Panatomic-X & It's Replacement, TMX 100

[Andrew O'Neill]

This is a continuation of 4x5 Panatomic-X film, expired in 1963 (my birth year ). This time I'll compare it with it's supposed replacement, TMAX 100. I had fun doing this, and have a new found respect for TMAX.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why don't you turn up the outdoor heat some more?

 

[ArgentixCa]

Hey man,
This was my go-to film by the end of 70s, 35mm.

The best grain I have ever seen.
Still not replaced in my heart.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey man,
This was my go-to film by the end of 70s, 35mm.

The best grain I have ever seen.
Still not replaced in my heart.

I never got the chance to use Panatomic-X when it was still being produced... By the time I became interested in photography in 1990 (my formal training is in traditional art making such as drawing, painting, and printmaking), Panatomic-X was long gone. So, I don't have that romanticised connection. It's indeed a wonderful film, though, and if still made fresh, I would buy it... along with TMAX 100

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I loved Panatomic-X in the 1980s and still do. Here is an example from the Farmer's Market in Houston, Texas. This gent is the watermelon man. I used a Rollei 35S with its nice 40mm Sonnar lens. I wish I could find some more 35mm rolls.

 

[mshchem]

To get the same romance of Panatomic X you need a 2 stop neutral density filter.

 

[Craig]

By the time I became interested in photography in 1990 ,... Panatomic-X was long gone.

I would have been right at the tail end of it's life. I have a roll dated for 9/1991. Cost me $4.59 then for a 36 exp.

 

[wiltw]

Wasn't T-max 100 more of a replacement for Plus-X (ASA 125), rather than Panatomic-X (ASA 32) ?!

 

[Craig]

It replaced both of them. TMX was marketed as having finer grain than Pan-X, but faster.

 

[braxus]

Im curious how much the sheet film of Pan X looks similar to the roll films? I read somewhere they aren't exactly the same. The Pan X 4x5 sheet film I have here gives an ASA of 64, unlike Andy's lot which says 32. The roll films were 32. I think at one point Pan X was 40 ASA even. One thing Andy you can't say about TMAX 100 is that its impervious to aging, unlike Pan X.

 

[Craig]

Im curious how much the sheet film of Pan X looks similar to the roll films? I read somewhere they aren't exactly the same. The Pan X 4x5 sheet film I have here gives an ASA of 64, unlike Andy's lot which says 32. The roll films were 32. I think at one point Pan X was 40 ASA even. One thing Andy you can't say about TMAX 100 is that its impervious to aging, unlike Pan X.

I think they must have been different emulsions. My 1969 Dataguide shows Panatomic-X 6140 (ASA64) as only available in sheets, and Panatomic-X (ASA32) available in all other formats.

 

[Chuck_P]

Nice video, love how you put them together. I've never used it but Pan X certainly was a very sharp film. I can see why TMax became its replacement...........By some of the recent threads it's apparent that there are those that just don't like TMX 100 because it is so fine-grained that it just looks too much like "digital", it's not film-like apparently. I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment but I wonder what those people would've said about Pan X before digital imaging became the norm.

 

[braxus]

I started to use Pan X in the last couple years it was out, but the first couple times was for copy work. It does have larger grain than TMX. I should scan up my college films on TMX and see if it shows any qualities I like, now that I can scan them instead of print them. I certainly didn't warm to it then.

I decided to get another 35mm roll of TMAX 100, so I can shoot it with some Pan X in the same. Do another test of it. Maybe a follow-up video from my first one. Its true I haven't warmed to TMX over the times I've used it, but its probably because I didn't shoot enough of it.

Andy's video certainly shows the two films are indeed similar in look, which is what I got as well. Its just the grain I dont like as much. I also had found Pan X had a glow to it on some tones, which I never noticed much with TMX. Except one shot I did, which was the only shot to me which showed what TMX actually could do. Its the only shot on TMX I liked enough. Here it is:

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Im curious how much the sheet film of Pan X looks similar to the roll films? I read somewhere they aren't exactly the same. The Pan X 4x5 sheet film I have here gives an ASA of 64, unlike Andy's lot which says 32. The roll films were 32. I think at one point Pan X was 40 ASA even. One thing Andy you can't say about TMAX 100 is that its impervious to aging, unlike Pan X.

I purchased the TMax 100 in the video in 1998 when I lived in Japan. It expired in 2000. I used about half of the box, and the rest remained boxed in the original foil sleeve in my darkroom since 2003. It was never cold stored. Base fog is 0.13. Sounds pretty impervious to aging to me. Mind you it's not 60 years old! HP5 sitting in my freezer since 2005 has a base fog of 0.33. Normal is 0.11.

 

[braxus]

Ok. So not as impervious, but still quite good. What times did you end up with Xtol and Pan X? I used the D-76 time for my rolls.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ok. So not as impervious, but still quite good. What times did you end up with Xtol and Pan X? I used the D-76 time for my rolls.

12:30, continuous in BTZS tube. 20C. XTOL-R, actually.

 

[relistan]

Nice video, good comparison. Thanks Andy!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If I come across Panatomic-X in sheet sizes or 120, I won't hesitate to snag it... as long as it's not priced too high! There is a partly used box of 4x5 on ebay, but I don't want partly used. There is also a 20 roll brick of 35mm, but I'm not keen to part with $533 plus shipping... my wife would have my balls for bookends.

 

[retina_restoration]

You've demonstrated what I've believed all along: there's so little difference between the two films, with the exception of acutance. Pan-X was nice, but its not "magical" in any way.

 

[pentaxuser]

I would have been right at the tail end of it's life. I have a roll dated for 9/1991. Cost me $4.59 then for a 36 exp.

That sounds to be quite a lot then or it makes current prices of certainly some b&w film look more reasonable. Just out of interest, what does it represent in today's b&w film prices in Canada|?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not sure what prices were like in Canada in '91, as I was living in Japan by then. I do recall paying less than that for TMAX 100 35mm... maybe around $3.00 Canadian? Back then, and until I left Japan in 2002, Kodak and Ilford films were surprisingly cheaper than Fuji films (and there were so many B/W Fuji films to choose from then! ). I can't remember what film prices were like when I came back to Canada... much lower than now, though! Now I'm paying about $17 Cdn for 35mm TMX100...

 

[Craig]

That sounds to be quite a lot then or it makes current prices of certainly some b&w film look more reasonable. Just out of interest, what does it represent in today's b&w film prices in Canada|?

A roll of Pan F today is $16.49. Ilford was always cheaper than Kodak, but I can't recall what a comparable roll of Ilford would have cost then. I shot a lot more 35mm then, and I bought bulk rolls of HP5. I also shot more slides, and I think I could get a roll of E6 including processing for about $11-12. Kodachrome was always more expensive, it was around $20 including processing.

 

[madsox]

Great video, and a really nicely done comparison of the two films. Kudos!

I have to go look through my old negs and see if I ever did shoot any Pan-X, I think I was mostly Plus-X and Tri-X when PanX was around (because of the film speed, mostly). I know my dad, the view camera landscape shooter, used Pan-X quite a bit.

Ah, memories. Got to make some new ones!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Great video, and a really nicely done comparison of the two films. Kudos!

I have to go look through my old negs and see if I ever did shoot any Pan-X, I think I was mostly Plus-X and Tri-X when PanX was around (because of the film speed, mostly). I know my dad, the view camera landscape shooter, used Pan-X quite a bit.

Ah, memories. Got to make some new ones!

If you find any of your images on Pan-X, please post them here! I'd love to see them... especially if you've got the same images on Pan-X and Tri-X. Why is ask, is that I'm convinced that their toes are very similar... if not the same.

 

[pentaxuser]

A roll of Pan F today is $16.49. Ilford was always cheaper than Kodak, but I can't recall what a comparable roll of Ilford would have cost then. I shot a lot more 35mm then, and I bought bulk rolls of HP5. I also shot more slides, and I think I could get a roll of E6 including processing for about $11-12. Kodachrome was always more expensive, it was around $20 including processing.

Thanks. I realise my question was poorly thought out and phrased. What I meant to ask was: what does $4.59 translate to in today's value allowing for inflation and how does it compare to the price of comparable film today ?

Thanks

pentaxuser