Panatomic-X

Alan Johnson said:

Thomas,I am approaching the question not particularly from the point of view of making good photographs but rather from the point of view-here is an old process (acutance film development) where the old films are no longer available and the process has been lost-or has it?

Click to expand...

I think we look at this in fundamentally different ways.

My philosophy is to communicate mostly with tonality, which is almost entirely under my control. Paper + paper developer has a set of characteristics with respect to tonality, and then I develop my negatives to get what I want in the print, and fine tune with print contrast. Sometimes high contrast prints, and other times softer.

Grain, sharpness, and resolution I don't even think about anymore, because I've noticed that most viewers seem to be mostly affected by tonality, as it sets the mood of the print extremely effectively, dark or light, smooth shifts in tonality, or really harsh ones. So much can be done and is in our power to change, if we just know how. So that's how I see things. That tonality will greatly emphasize the message of what I'm trying to show with my photograph, it has the power to fundamentally alter how others view it, and that interests me. I can do all sorts of crazy things with it, things that are not 'correct' at all by the book, but appeal to me - like shadows that are completely featureless to add weight or create negative space, or highlights where some areas are paper white in order to lens a really intense highlight, or a print where all highlights have been toned down towards lighter mid-tones for a really somber or mysterious look, perhaps in combination with really rich dark blacks, etc etc etc.
Grain is what it is, and I find it doesn't change that much with developer choice. It just is. My two cents.

I understand your perspective Thomas; focused attention on content is more important than attending to quality but losing sight of what makes it worthwhile...

I was marginally satisfied with Panatomic-X. I wanted always "just a bit more" resolution.

The replacement TMAX-100 offered "more sharpness but just a bit less resolution at more than twice the speed".

I recognized it as a tradeoff that was going in the wrong direction for me.

If a 25 speed regular grain film, or a 50 speed tabular grain film were available, I'd be happy to try that in 35mm. Because that would have MORE resolution than Panatomic-X. (Which is what I am looking for in the first place.)

Meanwhile, my quest for MORE resolution simply led me to bigger film size(s).

That strikes me as an elegant solution to the problem - it gives me what I want, and I am fairly assured it will be available going forward.

Lately I revisited 35mm to see how I really feel about grain. I had a very good time exploring grain, I love it and will use it at times for certain kinds of photography. But I still prefer the higher-resolution appearance that led me to fine-grain film in the first place. So I plan to use 120 and 4x5 when I am looking for fine detail. And I will use 35mm when I want to work faster.

Michael, I did a personal quest years ago to find *as close as I could find* replacement for the creamy look of Pan-X. It turns out that Kodak recommendations to use Tmax 100 was pretty spot on; shot at 50 and processed in Microdol-X 1:0 preferably Replenished gave *as close as I could find* look that I was seeking. Creamy smooth non-blocking highlights of broad expansive light/white tones such as bridal dresses in bright sunlight. And yes, Perceptol 1:0 does look different. Something about Microdol-X 1:0 replenished and Panatomic-X just worked. Nice also at 1:3, like that Perceptol 1:3 is close enough to be identical.

Well if you wanted resolution there was, for many years, Tech Pan. Lots of other problems with that though many people made it work well.

Roger Cole said:

Well if you wanted resolution there was, for many years, Tech Pan. Lots of other problems with that though many people made it work well.

Click to expand...

Some kind of bell went off in my head when I read that phrase "4x5 quality from 35mm" and in sort of a vegetable drink moment I said A-ha!

And a 4x5 won't give you squat without a decent lens..... Yes, grain will be down but "garbage in = garbage out". I only *really* have two decent lens and they make any film look great (or at least better).

tech pan in 510-pyro ... http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00KKsJ

Michael R 1974 said:

Bill, for what it is worth, I've never seen a print from tech pan, CMS 20 etc. that looked like anything other than a print from tech pan, CMS 20 etc. (ie short scale, poor tonality). There is no comparison to a print from a general purpose film in sheet format, even if you somehow get the same resolution.

Click to expand...

This had also been my experience. I have tried several of these films in a variety of developers all of which were touted to give good results. They all failed miserably.

The problem with very slow files ISO 20 or below is that all the grains are the about the same size. This results in a film with very little latitude and contrast range.

Given lens design limitations, and just how much resolution a film like TMax 100 is capable of, you often end up with a much smaller resolution advantage in a larger negative compared to 35mm than most people are willing to accept. Of course there are things like grain and tonal shifts to consider as well, but on pure resolution terms the difference between 35mm and 4x5 is a lot less profound than you would think.

But again, I think this is maybe an individual thing, where some of us really care about that smooth grain, or whatever else a view camera supposedly does better, and others simply don't care.

I know that Panatomic-X was a slightly unique, but in the same breath perhaps it's a good idea to simply work with a film like Ilford Pan-F+, accept the differences, and move on with making more good photographs?

Bill Burk said:

I understand your perspective Thomas; focused attention on content is more important than attending to quality but losing sight of what makes it worthwhile...

I was marginally satisfied with Panatomic-X. I wanted always "just a bit more" resolution.

The replacement TMAX-100 offered "more sharpness but just a bit less resolution at more than twice the speed".

I recognized it as a tradeoff that was going in the wrong direction for me.

If a 25 speed regular grain film, or a 50 speed tabular grain film were available, I'd be happy to try that in 35mm. Because that would have MORE resolution than Panatomic-X. (Which is what I am looking for in the first place.)

Meanwhile, my quest for MORE resolution simply led me to bigger film size(s).

That strikes me as an elegant solution to the problem - it gives me what I want, and I am fairly assured it will be available going forward.

Lately I revisited 35mm to see how I really feel about grain. I had a very good time exploring grain, I love it and will use it at times for certain kinds of photography. But I still prefer the higher-resolution appearance that led me to fine-grain film in the first place. So I plan to use 120 and 4x5 when I am looking for fine detail. And I will use 35mm when I want to work faster.

Click to expand...

Panatomic-X.

No other film comes close to it except Rollei Pan 25 or Agfa Pan 25.

There're all dead now. What's the use in talking about it further.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Given lens design limitations, and just how much resolution a film like TMax 100 is capable of, you often end up with a much smaller resolution advantage in a larger negative compared to 35mm than most people are willing to accept. Of course there are things like grain and tonal shifts to consider as well, but on pure resolution terms the difference between 35mm and 4x5 is a lot less profound than you would think.

But again, I think this is maybe an individual thing, where some of us really care about that smooth grain, or whatever else a view camera supposedly does better, and others simply don't care.

I know that Panatomic-X was a slightly unique, but in the same breath perhaps it's a good idea to simply work with a film like Ilford Pan-F+, accept the differences, and move on with making more good photographs?

Click to expand...

It's not resolution per-se that I am after. Perhaps it's the smooth grain. But I'm not willing to switch to Chromogenic film. It's not that I want "no" grain.

I did try hard to find a replacement, and found various issues with non-Kodak film which led me back to Kodak (p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC).

But I can say I am happy with the direction I am going. Larger film, when I grain a little finer than Panatomic-X... Gives me that... Even when the film is 400 speed.

For the 35mm work that I do, often 400 speed gives me the result I am happy with. (And when not... I have a tiny little stash of Panatomic-X that I bring to bear).

Curt said:

Panatomic-X.

No other film comes close to it except Rollei Pan 25 or Agfa Pan 25.

There're all dead now. What's the use in talking about it further.

Click to expand...

It's helping me to work out my feelings about this film. Maybe a 50 speed film will be its replacement for me. I don't know right now.

Might as well buy a brick of PanF. We're not getting any younger.

I just keep buying PanX whenever I see it. It's funny-- when I started "seriously" shooting in 1987, I never bought PanX-- too slow or something. Didn't even think about it when they discontinued it. Now, it's my go-to emulsion. Nothing else looks like it, nothing else resolves like it. It looks great souped in Tmax developer, which is all my nearest BW lab uses. I'm working my way back toward a couple of 100'ers from the 60s, and after it's all gone I'll stage a funeral. People ask me what the best film to buy is when they see me shooting and I tell them PanX.

--nosmok

Bill Burk said:

(p.s. I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC).

Click to expand...

This is an interesting thread.

By the way Bill, if you don't already have this set up, I would suggest some sort of macro that types it quickly for you.

It may save you hours!

MattKing said:

This is an interesting thread.

By the way Bill, if you don't already have this set up, I would suggest some sort of macro that types it quickly for you.

It may save you hours!

Click to expand...

Thanks Matt,

I type the company disclaimer the old fashioned way, that's kind of a pleasure. Each time it comes out a little different - like my pictures. I try to use it sparingly, to flag situations where I might seem authoritative (which I'm not) or have a bias towards the company (which I do).

Really, I need to take Thomas' advice and get into the darkroom and turn on the water. I'm afraid I'm near being slapped with a temporary ban on posting to the forums until I meet my quota of pictures in the gallery.

I believe Alan is looking for a slow, fine-grain film which would benefit from edge effects.

In this respect I don't think tabular grain films meet what he is looking for because they don't "need" edge effects. Developing them in standard developers gives the kind of sharpness you would get from edge effects (because sharpness is part of their nature).

I find your input in the forum valuable, Bill.

Often I'm a little bit too self centered in my view, and not empathetic enough. To me, photography is all about getting to the point of having a a fine print made. All of the choices I made prior to that is distilled at this point, and assembled in the print. Without the print there is no photography, in my mind.
But then I realize that there are a great many people who like to work things out in their heads first, to plot curves and make graphs; visual representations of what their film behaves like in different developers. This sort of testing is vital in keeping alive the knowledge behind what makes film work, but it clashes pretty violently in my head with the idea of 'just go make some damned prints already, and show us what you mean in a real world scenario'...
It's understood that each and every one of us has some of each in us, but individually the balance between the two is different.

I know that I just want to get to the end state of printing, so I make sure that I know my materials well. But it's always trial and error with me, where I figure out what works by using it. I'm happy when I go into the darkroom and make a print that I am proud of, and I don't have to spend too much precious paper and time to get there. After years of working with mainly Tri-X and TMax 400, and Ilford MGIV or Fomabrom 112 paper, in Ethol LPD, there's a basic understanding of what works and what doesn't. The difficult part when printing, I think comes in doing the final minute adjustments that make the difference between a good print and a great one. That seems to never be the same twice. So the faster I can get to 'acceptable' the better it is, which is where the 'get on with it and show us the damned picture' comes into play.

To wrap up - I hope that as many as possible of those who participate here, who discuss, opine, and theorize about photographic methodology and concepts, are putting their knowledge to work in the darkroom, churning out prints and practicing with all that knowledge.

I don't really know what Panatomic-X was like, and maybe it was magical, but in my limited experience of doing this for 15 years, I have not yet discovered any film that improved my photographs. I have learned a great many things about darkroom work, however, that did improve my photographs quite substantially.

Ultimately: it's quite clear to me where I need to place my focus and hard work.

Bill Burk said:

Thanks Matt,

I type the company disclaimer the old fashioned way, that's kind of a pleasure. Each time it comes out a little different - like my pictures. I try to use it sparingly, to flag situations where I might seem authoritative (which I'm not) or have a bias towards the company (which I do).

Really, I need to take Thomas' advice and get into the darkroom and turn on the water. I'm afraid I'm near being slapped with a temporary ban on posting to the forums until I meet my quota of pictures in the gallery.

I believe Alan is looking for a slow, fine-grain film which would benefit from edge effects.

In this respect I don't think tabular grain films meet what he is looking for because they don't "need" edge effects. Developing them in standard developers gives the kind of sharpness you would get from edge effects (because sharpness is part of their nature).

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I find your input in the forum valuable, Bill..

Click to expand...

Thanks, Likewise Thomas, your insistence on the print and the capability of 35mm keeps me coming back for more...

I have to admit, sometimes I worry I am becoming a better writer than photographer. I've got the sink cleaned out and ready to turn on the water... This weekend I will do less writing and more printing.

Curt said:

Panatomic-X.

No other film comes close to it except Rollei Pan 25 or Agfa Pan 25.

There're all dead now. What's the use in talking about it further.

Click to expand...

As the French would say "Tout passé, tout casse, tout lasse."

Gerald C Koch said:

As the French would say "Tout passé, tout casse, tout lasse."

Click to expand...

ALL THINGS SHALL PASS AWAY.


BY THEODORE TILTON.


ONCE in Persia ruled a king
Who upon his signet ring
’Graved a motto true and wise,
Which, when held before his eyes,
Gave him counsel at a glance
Fit for any change or chance.
Solemn words, and these were they:
“Even this shall pass away.”


Trains of camel through the sand
Brought him gems from Samarkand;
Fleets of galleys through the seas
Brought him pearls to rival these.
Yet he counted little gain
Treasures of the mine or main.
“Wealth may come, but not to stay;
Even this shall pass away.”


’Mid the revels of his court,
In the zenith of his sport,
When the palms of all his guests,
Burned with clapping at his jests,
He, amid his figs and wine,
Cried: “Oh, precious friends of mine,
Pleasure comes, but not to stay —
Even this shall pass away.”


Lady, fairest ever seen,
Was the bride he crowned his queen.
Pillowed on his marriage bed
Softly to his soul he said:
“Though no bridegroom ever pressed
Fairer bosom to his breast,
Mortal flesh must come to clay —
Even this shall pass away.”


Fighting in a furious field,
Once a javelin pierced his shield,
Soldiers with a loud lament
Bore him bleeding to his tent.
Groaning, from his wounded side,
“Pain is hard to bear,” he cried.
“But, with patience, day by day,
Even this shall pass away.”


Towering in the public square,
Twenty cubits in the air,
Rose his status grand in stone;
And the king, disguised, unknown,
Gazing on his sculptured name,
Asked himself: “And what is fame?
Fame is but a slow decay —
Even this shall pass away.”


Struck with palsy, sere and old,
Standing at the gates of gold,
Spake him this, in dying breath:
“Life is done, and what is death?”
Then, in answer to the king,
Fell a sunbeam on the ring,
Answering, with its heavenly ray:
“Even death shall pass away.”

All I ask, to shoot tonight,
Is for a film that's black and white.
The box it comes in must be yellow.
The grain so fine it looks like Jell-o.
Panatomic-X was great,
But I'll admit I came too late.
So "Give it up!" I hear you say.
Well, maybe so, but not today.

Please correct any errors but this is my version of the story:
Panatomic-X was produced for 50 years fom 1938-1988.Around 1955 the thin emulsion Adox films were introduced.In 1958 Beutler's book "Meine Dunkelkammer Praxis first appeated,I have not seen it but it was likely related to Adox films.Elsewhere I read Panatomic-X was re-formulated in the 60's.Production of T-max in the late 80's ended Panatomic-X.Crawley called this "the acutance era"-it was possible to produce acutance effects with Adox and Panatomic-X.
Production of the successor Adox fiilms continued till the plant recently closed.
Now Adox Chs 100 II appeared-what will that be like?

Ahrgh this thread is messing with my creative side.

I reviewed a bunch of vintage negatives last night, to choose some for printing...

And I selected a 35mm negative on APX-25. The conscious mind has crossed over and polluted the subliminal.

Alan Johnson said:

Now Adox Chs 100 II appeared-what will that be like?

Click to expand...

Look forward to seeing results. While I've always used standard developers I think it would be worth trying an acutance developer on any new film...

Michael R 1974 said:

Alan, I suspect this business about an "acutance era" with respect to Pan-X etc. is overstated. Comprehensive tests with modern versions of films such as Pan-F+ and FP4+, as well as tabular grain films, with a variety of developers would have to be done. I think we also need to be careful regarding names like "Adox", which as far as I know is simply branding at this point.

Click to expand...

All I can add is that the old Adox films were likely continued on under the Efke brand. It seems that way to be, because last winter I printed a 1967 negative, Adox KB14 (14=DN speed), and it was remarkably similar to later negs I have shot with Efke film.

As far as I understand, Mirko at ADOX is actually trying to recreate Efke KB100 / R100 / PL100, but with improved QC. That would mean that the new ADOX CHS would be closely related to the old ADOX KB stuff. And to me that is exciting.