Panatomic-X questions...

[alan doyle]

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i also see images on the net some great examples of frozen and non frozen outdated film..this seems pretty impressive to me..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

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.

 

[dpurdy]

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.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Inherited on baybay ! You beat me...

 

[Vaughn]

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

 

[dpurdy]

It was a recent gift from a friend who has gone all digital. I used to use it with Rodinal 1-100
Dennis

 

[Curt]

No, there is nothing like it available today. It was a one of a kind and when it went away nothing could come close.

 

[Curt]

This is what's available on eBay right now, hurry it will probably go fast.

http://cgi.ebay.com/KODAK-PANATOMIC...oryZ4201QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[keithwms]

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.

 

[dpurdy]

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.

 

[Vaughn]

This is what's available on eBay right now, hurry it will probably go fast.

http://cgi.ebay.com/KODAK-PANATOMIC...oryZ4201QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

And that is just an empty box! vaughn

 

[Curt]

And it's only in good condition!

 

[alan doyle]

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..

 

[keithwms]

so guys was this film really that special or are we in extinct product glorification syndrome..

It is/was really that special. And type 55 too.

 

[donbga]

so guys was this film really that special or are we in extinct product glorification syndrome..

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.

 

[keithwms]

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???

 

[Vaughn]

It is/was really that special. And type 55 too.

Yes -- the film of Type 55 was suppose to have been (or maybe just rumoured to be) Panatomic-X. And Kodak still makes Panatomic-X for aerial photography. Only $770 for a 5"x500' roll...but there maybe a 10 roll minimum.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2609/2615/3999/4007&pq-locale=en_US

Vaughn

 

[Curt]

And Kodak still makes Panatomic-X for aerial photography. Only $770 for a 5"x500' roll...but there maybe a 10 roll minimum

I started to drool on my keyboard then reality hit me, think Rollie Pan 25 and Ilford Pan F 50. :munch:

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

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.

 

[Vaughn]

I started to drool on my keyboard then reality hit me, think Rollie Pan 25 and Ilford Pan F 50. :munch:

Yes, Curt, but how many 5x7 negatives could one cut from a 500 foot roll!

Vaughn

PS...about 860!

 

[jim appleyard]

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,
Efke 25, Pan-F, and some of the "tech/copy" films.
I've gone on to Pan-F.

 

[df cardwell]

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 !!!


.

 

[Vaughn]

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

 

[keithwms]

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

vaughn

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..

 

[jimgalli]

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 !!!


.

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.