Panatomic-X

[Alan Johnson]

Michael, the acutance effect is probably supressed by higher iodide in the emulsion:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Thomas, I believe what you say about the successor films to the early KB 14,17, 21 is correct but I will be inclined to try CHS 100 II in medium format to reduce grain.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I did some experimentation during the 80's with films available then and some different developer formulations and was able to get very pronounced edge effects. In fact they were so obvious that the images were worthless for pictorial purposes.

 

[martinjames]

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

Translation software turned this into:

Any past, any break-in, very tired

Hmm....

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Translation software turned this into:

Any past, any break-in, very tired

Hmm....

Some years ago I was working at Cape Canaveral. New word processing software insisted on correcting NASA to nauseous.

 

[chip j]

I developed loads of Panatomic-X back in the day using Tetenal Neofin Blue (it came in glass vials then)--best negs I ever had--smooth grain and rapturous tonality.

 

[erikg]

I did some experimentation during the 80's with films available then and some different developer formulations and was able to get very pronounced edge effects. In fact they were so obvious that the images were worthless for pictorial purposes.

I've seen some stand developed images (some of them my own) that crossed that threshold.

 

[braxus]

I have been recently re-acquiring more rolls of Pan X in both 35mm and 120. I do find there is a slight fog to these films which make the grain larger then it originally was when fresh. That said the film was still very usable. I even found some Pan X in 4x5 dated from the late 60s/ early 70s (I forget which). Its a lovely film and we even talked to Kodak to ask if they could reintroduce the film to make new stock of it. That said Kodak is only a high volume film producer, so making Pan X would not fly. Plus they'd have to re-engineer the film to remove chemicals/ other that have come to be listed as toxic, etc. Now that the film division is under new management with the pension group, I would wonder if they would again consider it?

 

[Roger Cole]

It's probably more likely than getting Kodachrome back. ;-)

More likely still would be for Adox, if the new CHS II 100 film based on Efke formulas sells, to make a version of the Efke 25. I don't know how similar that is/was to Pan-X but it would be a slow film choice. There are folks on LFPF clamoring for a slow 25 range speed sheet film. I'd have quite limited use for anything that slow but might play around with it.

 

[Roger Cole]

I didn't really read that far, but you can read the thread without being a member:

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...sh-Supplies-of-25-ASA-LF-Black-and-White-Film

 

[Bill Burk]

I have been recently re-acquiring more rolls of Pan X in both 35mm and 120. I do find there is a slight fog to these films which make the grain larger then it originally was when fresh.

I get the feeling it lost nothing over time, no increased fog, no larger grain (at least in 35mm). I compared a vintage print from a negative shot and developed when Panatomic-X was fresh... to a current print on freshly shot and developed but expired Panatomic-X. In terms of graininess, I can't tell the vintages apart.

I believe our collective memory of its fine grain, is a glowing reputation earned through the passage of time.

It was a bit grainy and still is.

This is my own opinion formed on the basis of a limited test. This may not agree with your findings (you might still be right) or those of my employer, EKC.

 

[Roger Cole]

I think our memory of how fine grained it was is colored by comparison to the faster films of its day. It was considerably finer than medium speed films, Plus-X and Ilford FP[whichever] of the day, and far finer grained than the Tri-X/HP[whichever] of its day. But those films have been continuously improved ever since, not to mention we have various new tech films now to compare it to.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I think our memory of how fine grained it was is colored by comparison to the faster films of its day.

Very true. However there was also the long tonal scale that was and remains rather unique for a slow film. IMHO, no modern slow film comes even close to Pan-X in this respect.

It all comes down to modern emulsion technology. Manufacturers have gotten very good with conventional films at creating silver grains whose size remains within a very narrow range. While this makes for fine grain it also reduces the tonality range of the film. Films whose grain size has a much broader spread have better tonality. Another example that in photography you can't have everything.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Very true. However there was also the long tonal scale that was and remains rather unique for a slow film. IMHO, no modern slow film comes even close to Pan-X in this respect.

It all comes down to modern emulsion technology. Manufacturers have gotten very good with conventional films at creating silver grains whose size remains within a very narrow range. While this makes for fine grain it also reduces the tonality range of the film. Films whose grain size has a much broader spread have better tonality. Another example that in photography you can't have everything.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but TMax 400 might be the exception. 14 stops, straight as a nail. Most of the time that is more than enough. I don't know what the Panatomic-X was capable of...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but TMax 400 might be the exception. 14 stops, straight as a nail. Most of the time that is more than enough. I don't know what the Panatomic-X was capable of...

Actually I hedged my bet a bit by limiting my discussion to "conventional emulsions." T-grain or delta grain emulsions are a whole other story. Their manufacture is quit different from conventional films. Personally I don't use or like these emulsions and so would not speculate on them.

Jerry

 

[Roger Cole]

I shot one roll of Pan-X that I can recall, and might have done a second some time. I just never really have use for film that slow. Even with PanF+ I develop it in Diafine, partly for the compensating action which works well with that film but also for a slight speed boost.

How did the scale of Pan-X compare to, say, Agfapan 25? That film lasted a lot longer and seems to have been widely loved. If it was as good as Agfapan 100 I can understand the love for those who can live with or prefer the speed. If Agfapan 25 or Efke 25 were anywhere close, resurrecting something similar, possibly via Adox, seems not too unreasonable a thing to hope for.

 

[cliveh]

Panatomic-X, what a great name, with a name like that how can it not achieve the ultimate image? This is superb marketing.

 

[removed account4]

thanks curt and bill, love those verses !

i guess since we are all taking a trip down memory lane ..
i used to buy bulk rolls of this film when i was a livinghighonthehog college student. i had paper routes
and a driveway reconstruction business in those days and after working hard all summer, money was no object.
i was told by my teachers and friends that pan-x was "THE BEST" so i would go to SBI i harvard square, cambridge
and buy 100 feet at a time. i would be kind of annoyed at its slowness
and i would shoot it at night in dark eateries with a flash, would process it in sprint developer
and liked the film. when the tmax family of films came along i used them, but never really liked how the grain
looked, the pan x grain had a look to it, a sheen i don't know, just a look, you know, like remembering what
captain crunch looked like before pepe lefoot kidnapped him and the replace him with the other captain crunch
or when they switched out darrin stevens, or jerry seinfeld;s dad and no one "noticed"
.. even though they are a direct replacement for pretty much everything kodak made in b/w and doesn't make now
tmax films were ( are ) nice but not quite the same .

i have figured out a way to get grain out of the tmax family of films and it involves abusing the hell out of the film.

the film was on the shelf for longer than i remember
covered in dust since the time i bought it 2001 september
instead of 400 or 100 it looks like maybe it i shot it at 10 or 25 i can't remember
the soup was black and fizzy and smelled like hell
it was warm to the touch, on these thing i like to dwell,
in they go, the sheets in the stack separated the stucktogether emulsion did swell
around and around from the bottom to the top, my fingers in this strange brew
the timer tick-toks with a hum i can barely see but somehow i know what to do
after 20 in the wash then the fix these negatives are barely seethrough
memories of pan x, visions of the past i better keep shooting this oldetmaxstuff, production isn't going to last.

it was much easier when subatomicx was around, strawberries and cream without the artificial ingredients.

 

[NedL]

 

[Curt]

thanks curt and bill, love those verses !

i guess since we are all taking a trip down memory lane ..
i used to buy bulk rolls of this film when i was a livinghighonthehog college student. i had paper routes
and a driveway reconstruction business in those days and after working hard all summer, money was no object.
i was told by my teachers and friends that pan-x was "THE BEST" so i would go to SBI i harvard square, cambridge
and buy 100 feet at a time. i would be kind of annoyed at its slowness
and i would shoot it at night in dark eateries with a flash, would process it in sprint developer
and liked the film. when the tmax family of films came along i used them, but never really liked how the grain
looked, the pan x grain had a look to it, a sheen i don't know, just a look, you know, like remembering what
captain crunch looked like before pepe lefoot kidnapped him and the replace him with the other captain crunch
or when they switched out darrin stevens, or jerry seinfeld;s dad and no one "noticed"
.. even though they are a direct replacement for pretty much everything kodak made in b/w and doesn't make now
tmax films were ( are ) nice but not quite the same .

i have figured out a way to get grain out of the tmax family of films and it involves abusing the hell out of the film.

the film was on the shelf for longer than i remember
covered in dust since the time i bought it 2001 september
instead of 400 or 100 it looks like maybe it i shot it at 10 or 25 i can't remember
the soup was black and fizzy and smelled like hell
it was warm to the touch, on these thing i like to dwell,
in they go, the sheets in the stack separated the stucktogether emulsion did swell
around and around from the bottom to the top, my fingers in this strange brew
the timer tick-toks with a hum i can barely see but somehow i know what to do
after 20 in the wash then the fix these negatives are barely seethrough
memories of pan x, visions of the past i better keep shooting this oldetmaxstuff, production isn't going to last.

it was much easier when subatomicx was around, strawberries and cream without the artificial ingredients.

My pleasure!

The one phrase I believe described it is "The Look", for me it had the look I was seeking. I agree with what you said. I bought 120 by the brick and used it up quickly. All my prints for my first degree at the University were made using Panatomic-X. I tried Orwo, Efke, Afox, Agfa, all of the Kodak films and Agfa films but settled on that one.

I taught myself the Zone System through the Ansel Adams series and Fred Picker. My camera didn't have a built in light meter so I was forced to learn and use a "system". It was all T&T, no DBI. With one film and developer along with a consistent technique you start to understand how Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and others could shoot without a meter if they were forced to or wanted to. You do something long enough that it becomes second nature. With developing film muscle memory becomes a major asset.