Panatomic-X and Pan-F+

[alanrockwood]

This is not to ask which is better, but rather, how are these two films similar/different? I know that PX is long discontinued, but I am nevertheless interested in how these two films compare.

 

[randyB]

The correct code for Panatomic-x is FX. PX is for Plus-x which is also discontinued. As I remember them, Panatomic-x is higher in contrast (shorter scale) than Pan-F+. FX was ISO 32, but I usually shot it at 25. FX has extremely fine grain as does Panf+. IMO, PanF+ is the closest film to FX, both are outstanding films. Others may have more recent insight into the differences since I haven't used PanF+ that much.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There is another ongoing thread on Panatomic-X and Pan F+. Having used both (Pan X extensively) the two films are both fine grained. There the similarity ends.

 

[zanxion72]

Panatomic-X packs a lot more resolution than PanF. Also, what makes Panatomic-X unique is its ability to deliver a wide tonal range even under contrasty situations such as the harsh noon light. No other slow and fine grained film can do that. PanF is not like that, it delivers results with higher contrast.

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, the dynamic tonal range of Panatomic-X forces one to compare it to Tri-X in that regard. Of course, it is much more capable of resolution and lack of grain as compared with Tri-X, but even this film will exhibit grain if over exposed and over developed.

Development times for Panatomix-X are longer than for Pan F+, by about 20%, but film speed is VERY important in determining such development times. What I said applies only if you consider Panatomix-X to be one stop FASTER than Pan F+. Shadow detail bears this out: I would rate Pan F+ at 16 and Panatomic-X as indicated by Kodak: ISO 32. There are those who will claim Pan F+ to be MUCH faster than 16 but that is because that film acquires density rapidly with forced development. Actually, if you look closely at the shadow detail of such forced negatives you will be compelled to agree with my assessment. Of course, many subjects would NOT suffer from such speed uprating. - David Lyga

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Yes, the dynamic tonal range of Panatomic-X forces one to compare it to Tri-X in that regard. Of course, it is much more capable of resolution and lack of grain as compared with Tri-X, but even this film will exhibit grain if over exposed and over developed.

Development times for Panatomix-X are longer than for Pan F+, by about 20%, but film speed is VERY important in determining such development times. What I said applies only if you consider Panatomix-X to be one stop FASTER than Pan F+. Shadow detail bears this out: I would rate Pan F+ at 16 and Panatomic-X as indicated by Kodak: ISO 32. There are those who will claim Pan F+ to be MUCH faster than 16 but that is because that film acquires density rapidly with forced development. Actually, if you look closely at the shadow detail of such forced negatives you will be compelled to agree with my assessment. Of course, many subjects would NOT suffer from such speed uprating. - David Lyga

Very true. The characteristic curves are also different. I need to do some more testing but at present I am disappointed with Pan F+.

 

[Xmas]

Very true. The characteristic curves are also different. I need to do some more testing but at present I am disappointed with Pan F+.

Well I give PanF+ a stop more exposure than Delta 100 on contrasty days and don't detect much difference in shadow detail or dynamic range.
I was surprised by this given previous posts.
But I can't recall using PanatomicX.