Panatomic-X

Paul Howell · Jan 30, 2013

Roger Cole said:
If you want sharpness, I wouldn't use Microdol-X (or the modern clone or Perceptol) for any film. It gets finer grain at the expense of sharpness. With today's films there's no need for it.

Microdol X 1:3 is much differnt than Microdol stock, at higher dultions Microdol is very sharp, Berry Thorton in Edge of Darkness lists the Ilford version at 1:3 for shapness. With modern films I would not recommend Microdol stock, but for that matter I would not use D 76 stock, which is how I wound up with bags of Microdol and D 76 replenisher. The draw back to Microdol X at 1:3 is the prolonged development times which may lead to base fog.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 30, 2013

Since Ilford Pan-F is mentioned as a substitute, my best results are with a lower EI of 32 to 40 and development in D-23 1+1. This seems to tame this films runaway contrast.

henry finley · Jan 30, 2013

I remember once a big deal at one time about High Contrast Copy Film and H & W Control developer. Wonder if anybody here remembers those days.

Christiaan Phleger · Jan 30, 2013

To those who don't think that Tmax 100 shot at 50 done in Microdol-X 1:0 (not Perceptol nor D-23/25) is not pretty darn close enough to match Panatomic-X shot at 25 in Microdol-X 1:0, I encourage you to Try It. Otherwise you're just spouting Conventional Internet Wisdom. And I know about the sharpness difference with doing 1:0 vs 1:3; its the use of the stock 1:0 that gives those creamy tones.
See a few of the Tmax/Microdol-X combination at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/02/02/from-another-era/

I've long wanted to try Tmax 100 in a well-seasoned large tank of replenished Microdol-X.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 30, 2013

henry finley said:
I remember once a big deal at one time about High Contrast Copy Film and H & W Control developer. Wonder if anybody here remembers those days.

Yes and sadly the results were never as good as the hype. I have tried many film developer combinations and the contrast is always a bit more than desired. Another negative is these films have no latitude forcing you to bracket every shot several times. At least for me not worth the bother.

Bill Burk · Jan 30, 2013

Well that's interesting reading Michael R 1974, thanks.

I am a big fan of Panatomic-X in D-76 1:1 and when Panatomic-X was discontinued I spent a long time looking for a replacement.

For a long time, I avoided 35mm TMAX-100. Purely out of anger. How could they replace my favorite with a film that by one measure (I think resolution) wasn't better? This grudge kept me from even trying the new films.

Years later, I realized that what I really wanted to do was shoot 4x5. So that's what I did.

Switching to 4x5 gave me an opportunity to move to a faster film. I tossed off my prejudice and gave TMY-2 a go. I am happy I did. Now 4x5 TMY-2 is my new personal favorite, and my de-facto replacement for 35mm Panatomic-X.

I have a precious few rolls of 35mm and 120 Panatomic-X that I use occasionally. Sensitometrically, Panatomic-X is good as new to me.

I appreciate it for what it is... But it isn't as sharp as I remember. It isn't as grainless as I remember. At first I thought it had degraded with age. But now I know the problem is my memory. I have vintage negs and current negs and they ARE a little soft and grainy. And they look identical to me. The chief advantage for me to shoot this old film is that prints from vintage and current negs can be shown side-by-side, without the vintage shots standing out anachronistically.

I work for Kodak and the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

henry finley · Jan 31, 2013

Bill Burk said:
Well that's interesting reading Michael R 1974, thanks.

I am a big fan of Panatomic-X in D-76 1:1 and when Panatomic-X was discontinued I spent a long time looking for a replacement.

For a long time, I avoided 35mm TMAX-100. Purely out of anger. How could they replace my favorite with a film that by one measure (I think resolution) wasn't better? This grudge kept me from even trying the new films.

Years later, I realized that what I really wanted to do was shoot 4x5. So that's what I did.

Switching to 4x5 gave me an opportunity to move to a faster film. I tossed off my prejudice and gave TMY-2 a go. I am happy I did. Now 4x5 TMY-2 is my new personal favorite, and my de-facto replacement for 35mm Panatomic-X.

I have a precious few rolls of 35mm and 120 Panatomic-X that I use occasionally. Sensitometrically, Panatomic-X is good as new to me.

I appreciate it for what it is... But it isn't as sharp as I remember. It isn't as grainless as I remember. At first I thought it had degraded with age. But now I know the problem is my memory. I have vintage negs and current negs and they ARE a little soft and grainy. And they look identical to me. The chief advantage for me to shoot this old film is that prints from vintage and current negs can be shown side-by-side, without the vintage shots standing out anachronistically.

I work for Kodak and the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.

That makes the 3rd Kodak man on here I've run up on. Wow, what kind of site IS this? Eastman Kodak--the one company I can bank on that NEVER made an inconsistent or sub-par product. I remember as a teenager browsing the paper shelves at the camera store trying to decide what paper I wanted to experiment with that week. I'd look at those swatch-books at those prints of you guys with a clipboard and pencil, standing in a lab coat examining some production machine. Those swatch prints were so perfect. You could see detail from Zone -100 to zone 100. I'll bet in my lifetime from 1956 on that Kodak NEVER had a return shipment or batch of anything. The thought was always the furthest thing from my mind. Still is to this day. You probably breath so hard down your China producers' necks, that no item comes from there bad, either. I wish you folks could have your company back like it used to be. Regards.

Bill Burk · Jan 31, 2013

Thanks henry finley,

I've been enjoying your posts too... This is a good site.

Though I work in enterprise software, a lot of my co-workers are deeply interested in photography. I brought a Kodak 35 to a team meeting and everybody knew how to use it. Some team members are in different parts of the world but we treat each other well.

henry finley · Jan 31, 2013

Bill Burk said:
Thanks henry finley,

I've been enjoying your posts too... This is a good site.

Though I work in enterprise software, a lot of my co-workers are deeply interested in photography. I brought a Kodak 35 to a team meeting and everybody knew how to use it. Some team members are in different parts of the world but we treat each other well.

Thanks Mr Burk. If you've been reading MY posts, I'm a bit humbled. I tend to swing a conservative club across heads of people I didn't even know. I can't come here without seeing my Yahoo Mail site with that lefty claptrap, and tend to swing first and ask questions later at the next mouse-click and provided cursor. I always knew that not all you northerners up at Kodak were lib crybabies, but true professionals of a caliber I'll never be. Good people. Your product is your testament of that. I'll endeavor to keep my photographic (and analog-electronic) discussion of your level. I hope your company pulls through and gets back on the exchange, and your people thrive.

lxdude · Jan 31, 2013

henry finley said:
That makes the 3rd Kodak man on here I've run up on. Wow, what kind of site IS this? Eastman Kodak--the one company I can bank on that NEVER made an inconsistent or sub-par product. I remember as a teenager browsing the paper shelves at the camera store trying to decide what paper I wanted to experiment with that week. I'd look at those swatch-books at those prints of you guys with a clipboard and pencil, standing in a lab coat examining some production machine. Those swatch prints were so perfect. You could see detail from Zone -100 to zone 100. I'll bet in my lifetime from 1956 on that Kodak NEVER had a return shipment or batch of anything. The thought was always the furthest thing from my mind. Still is to this day. You probably breath so hard down your China producers' necks, that no item comes from there bad, either. I wish you folks could have your company back like it used to be. Regards.

Kodak certainly had high standards- which made their atrocious-at-times Kodachrome processing all the more baffling.

Roger Cole · Jan 31, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Since Ilford Pan-F is mentioned as a substitute, my best results are with a lower EI of 32 to 40 and development in D-23 1+1. This seems to tame this films runaway contrast.

I like to shoot Pan F+ at EI 64 and develop in Diafine. This also tames the contrast nicely. I don't know how it would compare to 32-40 in D23 1+1, not having tried that. It's a great combo IMHO but it's not Pan-X.

For Christmas I gave my wife's parents a mounted and framed print 15" square from a 6x6 negative on Pan F+ in Diafine. Even up close it appears grainless.

jim appleyard · Jan 31, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Since Ilford Pan-F is mentioned as a substitute, my best results are with a lower EI of 32 to 40 and development in D-23 1+1. This seems to tame this films runaway contrast.

I've found D-23 @ 1+3 even better. Give it a try.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 31, 2013

jim appleyard said:
I've found D-23 @ 1+3 even better. Give it a try.

Thanks, will try it.

Oldtimer Jay · Feb 9, 2013

I shot a fair amount of HCC and H&W Control in the late 60s up to the mid 70s and found, like just about everybody else, that it could be fabulous but was so touchy it wasn't worth the trouble.
I liked Panatomic X quite a bit and generally developed it in Edwal Super 20 which worked wonderfully with it. I have a couple bulk rolls from the 80s which were kept frozen from new, but regret to say that no matter what I process it in, it is substantially grainier than my old negatives. I have not had any issues with fog or reduced speed and the tonality is very close to that of the old negatives, but the grain is much more pronounced on even semi-close examination of a16X20 print from a 35mm neg. This differs from what others are reporting but is my experience.

jim appleyard · Feb 10, 2013

Oldtimer Jay said:
I liked Panatomic X quite a bit and generally developed it in Edwal Super 20 which worked wonderfully with it. I have a couple bulk rolls from the 80s which were kept frozen from new, but regret to say that no matter what I process it in, it is substantially grainier than my old negatives. I have not had any issues with fog or reduced speed and the tonality is very close to that of the old negatives, but the grain is much more pronounced on even semi-close examination of a16X20 print from a 35mm neg. This differs from what others are reporting but is my experience.

Interesting. Do you know why you FX is now grainier? AFAIK, Super 20 iis no longer made, maybe that's the difference? Perhaps souping it in Perceptol will do the trick, or perhaps one of the fine grain clones from Formulary?

Gerald C Koch · Feb 10, 2013

Edwal Super 20 contained paraphenylenediamine which had a very strong solvent action. You are not going to get similar solvency from today's commercial developers. I am not surprised that your older negatives are finer grained. What has changed is not the film but the developer used.

Panatomic-X

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency