films late 1954.

Ian

 

[dynachrome]

I never used Royal-X but I think it was still around when I started taking pictures. In 35mm size I used 2475, which was available in 36 exp. rolls and long rolls and 2484 which I remember being available only in long rolls. The 2475 was nearly impossible to tear with your hands. These films were more expensive and when I needed speed I mostly pushed Tri-X to 1250 and developed it in Ethol UFG, sometimes with replenishment. When I started using 120 film, in a Yashica Mat 124G I used either Verichrome Pan or Tri-X.

 

[dmr]

In 35mm size I used 2475, which was available in 36 exp. rolls

I remember trying a roll of 2475 back in 1971, IIRC. I remember it was more grainy than Tri-X but not that much more sensitive.

 

[darkroommike]

Ha ha ha... Some of us care!

So what was the diff between Royal-X and the 35mm recording film I recall using occasionally in the 1980s?

I shot a couple of those "recording films". And I have a roll of Royal-X 120 in the fridge. As I recall the recording films lacked antihalation backings and were on Estar base for high speed cameras and dried very curled. I shot a bit of 2475 and 2484 for the golf ball sized grain on figure studies and night shots. Others shot it at night time sporting events.

 

[darkroommike]

Right.



Royal-X was not in rollfilm form (at least not according to my Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide c.1966 when I purchased it)

Royal-X was only in sheet film form, ASA 1250. You could not develop it in D-76 or Microdol-X or D-50

Royal Pan was in rollfilm and sheet film form, ASA 400. You could develop in any of the developers used for Royal-X as well as in D-76 and Microdol-X and D-50.

Royal-X was rated by Kodak as MC for grain, ML for resolving;
Royal Pan was rated by Kodak as F for grain, M for resolving.

Since Royal-X was not in rollfilm form (at least not in mid-1960s, according to my Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide from back then) the OP probably is referring to Royal Pan, not Royal-X, although his recollection of ASA 1250 is puzzling.

Expiration date on this batch in 1981.

 

[aoresteen]

Expiration date on this batch in 1981.

View attachment 212176

Is that an Epson Perfection 3200 scanner?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Wow! Nice stash! Go shoot some and let see what it looks like. I would consider doing this in DK-50 1;1 at least once.

 

[darkroommike]

Is that an Epson Perfection 3200 scanner?

Why do you ask? Pretty off topic. But it's a Epson Perfection 4180 Photo.

 

[jtk]

fwiw Kodak's 2475 was visually superior to 2485 for relatively low light photography (bars, restaurants etc). Acufine was often used to push TriX to 1200,. but that produced a flat crap. 2485 wasn't nearly as attractive as 2475. I shot 2475 @ 800, DK50 which was standard for sharply defined grain lovers. Tremendous latitude at 800, wonderful shadow detail, didn't blow out in daylight. 2585 and 2475 were both marketed as surveillance films, but 2485 and subsequent emulsions were better for that.

 

[Vaughn]

I used Royal Pan in 4x5 back in the late 70s. They did not have Royal-X Pan at the local photo store at the time.

 

[Arklatexian]

I used Royal Pan in 4x5 back in the late 70s. They did not have Royal-X Pan at the local photo store at the time.

I remember 4x5 Royal Pan but do not remember Royal X Pan. Much preferred Super Panchro Press, Type B and a tripod as did most of our professional customers.......Regards!