Panatomic-X - WOW!!

[htmlguru4242]

Along with the Kodachrome (check the color forum) that I got today, I got some rolls of Panatomic-X (yes!!!).

I figured i'd try one out, even though the film is dated 1980, 1981 and 1983. So I shot about four exposures and the came out absolutely perfect. (Well, they're a LITTLE thick but that was my problem in developing them, I ran a bit over.)

The film was stored in an attic with no temperature control, but it didn't seem to be affected. I don't have a densiometer to check, but the base fog level is VERY low, at least looking at it visually. It's not much higher than my new Tri-X.

My scanner can't scan negatives worth a darn, but when (and if) I make a contact print (got a new contact printer too) or print them, I'll scan them and post the results.

Now to see what happens with the similarly - expired roll of HIE ...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I knew someone who quit photography when Kodak discontinued Panatomic-X. Please show us some of the results. Even though it will be of little use due to its scarce availability, it'll be interesting to see why this film was regarded so overly positive.

- Thom

 

[htmlguru4242]

Ok, this isn't great but it'll do for now; a quick [poor] contact print on an even poorer scanner. (yes, the images lack creativity as well ... )

http://img115.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image19gb.jpg

http://img64.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image27le.jpg

 

[joeyk49]

html:

What did to expose the film at (rate it)? and what did you use to developed it in? I've got a bunch of rolls that I inherited from a local photog gone digi and would like to play with it. My first attempt, I exposed it at iso 25 and developed in IlfosolS, but got, what I think are very thin negatives....

 

[htmlguru4242]

I exposed at ISO 32 and developed in D-76 (what else to I ever use ) ) for 5.5 minutes @ 69ºC. The negatives are a little thicker than I liked, but following the 5 minute reccomendation on the package would probably have helped.

Never used Ilfosol - S, so I unfortunately can't help you there ...

What times were you trying and at what temp? Lookign at stuff, ilfosol times seem to eb similar to HC-110 (Dil. B) which is reccomended at 4.5 minutes on my sheet here.

 

[jimgalli]

I just bought 1,000 feet of Panatimic X and put it in the freezer. That's enough for 3,000 4X5 negs but I mostly cut it up for the 5X7. It truly is spectacular film. Yep, aerial recon film in 5" wide long roll. To date, it has made the best platinum prints of my experience. This particular roll went OOD in 2001 but it has been kept cold and I've got stuff from 1987 that has no fog. Try it in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 1/2 min. ASA 32

 

[htmlguru4242]

Is the Panatomic roll film that you can buy at B&H (for some $700-ish) the same stuff as the old rolls that I have?

 

[jimgalli]

Is the Panatomic roll film that you can buy at B&H (for some $700-ish) the same stuff as the old rolls that I have?

That's actually a good question. Certainly the base is different. This is on a very thin 3 mil Estar base so the aircraft could carry more film on a roll. I'd like to know too. I'll see if we can get "photoengineer" to comment for us.

 

[Photo Engineer]

According to my AFM 95-14, Panatomic X was never supplied to the USAF as an aerial film, only as a standard consumer film on regular support.

OTOH, Plus X, Super XX and Tri X were supplied on a super thin support in widths compatible with all aerial cameras. As far as I can determine from the handbook and other manuals, these films were all identical to consumer products except for the support.

I have an all inclusive list if anyone is interested. I had trouble remembering this as it is encoded 3 ways. AF (Govt) #, Kodak Product name and SO #. Of course, this data is rather out of date. Mine is dated 1960.

PE

 

[jimgalli]

Thanks Ron! Cool. Well, for our purposes which is cutting it up and putting it in a camera, I'd say it's the same then. I love the stuff. $0.17 for a 5X7 sheet with the best film on earth is right up my cheapskate alley. BTW they must have added the Pan X later then because I have more of it in the freezer than anything else. #3402 on the thin base if I recall. I can certainly go look if anyone's interested.

 

[ian leeden]

Hey Jim,
you outbid me on that big roll of 5inch panatomic..... I didn`t wan t to cut it up but use it in my panoramic camera.... would you like to sell a couple of hundred feet ?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks Ron! Cool. Well, for our purposes which is cutting it up and putting it in a camera, I'd say it's the same then. I love the stuff. $0.17 for a 5X7 sheet with the best film on earth is right up my cheapskate alley. BTW they must have added the Pan X later then because I have more of it in the freezer than anything else. #3402 on the thin base if I recall. I can certainly go look if anyone's interested.

Jim, I thought about this a lot last night wondering what might have taken place. I know that during all of my aerial recon work, we used mainly Sxx or Tx or Aerial Ektachrome. The Plus X was generally too slow. We barely were able to use the Aerial Ektachrome (regular or IR).

When I was at the Cape, we had mostly color in aerial film sizes, but I wonder if this Panatomic X was made for NASA or one of the sattelite mapping programs back in the 80s. That is one Agency that used a lot of color IR, B&W IR and a host of B&W films.

Our photo division there used a lot of 5 inch cameras.

The 5 inch cameras were used at the Cape as still cameras in continuous mode taking what ammounted to motion pictures of liftoffs with 5x7 images. The pads were surrounded with these cameras loaded with a variety of films. I have seen boxes and boxes of the 5x7 transparencies shot this way. That might be another source of this film.

PE

 

[avandesande]

It appears that the higher the altitude the slower the film you can use. At least that is what I got from Kodaks website.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It appears that the higher the altitude the slower the film you can use. At least that is what I got from Kodaks website.

That is not always true. It depends on what you are shooting.

At very high altitudes, astronomical photography using quartz lenses can use very slow films that take advantage of all of the UV in space. However, looking down you have to use a lot of filtration to cut haze and this slows the film.

In addition, it depends on the lens and the speed of the plane which determines shutter speed. The higher you go, the slower the shutter speed can be at a given air speed due to apparent ground speed.

Then again, the higher you go, the longer then lens you may want to use and the smaller the maximum f stop. I've seen 36" lenses, using them as the norm, some being f11 to f22 maximum opening (IIRC). I would have to look that up as well, I just remember aperature being a significant problem.

We had a special aerial slide rule to calculate this all. I have mine in a drawer here somewhere and have not used it for years. That was before the days of the calculator. We had to figure out the best f stop, shutter speed and film from the mission profile. Space missions presented similar problems in many ways.

So, what you say is, to me, an oversimplification. Usually, the real world is more complex than 'rules' like the one you mention.

PE

 

[avandesande]

Well take it up with kodak. I don't think it is an oversimplification for those of us here who will most likely never do high altitude photography.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well take it up with kodak. I don't think it is an oversimplification for those of us here who will most likely never do high altitude photography.

I don't disagree with either you or Kodak.

It is good to have a general rule for most anything, but then when you begin to actually do some of these things, you find out all of the exceptions to the general rule. Sometimes you find that there are more exceptions to the rule than there are behaviors according to the rule.

I have found this to be a general rule as well. LoL.

The bottom line is that very few things behave as expected when 'theory' or the wisdom given in a textbook hits the real world.

PE

 

[braxus]

The Pan X aireal film was not the same as the consumer Pan X. The aireal was more red sensitive. I think that film was discontinued in the early 2000s by Kodak. Consumer Pan X died in 1987. I have sold my 120 stuff, but still have a couple 100 foot rolls plus some loose canister rolls of the old consumer Pan X. I shot some Pan X 120 along side Efke 25 120. I found the Pan X was more grey in the mid tones. Efke seemed more contrasty.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

html:

What did to expose the film at (rate it)? and what did you use to developed it in? I've got a bunch of rolls that I inherited from a local photog gone digi and would like to play with it. My first attempt, I exposed it at iso 25 and developed in IlfosolS, but got, what I think are very thin negatives....

You do of course know that Ilfosol S oxidizes in the bottle within a day or two of this being opened, with a drastic fall in activity?

Regards,

David

 

[donbga]

I just bought 1,000 feet of Panatimic X and put it in the freezer. That's enough for 3,000 4X5 negs but I mostly cut it up for the 5X7. It truly is spectacular film. Yep, aerial recon film in 5" wide long roll. To date, it has made the best platinum prints of my experience. This particular roll went OOD in 2001 but it has been kept cold and I've got stuff from 1987 that has no fog. Try it in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 1/2 min. ASA 32

Where do you get that film Jim?

Thanks,

 

[jimgalli]

Where do you get that film Jim?

Thanks,

I just watch for it on Ebay. It stores so well, I've never gotten any that had any base fog so far.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I'm with you, Jim!

Panatomic-X in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 1/2 min. ASA 32

 

[Phil M.]

Do you ude Agfa's recommended agitation or Kodak's. Thanks.

 

[kb244]

Here is one of my own shots on Panatomic X, on 6x7 , developed in HC-110 for 5 minutes at 68F.

 

[donbga]

Here is one of my own shots on Panatomic X, on 6x7 , developed in HC-110 for 5 minutes at 68F.

It looks a little grainy. Where did you source the Pan X?

 

[kb244]

It looks a little grainy. Where did you source the Pan X?

What Grain?