Panatomic-X questions...

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by alan doyle, Feb 2, 2009.

  1. alan doyle

    alan doyle Member

    Messages:
    137
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    i have seen some lovely results recently with 35mm panatomic x.
    a friend had some with a use by date of 1986..
    it was stored in the fridge for years...
    then taken out and had about 8 years in a suitcase in his garage,he eventually shot some and rated it at 32asa...
    i also see images on the net some great examples of frozen and non frozen outdated film..this seems pretty impressive to me..
    so my question is why is this stuff not having the usual base fog,asa issues.
    and Is There Anything,better or close to this product being made..

    thanks
     
  2. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,458
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    In general, B&W lasts longer than color, because there are no color shift issues, and slow films last longer than fast films, because they are less sensitive to cosmic rays, which fog all films eventually, so Pan-X is a slow B&W film, and it lasts a long time.
     
  3. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    I recently inherited 60 rolls 120 Panatomic X that had been in a freezer since somewhere around 1988 and according to my tests it is good as new. No base fog at all and nearly box speed.
     
  4. Guillaume Zuili

    Guillaume Zuili Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,707
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Inherited on baybay ! You beat me...
    :smile: :smile: :smile:
     
  5. Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,821
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Pan-X (in my Rolleiflex) in Microdol-X (1:3) was my film/dev combo back in the late 70's. Nice 15"x15" prints! That's quite a bundle of film, Mr. Purdy!

    Vaughn
     
  6. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    It was a recent gift from a friend who has gone all digital. I used to use it with Rodinal 1-100
    Dennis
     
  7. Curt

    Curt Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No, there is nothing like it available today. It was a one of a kind and when it went away nothing could come close.
     
  8. Curt

    Curt Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  9. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,255
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I recently shot panatomic x from the 1950s, inherited from Jack Mitchell. That was stored outside a refrigerator... it was still pretty good. Perhaps a bit more grain than fresh but totally acceptable and no major issue with fog. I'm sure that it lost some contrast, but not much.

    An aerial version of panatomic x is still available fresh. I have a big quantity.. and will probably buy more. The stuff speaks to me.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2009
  10. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,409
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Back in the days before Kodak tried it's hand at instant polaroid type film and before Polaroid sued them and they had a falling out, Polaroid type 55 used to use Panatomic X film. I would sometimes use the type 55 like ready loads and pull the packet apart in the dark and process the film in trays.
     
  11. Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,821
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
  12. Curt

    Curt Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    And it's only in good condition!
     
  13. OP
    OP
    alan doyle

    alan doyle Member

    Messages:
    137
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    thanks for the ebay link...
    if i use an olympus pen f half frame on that ebay roll how many shots will i get out of it...
    just kidding.
    so guys was this film really that special or are we in extinct product glorification syndrome..
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,255
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It is/was really that special. And type 55 too.
     
  16. donbga

    donbga Member

    Messages:
    3,057
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Shooter:
    Large Format Pan
    Yes it was a great film, I shot a lot of it back in it's day. The first photo I ever sold was made on Panatomic-X. And what a great name Pan Atomic-X!

    Pan-X and Agfa Pan 25 are great loses for the small format B&W shooter. :mad:
     
  17. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,255
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    This may be lore, but I think panatomic x was so named because it was used to film the atomic bomb tests. I think for this purpose they were developing it with POTA.

    I am not finding a good reference on this though. Ron???
     
  18. Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,821
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
  19. Curt

    Curt Member

    Messages:
    4,623
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I started to drool on my keyboard then reality hit me, think Rollie Pan 25 and Ilford Pan F 50. :munch:
     
  20. RidingWaves

    RidingWaves Member

    Messages:
    874
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I've found what I think is as close as you can get to the Pan-x look, Tmax 100 at 50 in Microdol-X 1:0. When Kodak came out with TMax 100 they actually recommended it as a replacement, and I personally think that Pan-X look was a target when they made it. I have a small stock of 35mm and 120 (!) and have compared them to the Tmax 100 and the look and character is pretty close, not perfectly exact but perhaps close enough. Try it for yourself, see what you think.
     
  21. Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,821
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Yes, Curt, but how many 5x7 negatives could one cut from a 500 foot roll!:D

    Vaughn

    PS...about 860!:wink:
     
  22. jim appleyard

    jim appleyard Member

    Messages:
    2,160
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Pan-X was great stuff and IMHO, blows away T-Max; Pan-X had some guts to it!
    APX25 was a very close second.
    There are some films that can be subbed for Pan-X, :sad:
    Efke 25, Pan-F, and some of the "tech/copy" films.
    I've gone on to Pan-F.
     
  23. df cardwell

    df cardwell Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,357
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Location:
    Dearborn,Mic
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Funny, after years of shooting FX, that first roll of TMX converted me.
    Haven't missed good old Panatomic.

    It's really hard to be a photographer,
    whose job is to be-in-the-moment and record it,
    while longing for something 'better' that you can't get anymore !


    All Kodak managed to do with TMX was make a film that equalled FX in some things,
    excelled it in others, and boosted the film speed 2 stops (yeah, I mean two stops).

    And make it in sheet film. Wonderful. AND you can get it new !

    FX has been dead for 23 years. If you have some, shoot it. If not, don't worry about it.

    Oh. TMY2 is MUCH better than Verichrome.

    There, 2 cults offended in one post :tongue: !!!


    .
     
  24. Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,821
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    DF...I used Verichrome Pan, then Panatomic-X in 120, then switched to 4x5...using whatever I could buy locally. Super-XX, Royal Pan, Plus-X...can't remember using any Tri-X back then. When TMax 100 came along, I was very happy with it. And if I were to enlarge using 120 film, I'd be very happy with TMax 100.

    But one thing about Pan-X...it taught me to use a tripod!

    vaughn
     
  25. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,255
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    See, if you shoot A-bomb tests, then you wouldn't need a tripod at all :rolleyes: Might even want an additional ND filter... or two or three.. :surprised:
     
  26. jimgalli

    jimgalli Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,576
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Tonopah Neva
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format

    DF, I almost never disagree with your posts. To me the grain in Tmax is completely intolerable and the results are flat. The grain in Panatomic X is invisible and the results are alive. And yes, I've used a bit of each. I'm also the fool that paid $4.50 a roll for the 60 120 rolls on Ebay. When I go traveling I like to leave the big cameras at home sometimes and simply limit myself to the Autocord.