Panatomic-X

[Alan Johnson]

I bought some 1991 dated Panatomic-X from the link within this link:
http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00btQV
The 1991 canisters are marked "Being Discontinued, Replace with T-Max 100 Film".
I took some pics at EI=32 and developed in Beutler developer 7.5m 20C with good results.
Exposures included some of a test chart from www.normankoren.com.

Results.
After 22 years fog is insignificant, like new film.
The resolution of the film with my Canon EF 50mm f1.8 lens at f5.6-8 was about 70 lppm.This is consistent with some 70's lens tests I have from SLR Photography magazine, they never got much above 70 lppm.I have tested TMX in Xtol with the same lens and obtained ~100 lppm.
Howevever, the idea of the thin emulsion / Beutler combination was, I gather , to give an impression of sharpness from high edge effect,and not from resolution.
I think it works very well, compared to prints from the same subject from APX 100 in Xtol and in Pyrocat HD the Panatomic-X in Beutler does indeed have a higher edge sharpness.I don't have any APX 100 in Beutler for comparison.

I wonder if anyone can comment on this Panatomic-X film.

 

[ath]

I can only comment on the EF 50/1.8 - mine easily records 180lp/mm with the right (micro-)film.
70lp/mm is either limited by the film, your technique or both.

I once did a quick comparison with ACROS in XTOL 1+1, Rodinal and Beutler. You can see my conclusion (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You picked a classic combination Pan-X and the Beutler formula. The results can be stunning in their detail. It is a combination of the film's high resolution and the acutance enhancement of the developer. For best results with the Beutler formula underexpose the film with the intention of printing on grade 3 paper.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here can be found some photomicrographs x600 of Panatomic-X in 3 developers.
It looks sharpest in Maximum Definition developer like Beutler:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040806...hotosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html

 

[brianmquinn]

It also has good latent image keeping.
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00URFd

 

[Tom1956]

Good lord, that stuff has been gone since 1991? I tell you the years pass so fast now...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I have some 50-year-old Panatomic-X (see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)) that exposed and processed just fine in homebrew D-76d. Granted this was a non-scientific observation, but I don't normally photograph scientific objects.

This stuff would still work just fine in normal use today. I think it lasts just about forever.

Ken

 

[GRHazelton]

Back in the day my usual combo was Plus X and Beutler. I underexposed a bit and printed on grade 3 fiber based paper, most often Luminos because it was cheap and good. The perceived sharpness of this combo was excellent.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Since manufacturers make incremental changes to their films, it is hard to make comparisons. Off hand I don't remember when Altman/Henn and Richard Henry made their tests. But my best results with Pan-X during the 1960's was with the Beutler formula. Truly spectacular resolution. Cross section photographs show that Beutler developer acts primarily on the surface of the emulsion thereby increasing resolution. I tried D-23 but the results were not as good. Never had the patience for D-25's long development times.

 

[Bill Burk]

I never overcame the shock/loss and am still living in denial...

I have been looking for a suitable replacement since. While I look I shoot a roll of Panatomic-X here and there to see how my search is coming along compared to my known favorite.

I tried a little of everything and my best candidate is 4x5 TMY-2 as a direct replacement for 35mm Panatomic-X.

Huh? You say? ... Yes, that's right. I went up to 4x5... And at that rate, I no longer pine for Panatomic-X because... 4x5 is better.

But when I do shoot 35mm...

The thing I appreciate most is that prints from vintage negs and prints from current negs on 35mm Panatomic-X are indistinguishable.

 

[Roger Cole]

I shot a roll or two of Pan-X back in the day but not enough to really say how they compare, but I can say I like 120 Pan F+ a lot. I develop it in Diafine, EI 64, and it's very nice.

 

[NedL]

I shot a roll or two of Pan-X back in the day but not enough to really say how they compare, but I can say I like 120 Pan F+ a lot. I develop it in Diafine, EI 64, and it's very nice.

Hi Roger, I've got a couple rolls of 120 PanF in the fridge that I might try this with. 3+3?

 

[Roger Cole]

Yep. I just sort of stumbled on the combo because I had Diafine (mainly for use with Tri-X) and wanted to shoot Pan F and get a bit more usable speed from it. 64 looks a bit thin but mostly prints nicely. By all means experiment with one roll to dial in your own speed but most folks find the box speed optimistic and Diafine will at least get you that.

Pan F is a nice film but can build highlight density pretty fast. The compensating effect of two bath helps.

 

[NedL]

Thanks! ( Now back to Panatomic-X! )

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I know of one photographer who gave up on photography when Panatomic-X was discontinued. He just quit, in one single moment. Never heard from the guy again.

But, he had more problems than film choice on his mind, it seemed, so it was probably highly excessive behavior.

I've never tried Panatomic-X, but at the same time I try very hard not to be 'hung up' on a single type of film. Great pictures look good on any film, but that 'special' film does not improve your photographs much.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Still shooting it I was lucky enough to get a few 100ft 35mm bulk rolls.

 

[Roger Cole]

I try very hard not to be 'hung up' on a single type of film. Great pictures look good on any film, but that 'special' film does not improve your photographs much.

+1 or more. Especially in black and white it's very rare that a photo that succeeds on one film could not be just as successful on some other film.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Especially in black and white it's very rare that a photo that succeeds on one film could not be just as successful on some other film.

If that was true we would all use the cheapest film?

The special property of the Adox films distributed in the US by Leica dealers from 1955 and later Panatomic-X was that compared to previous films they gave prints that looked sharper.Adox was a thin emulsion, Panatomic-X IDK,but both were often processed in acutance developers.
Now, these fine grain acutance films are all discontinued.
Tabular grain films replaced them.
IDK which of todays films would give good results with the Beutler developer, as did Panatomic-X

 

[Roger Cole]

I didn't say there was no difference or that a given photo could succeed on ANY film. I said it could succeed on ANOTHER film. If it works on TMX, for example, you won't see much difference on Delta 100, or even FP4+. A bit more grain on both, especially the latter, but very unlikely to make or break the photo. That doesn't mean the same photo would work on, say, Foma 400.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If that was true we would all use the cheapest film?

The special property of the Adox films distributed in the US by Leica dealers from 1955 and later Panatomic-X was that compared to previous films they gave prints that looked sharper.Adox was a thin emulsion, Panatomic-X IDK,but both were often processed in acutance developers.
Now, these fine grain acutance films are all discontinued.
Tabular grain films replaced them.
IDK which of todays films would give good results with the Beutler developer, as did Panatomic-X

You speak of exactly what I try to get away from. Sorry to be drifting away from the original topic a little bit, but do you honestly believe that anybody besides obsessive photographers care about a small gain in perceived sharpness or slightly finer grain?

I'm not Ralph Gibson or Mary Ellen Mark, obviously, but when I show my photographs to others they seem a lot more interested in the content, the composition, the light, expressions, and so on - and this goes for both photographers and non-photographers. Of course there is always one person that has to ask what film I used, but to me that's just an exception to the rule.
Do you often go into museum exhibitions of photography and hear people talk about sharpness or grain?

 

[George Papantoniou]

I received a couple of rolls (unexposed) last year, that were kept in a warm office of a designer in Athens for the last decades...

I can say I am happy reading the good news, guess that they won't be in an un-shootable condition...

 

[Alan Johnson]

You speak of exactly what I try to get away from. Sorry to be drifting away from the original topic a little bit, but do you honestly believe that anybody besides obsessive photographers care about a small gain in perceived sharpness or slightly finer grain?

I'm not Ralph Gibson or Mary Ellen Mark, obviously, but when I show my photographs to others they seem a lot more interested in the content, the composition, the light, expressions, and so on - and this goes for both photographers and non-photographers. Of course there is always one person that has to ask what film I used, but to me that's just an exception to the rule.
Do you often go into museum exhibitions of photography and hear people talk about sharpness or grain?

I don't think the public including me could tell a factory copy from an old master (in appropriate surroundings).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...artists-recreate-paintings-sale-overseas.html
I venture to suggest that most film photographers care about grain and sharpness, not just those labelled as you have done.

To get back on topic, I'm interested in reproducing the Panatomic-X appearance and it seems either it cannot be done or it is not known how to do it.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't think the public including me could tell a factory copy from an old master (in appropriate surroundings).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...artists-recreate-paintings-sale-overseas.html
I venture to suggest that most film photographers care about grain and sharpness, not just those labelled as you have done.

To get back on topic, I'm interested in reproducing the Panatomic-X appearance and it seems either it cannot be done or it is not known how to do it.

Do you imply that photographs shot with newer and more modern films are not the real thing, but merely a copy of what it could have been?

What I'm saying is that I see way too many photographers who care excessively about grain and sharpness, and forget to practice to become photographers that produce prints that have something to say. A good photograph does not begin and end with 'that special film', or any other material of our choosing. It is something much much larger than that, to find ways to communicate something that is important, to tell a story, or to provoke emotion.

Sure, the journey is important to the photographer, and I do understand why someone might seek perfection in their choice of film, but if anybody seriously believes that switching from Panatomic-X to Ilford Delta 100 is going to make any sort of fundamental change to how successful their photograph is, then perhaps it's time to step back and take a good look at the big picture?

Are there differences between the two films? Sure there are. But why do they matter so much?

 

[clayne]

Wouldn't it be funny if Plus-X were actually just a reformulated/sensitized Panatomic-X such that the speed gain is there? Maybe Pan-X is just a less sensitive long scale film as opposed to something like Pan-F which is a true slow speed fine grain film. I'd think Plus-X with an ND filter or just shot at a slower speed could offer a pretty decent low speed medium contrast replacement. Certainly not worth pining over something that disappeared ages ago and we know will never come back in it's original form.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Michael, I agree with what you say. From Leica Fotografie International 4/2000 p19, Erwin Puts states that the latest generation of T-grain and Core-Shell films are less compatible with the sharpening effect than classic films APX 25 and 100, Kodak Plus-X or Ilford Pan-F+ and Ilford FP4+.
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?