Panatomic-X & It's Replacement, TMX 100

[Andrew O'Neill]

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

With inflation, $4.59 Cdn today would be about $8.50. But I guess inflation calculations don't take film manufacturing into consideration

 

[john_s]

With inflation, $4.59 Cdn today would be about $8.50. But I guess inflation calculations don't take film manufacturing into consideration

Official inflation figures are kept as low as possible for political purposes. When you look at individual types of products and purchases there is a wide range of price changes. Large screen TVs keep getting cheaper due to manufacturing scale etc, but for film it's the opposite unfortunately.

There's also marketing strategy. I used to use Fuji Neopan400 even though it was more expensive than Kodak or Ilford here (Australia). In other countries people reported that they used it because it was cheaper!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Official inflation figures are kept as low as possible for political purposes. When you look at individual types of products and purchases there is a wide range of price changes. Large screen TVs keep getting cheaper due to manufacturing scale etc, but for film it's the opposite unfortunately.

There's also marketing strategy. I used to use Fuji Neopan400 even though it was more expensive than Kodak or Ilford here (Australia). In other countries people reported that they used it because it was cheaper!

I can tell you for a fact that Fuji films were way more expensive in Japan than Kodak or Ilford. Back in Canada, I have no idea, though

 

[pentaxuser]

With inflation, $4.59 Cdn today would be about $8.50. But I guess inflation calculations don't take film manufacturing into consideration

So, Andrew and others participating, what films can you now buy for $8.50 Cdn that are comparable to Panatomic X and I had better add what other films that may purport to be the same but are not quite the same as an acknowledgement for some that there will never be anything as good as Panatomic X again .

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, Andrew and others participating, what films can you now buy for $8.50 Cdn that are comparable to Panatomic X and I had better add what other films that may purport to be the same but are not quite the same as an acknowledgement for some that there will never be anything as good as Panatomic X again .

Thanks

pentaxuser

There is nothing at that price that is comparable to Panatomic-X. Delta 100 would be the closest at $11 for 120, $11.50 for 35mm 24exp., and $16.50 for 36 exp. The reason why I pick Delta 100 over TMX 100 is of course cost... Even though Pan-X and TMX 100 toes are very different, there are just too many similarities. Delta 100 has a similar toe to TMX 100. I guess I should do a comparison between Pan-X and Delta 100... I don't think I have any D100 in 4x5 though. I do have several 120 rolls, though...

Edit: I completely forgot about FP4! It has a medium toe, and I'll bet its grain is similar to Panatomic-X... and I've got it in 4x5! I think testing is in order!

 

[Craig]

Of what I'll call Tier 1 manufacturers first quality products, you can't buy anything. HP5 is the closest, and it's $11.75. Delta 100 is $16. The Kentmere films are the closest price at $8.50. Fomapan is $9, either 100 or 400.

T Max 100 is $16.50, and the 400 is $17.55.

All prices are for 135-36.

 

[Craig]

I can tell you for a fact that Fuji films were way more expensive in Japan than Kodak or Ilford. Back in Canada, I have no idea, though

I don't recall seeing Fuji B&W films in the 90's or early 2000's in Canada. At the shop I patronized which catered to the local professionals Ilford dominated the B&W market. They did sell some Kodak, but it was about a 75/25% split Ilford-Kodak.

Fuji colour films sold well, although the E6 films were slightly more expensive than the professional Ektachromes. When Velvia first came out it was certainly considered worth the premium over EPN or EPP.

 

[braxus]

Here is a video I did on Pan X 2 years ago. I have more samples than what is shown in the video, but this is a starting point.



Heres one I did on Catlabs X80 and Pan X.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Craig and Andrew. So in real terms it would look as if in general b&w film prices are now appreciably higher in real terms than 30 years ago

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

Thanks Craig and Andrew. So in real terms it would look as if in general b&w film prices are now appreciably higher in real terms than 30 years ago

pentaxuser

Yes, I would say so. Paper especially is expensive now. 20 years ago I bought a box of 8x10 Multigrade, 100 sheets for $39.95. That same box is now $139.95.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup.... and twenty years ago, I could purchase a box of 8x10 HP5 for under $100. Now it's $272, not including taxes up here.

 

[Chuck_P]

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.

 

[faberryman]

So is the takeaway that Panatomic-X which expired in 1963 holds up pretty well to TMax 100 which expired in 2000?

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

This is getting a long way from Andrew's video but I think there was a kind of golden era of film and paper that lasted a relatively short time from about the early 2000s to maybe early to the mid decade of 2010-20

It has passed and may not return

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

This is getting a long way from Andrew's video but I think there was a kind of golden era of film and paper that lasted a relatively short time from about the early 2000s to maybe early to the mid decade of 2010-20

That "golden age" was actually when the film market started imploding, and production capacity started exceeding demand.

 

[Anon Ymous]

This is getting a long way from Andrew's video but I think there was a kind of golden era of film and paper that lasted a relatively short time from about the early 2000s to maybe early to the mid decade of 2010-20

It has passed and may not return

pentaxuser

Ah, yes, a golden era for consumers, but it's never coming back.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So is the takeaway that Panatomic-X which expired in 1963 holds up pretty well to TMax 100 which expired in 2000?

That's hard to say, and we would only know for certain, if my box of TMX was also 60 years old. It held up quite well after 23 years, compared to my HP5 sheet film, that has been stored in the freezer since 2005.
The takeaway for me is their similarities. The big one is TMX's resolving power. It's quite evident in the example in the video.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Eventually, I want to make a comparison video between Pan-X and Polaroid Type 55. I believe Kodak was making the film for Type 55 from 1963 to 1969. It would be interesting to see how they compare (even though the Type 55 I have was made by Polaroid (expired 2008).

 

[cliveh]

I maybe incorrect here, but wasn't TMAX a T grain panchromatic emulsion and Panatomic X an ordinary panchromatic emulsion? In which case I can't see the former being a straight replacement for the later. But I may be wrong.

 

[MattKing]

I maybe incorrect here, but wasn't TMAX a T grain panchromatic emulsion and Panatomic X an ordinary panchromatic emulsion? In which case I can't see the former being a straight replacement for the later. But I may be wrong.

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.

 

[Craig]

I can remember at the time that there weren't many tears shed when Panatomic-X was discontinued. T-Max 100 gave the same or finer grain with 2 stops more speed. What wasn't to like about that?

If you needed a slow film for some reason, there was still Pan-F or APX25.

 

[retina_restoration]

I think its unfortunate that there are those who persist in believing that Panatomic-X was somehow superior to any of the more modern films in a similar speed class. As Andrew has demonstrated, Pan-X doesn't come close to the acutance of TMX.

 

[faberryman]

I maybe incorrect here, but wasn't TMAX a T grain panchromatic emulsion and Panatomic X an ordinary panchromatic emulsion? In which case I can't see the former being a straight replacement for the later. But I may be wrong.

If the word "replacement" were intended to mean identical, you wouldn't need to use modifiers like "straight".

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup. If Panatomic-X were still available, I would reach for TMX 100 instead. It's TMX 100's resolution that did it for me. I was not expecting that. You see, when I was using TMX 100 a lot, I felt the grain was a tad mushy, so dropped it for Delta 100. But that was in my early days of photography... what did I know?

 

[Peter Schrager]

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