Panatomic X Experimental Film Developing Idea

I got the idea off of Matt here, but I want to get an idea of the how to before I eventually do it. He said this is like a 2 bath developer type of film developing. Im going to shoot a roll of 20 exposure Panatomic X in 35mm. Every shot will be exactly the same, or I might alternate between 2 shots back and forth until the roll is done. I want to develop this film in Microdol X, which was Pan X's recommended developer for the day. Xtol is my main film developer. I told Matt I was thinking for fun, to mix the two developers together to see what results I would get. He rather suggested developing the film for the first half in one developer, then the second half the other. Sort of like a two bath option. I will shoot the roll of 20 and break it into maybe 4 sections. 5 shots per strip. I'd develop 1 strip in straight Xtol. Second strip would be in straight Microdol X. Third would be the two bath type of development, using the straight mix from the previous times for each developer, alternating half way. Fourth would be to do the same, but dilute the two developers in water as a 1:1, and then alternate half way between each mix. I'd have to keep a record of what film was done in what. My questions for doing the developing for half the time for each developer (on the one strip that will be developed by both of them half way between), is:

-For the two bath type of option- Which of the two should I start with- Microdol X or Xtol? Im just wanting to see which of the two will have the most affect on the film before the second one is done.
-Should I basically cut the time in half that would have normally been for each developer and go by that when I alternate between the two of them?
-What about times for a 1:1 mix, which would also alternate between the two of them for one of the strips?

I could even do a 5th strip of literally mixing the two developers together in one solution, just to see what would happen. But then I'd have to shoot a 24 roll for this option.

This will be a lot of work. I admire your energy. Two questions:
1. Do you plan to print optically onto genuine enlarging paper or scan and then digitally print?
2. There is not all that much Panatomic-X left. Why not put this effort into a contemporary film? That way, others can benefit from your results.

I have a ton of Panatomic X to do this experiment. The whole point was to see if Microdol X can really differ than Xtol for this film. Again Microdol X was the recommended developer for this film. I'm doing this experiment for me, as it will help me decide which of these two developers is best for this film. Again I have lots of Pan X to still use. And it would be a fun experiment. I'll probably do a video on it.

The results of this test could be used again on a more modern emulsion, so I'm not ruling that out. I have lots of spare time for this hobby, and it keeps me busy. I'm not married or hooked up with anyone, so this is what I like to do. I'm sure you guys would be curious of my results too. My 35mm film scanner can go up to 10000 dpi, though the lens is only rated to 5000 dpi. And yes these will be scanned, as I have no darkroom to make prints.

Are you talking about developing 8-inch strips of film?

If 5 frames equals around 8 inches per strip, then yes.

braxus said:

-For the two bath type of option- Which of the two should I start with- Microdol X or Xtol?

Click to expand...

I suggest Xtol first because it will start more grains developing than Microdol X, because it yields a higher EI. After starting the grains in Xtol, I suspect you'll get less EI-loss in Microdol X. But you might also get worse grain. It's an interesting experiment.

Mark

Oh, I don't think it will make any difference which developer you start with. Just note that Microdol-X got to its "finer grain" characteristic by incorporating a large amount of sulfite, which acts to dissolve the grains as they are developing. This leaves a very "mushy" (per description from the 60's) grain edge, which in turn enlarged with a unsharp appearance relative to most other developers of that day. (Microdol_X, used 1:3, was my developer of choice for my B&W work on Plus-X from 1960 to around 1974.) This was combated by using it diluted 1:3 (lowering the sulfite concentration), requiring fairly long development times. As for mixing Microdol-X and Xtol, why not just take a short piss into the mix to add color and lower the pH?

I would definitely do in Microdot-X first.
I found that Xtol seemed less optimal for older emulsions, I think emulsions formulated after the release of Xtol work better or best with it. I recall a long past local shop had a paper shopping bag full of PXP in 120, expired from the early 90's or late 80's. They'd been eager to give it away but a few potential takers only test processed it in Xtol and it looked terrible (it truly did). I took the bag and confirmed yes, in Xtol it was basically a waste of Xtol. For whatever reason in DK-50, 1:0 or 1:1 was almost box speed and rendered nearly as fresh. Strange. D-76 or Rodinal was ok.
I would try either D-96 or Adox Borax M-Q, I personally think that older emulsions respond well to a good solid M-Q and higher sulfite developer.

I think I would play around with keeping the developers separate and treat as a two-bath, as Matt suggested. Mixing them together will give you swamp water developer (as kids we used to mix rootbeer, coke, sprite, and orange pop and called it swamp water ) Vary the time in both. You cold also try semi-stand...in both.

The only reason to use Microdol-X back in the day was for the finest possible grain. In turn there were a number of other compromises, such as speed and sharpness loss. At the time, that was the known tradeoff for fine grain. D76 would have probably been a better developer for all around performance, if the pursuit of the finest grain wasn't the only goal.

I wouldn't have necessarily said that Microdol- X was the recommended devloper, it was a recommend developer, along with D76 and HC-110.

Braxus, it sounds like an interesting experiment as long as you can be sure that your scanning software gives a "print" that is authentic to what might be possible in a darkroom

I wonder what it is that makes Xtol such a poor developer for older, expired films as Christiaan found? It will be interesting to find out if Xtol has the same effect on your Panatomic X

pentaxuser

Andrew O'Neill said:

. Mixing them together will give you swamp water developer (as kids we used to mix rootbeer, coke, sprite, and orange pop and called it swamp water )

Click to expand...

Andy, I had a terrible feeling that somewhere along the line donuts had not been your only vice

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Andy, I had a terrible feeling that somewhere along the line donuts had not been your only vice

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Of vices I have but a few....

Too few to mention, (stealing a line from frank S. But I think he was considering regrets, not vices

pentaxuser said:

Braxus, it sounds like an interesting experiment as long as you can be sure that your scanning software gives a "print" that is authentic to what might be possible in a darkroom

I wonder what it is that makes Xtol such a poor developer for older, expired films as Christiaan found? It will be interesting to find out if Xtol has the same effect on your Panatomic X

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I developed quite a few rolls of Pan X in Xtol, both 1:1 and straight. The films turned out fine and I saw nothing that suggests this combo wasn't a good one. I used the D76 time for reference.

As for my scanner- it doesn't show the deep blacks so much as compared to a print, as it needs to be slightly adjusted for the scans afterwards. But when I do videos, I don't touch the scan. The DMAX on my film scanner is really quite good, but again my Minolta showed deeper blacks then what I get out of the Primefilm XAs.

I might have to shoot a 36 roll of this film. If I do one strip with Microdol X first, then Xtol second, and another strip Xtol first and Microdol X second, it might show a difference there. Thats a lot of time in the dark tank though. I'll probably shoot the roll with maybe 3 different shots per strip, and hold onto the film till I get the Microdol X developer in the mail. This would also allow me to do a "swamp water" developer test for fun as well (hey why not try it). I'll probably just keep reusing the two developers per strip, as I see no need to use fresh for every strip. Its only 8 inches of film per tank load of 300ml.

When you say you have a lot, what do you mean? A couple bulk 100 foot rolls or just a handful of scattered rolls?

For reference: my lifetime supply is the best part of two 100’ bulk rolls and maybe three (or maybe one) 36-exp 35mm rolls in box and five or fewer 120 rolls in box.

I have a lot of Pan X for the amount of film I shoot per year. I sold off a batch of them over a year ago, because I knew I'd never use that much. I still have around 20 or so rolls in 35mm, and a few in 120. Its the 120 Im low on. But I get good results from my film scanner, so using 35mm doesn't bother me. Ok maybe this isnt a ton of rolls, but its certainly enough for my uses.

Well I shot my 36 roll of Panatomic X 2 weeks ago, taking 3 shots and repeating that grouping till the roll was finished. All at one location and the same shutter speed and F stop for all the shots to make it simple. Today I have gotten around to breaking up the film in 1 foot strips and developing each strip in its own combination. I just finished strip 4 of 7. I should be done the remainder by the end of day. I am numbering each strip 1 to 7, so I know which developer it was put into. I should have a video up hopefully by tomorrow night or Monday evening, showing the results after the strips have dried, and I get them all scanned up at 5000dpi. I'll go over what developer was used with each strip again soon.

Well all 7 strips are done. And Holy Cow- even the swamp water mix of both developers in one solution worked. Well at least it gave an image. It looks a little more contrasty, but that could be from overdevelopment as well. I'll scan these up tomorrow and see the results. My video will follow after that. The first pics below are from strip 7, the swamp water one. I do notice the emulsion side looks a little more dull in appearance, almost as if its not as smooth or a bit rough. I'll see how it is when the strip is dry. Checking the other strips, the Xtol only or the Microdol X only, seems slightly more smooth, but not by much. Only the mixed developer ones are ever so slightly more dull or less shiny on the emulsion side. The last pic is of strips 1-6 which were specific developers. Looking at it now, they all look contrasty. Because of the heat inside here, they were probably slightly over developed on all of them. It was hovering between 27 to 28 degrees C inside here. The mixed developer ones look a bit more contrasty to me. Its probably a bit harder to figure out correct times when it comes to mixing developers.

Here is the list of strip combos:

Strip 1: Microdol X straight
Strip 2: Xtol Straight
Strip 3: Microdol X 1:3
Strip 4: Xtol 1:1
Strip 5: Microdol X 1:1 first for half time, dumped, then Xtol 1:1 second half
Strip 6: Xtol 1:1 first for half time, dumped, then Microdol X 1:3 second half
Strip 7 Xtol 1:1 and Microdol X 1:3 (half and half swamp water mix) mixed together into one solution (Developing time based on half time of each solution and then added together for needed time)

How do you intend to analyze these results and what kind of conclusion do you hope this analysis will support?

The best I could do, since I don't have a densitometer or anything really technical, is to just scan the images and look at the results at 100 percent zoom. I won't adjust any settings on the scan, so the images shouldn't change much. But where they do, like higher contrast, I'll hopefully see a difference. I have no way of making a chemical print here, though I know others that can. But they live far away.

I'm hoping to see if Microdol X still gives finer grain then even Xtol, which is also a very fine grain developer. Or to see if I notice any other differences. Again Microdol X was Panatomic Xs recommended developer, but Xtol seems to do everything the best already, so I'm curious how they'll compare.

Grain will be difficult/impossible to compare meaningfully if the contrast of the images varies. Well, in the sense that the outcome is kind of predictable: the punchier images will also have more distinct grain.

braxus said:

I won't adjust any settings on the scan, so the images shouldn't change much.

Click to expand...

Be sure to disable auto-exposure, auto-contrast and auto-balance (and basically auto-anything).

I know you probably don't like to hear this, but I'm really afraid your comparison won't yield any reliable results. There will be an outcome alright, and if it pleases you, I guess it's worth it. But it won't actually say anything.

Since I have you on the horn, how would you go about testing these? The films have already been developed, but not scanned. I'm curious to hear what you would do. I'm only doing here myself what I can do, within reason.

Well, in all honesty, I wouldn't have done this test to begin with, since I don't really follow the reasoning behind mixing two developers without a clear theory of what's to be expected. I probably would have just tested one developer next to another, and maybe two dilutions for both developers if there's any (even anecdotal) evidence that this would to 'something'. Mind you, I think there's nothing wrong with mixing developers per se, but IMO it's more part of the darkroom discipline of "let's wing it and do a dash of this and a squirt of that and see what we get". In other words, a very informal approach to things, and an approach in which systematic testing is anathema. But that's my personal view, only.

Having said that, for this kind of test, I would have probably set up a scene with a fairly high brightness range (SBR) - something like an interior shot looking outside into the yard or something. Preferably some even surfaces both in the shadow and the highlight areas to judge grain if that's relevant. Do the test on a day with constant lighting conditions, of course. Meter the scene and take some notes so you know where everything is placed, approximately, and what the SBR is quantitatively. Stop down lots, but stay out of reciprocity failure territory of the film. And then bracket for instance a -1.5, +/-0 and a +1.5, and repeat those three shots across an entire roll. That way, there's at least consistency in the exposure and the scene.

Shooting a grey card 10 times or so at different exposures accomplishes something similar, but takes more film in the end. Alternatively, expose the film not in a camera, but e.g. under the enlarger, using a Stouffer step wedge - but I admit I like 'real world testing' (it's a little less soul-sucking), so I'd go with the high contrast scene instead.

Divide the film into test strips and then develop those. As to analyzing, I'd probably slap them onto the platen of a flatbed scanner first, preferably with a step wedge along with it, and scan all tests in one go. This ensures exactly the same exposure and contrast for all scans. Alternatively, I'd contact print them. And then just eyeball in first instance, and see what stands out. Look at how much shadow detail is recorded, to what extent highlights are being compressed (or not), ogle the grain a bit at full magnification. If that gives any clear clues, try to formulate hypothesis and then see if they hold true. For instance, if I get the impression that one sample has more distinct grain than another, I'm going to put them side by side and compare the grain at different density levels, but also critically examine if the contrast in both samples is really the same - if it isn't, I'm probably just fooling myself anyway.

So it's basically a process of iteratively formulating expectations and then trying to falsify those, setting up little experiments (preferably as efficiently as possible) to gather the necessary data. It's in part fairly uncreative and tedious, systematic work, in part intuitive observation.