Panatomic-X & It's Replacement, TMX 100

[Andrew O'Neill]

And then there is fuji acros....which is an incredible emulsion!

I used to shoot a lot of it in 4x5. I have a freezer full of pre 120 Acros II in the freezer. I use it sparingly. Yes, a very nice film.

 

[GLS]

I used to shoot a lot of it in 4x5. I have a freezer full of pre 120 Acros II in the freezer. I use it sparingly. Yes, a very nice film.

I still have over a hundred 120 rolls of the original Acros. I also just picked up 100 sheets of it in 4x5, which I'm keen to try out.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I still have over a hundred 120 rolls of the original Acros. I also just picked up 100 sheets of it in 4x5, which I'm keen to try out.

I shot lots of it in 4x5. I was lucky to shoot a box of 8x10 about a decade ago.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I still have over a hundred 120 rolls of the original Acros. I also just picked up 100 sheets of it in 4x5, which I'm keen to try out.

Good job of keeping the film from the hoarders, just like I do.

 

[GLS]

Just doing my bit

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm down to about 7 rolls of 120 original Acros, plus one full box of 4X5, still in the freezer. A lovely film indeed. But Tmax films are more versatile, especially when it comes to dealing with deep shadow content. I shot Acros mainly for sake of 4X5 Quickload sleeves when backpacking. The sleeves themselves were more reliable than Kodak's Readyload version, especially when Readyloads came out 2-sheet instead of 1-sheet, and had double the risk of light leakage. I used my own specially modified 545 holder for both, which was way better than either of their dedicated plastic holders. Still have it, plus one box of E100G chrome film still in the freezer, which might or might not still be good. After those options finally dried up, I went over to 6X9 roll film backs for long-haul backpacking. Now I need a sucker : "Free backpacking trip tips if you lug my load for me".

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

All this confirmation that film costs more now than 30, 20, or even 10 years ago is, first amazing, 2nd, depressing.......It's a wonder that film has the resurgence that it currently has.

Years ago, I would shoot ten rolls of 35mm on vacation. Now I reserve film shooting for at home local shooting and very selected and often use digital when shooting parties, travel etc. The point being is many film photographers don;t shoot as much film as they use to

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

T-Max 100 was designed to be a functional replacement for all the applications that Panatomic-X was designed for - the ones that required relatively high contrast and very little grain. It does those things as well or better than Panatomic-X did them.
In order to accomplish that, it employs T-grain technology, which is particularly well suited for those purposes.
Panatomic-X was never intended to be a general purpose film. In addition to its special purpose applications, with its somewhat higher speed, T-Max 100 is better suited for general purpose use.

Other than higher speed, what was Tmax 400 designed to do?

 

[Craig]

Other than higher speed, what was Tmax 400 designed to do?

I think it was intended to be a replacement for Tri-X, but people love Tri-X and it kept selling well.

 

[MattKing]

Other than higher speed, what was Tmax 400 designed to do?

It was designed to be much better suited for everyday photography. It offered higher speed, moderate but usable contrast, excellent spectral response, very high resolution and extremely low grain for its speed.
And it still does.
T-Max 100 offers many of those attributes, plus additional advantages for applications that require a bit more contrast, very high resolution and extremely low grain - period. All of that makes it better suited for some of the technical users, like Drew.