Plus X compared to Panatomic X

braxus · Jun 11, 2007

I ordered from Kodak (at our lab for myself) some Tri-X and Plus X in 35mm 100' foot rolls. Has anyone in the past 10 years shot a roll of expired Panatomic X and then shot a new fresh roll of Plus X at the same time? Im wondering if the aged Pan X will have the same grain size as fresh Plus X? Also anyone compare the look of the two films and if so- how would you say they compare?

If the Plus X has a similar look and grain, I might just sell off my expired Pan X. Fresh film will produce better results then 20 year old film (in terms of grain size). Any comments?

PhotoJim · Jun 11, 2007

It all depends on how the Panatomic-X was stored. If the Pan-X was kept frozen in a deep freeze (i.e. at temperatures in the minus-teens C), it might be nearly as good as if it were new. On the other hand, if it were stored at room temperature for all these years, it will have greater base fog and increased grain.

Grain isn't the only issue. Tonality is another issue. Some photographers love the tonality of Pan-X and I imagine many believe that nothing comes close to it.

The best way to know is to try for yourself, but I'm sure that the image characteristics of your old Pan-X will be very different from those of fresh Plus-X. Whether you care or not is a question only you can answer.

Mark Layne · Jun 11, 2007

Plus-X will show it's finest grain if shot at 64 ASA and developed in Perceptol, likely finer than old Pan-x

Mark

Paul Howell · Jun 11, 2007

I had several roll of 35 and 120 PanX, Verichrompan, and Plus X that I had frozen for many years. A couple of years ago I ran though most of my frozen stock and I was suprised that my Pan X did not hold up as well as did my Verichom or Plus X. The 120 reticulated. I have a bulk roll of Plus x 35mm that had been frozen which expired in 1978, it held up better than my PanX. I know that others seem to have better luck with frozen Pan X that I did. In terms of current Plus X compared to Pan X, I still think Pan X had finer grain, but Plus X has much better tones, Pan X was easy to block highlights. For fine grain I would use Tmax or Delta 100.

Christiaan Phleger · Jun 11, 2007

Heya Braxus/Scott, I actually got a bunch of old Plus X Pro PXP in 120 that a local shop had in freezer brought in by someone who was unloading a bunch of old gear. It was still in original foil wrappers, no box, and so dating it is a bit sketchy, my guess is roughly between 85 and 92 judging from the paper backing, either way its OLD. I got about 20-25 rolls of it, and after testing it in just about everything, shooting at 64 and processing in Rodinal at 1:25 (I usually do 1:50 but I needed the extra contrast) looks very very good. Actually quite close to your old FXP in 120 in Rodinal, maybe a bit grainy compared to it.
As well, I've found that Tmax100 in Microdol-X 1:0 looks amazingly like Panatomic-X in Microdol-X, at least in 35mm, I'm about to test TMX 100 in 120 to see if it does the same creamy tone thing, that might be a option to pursue as well.

braxus · Jun 11, 2007

I guess the only thing I can do is test them both, which I was hoping to avoid. I can still keep the old Pan X if it shows any strengths over fresh film, but I was wondering if it was worth keeping if the grain is going to be larger anyways.

glbeas · Jun 11, 2007

Unless you have money to just throw away I'd just shoot the stuff and have fun with it. Doesn't matter if it's grain is bigger than when it was fresh, it'll still make great pictures.

jim appleyard · Jun 11, 2007

FWIW, I shot some Pan-X back when it was in production and I never found an easier film to work with. I used to set my 35mm camera meter at ASA 32 and then process the film in D-76, 1+0 for what the little piece of paper that in the box said too; very easy negs to print. Life was great then!

Don't all photographers have two camera bodies? Perhaps one loaded with nice, slow Pan-X for shooting on sunny days, shots requiring slow shutter speeds (waterfalls come to mind), etc., and then another body loaded with Plus-X for times with a bit less light, etc? Both should look good in X-tol from your lab.

braxus · Jun 11, 2007

I'll probably end up keeping them anyway- since it is Pan X. Its just tempting since I have 2 100' rolls and on Ebay not long ago the same thing (2 100' rolls) sold for over $200 US. That could fund 4 fresh 100' rolls of Plus X.

Anyways I have 4 35mm cameras, of which two have issues so I don't use them (my FD cameras). Yes I shoot more then 1 camera often, but it ends up being 1 color- 1 B&W. Ive even brought 3 or 4 cameras on a shoot, but thats only if I can drive right to the spot. I'll shoot another roll of Pan X and see how its lasted lately as I haven't used the bulk stuff for almost 2 or so years now.

I'm still trying to find out what exactly made Pan X stand out from other films. Ive heard about people saying it has a unique quality, but doesn't any film really? Plus X is great for landscapes. Pan X was good for portraits under cloudier conditions. Tri-X was great for people shots in all weather. I like all 3 of these films and Xtol looks good with all three.

Here are some shots on this old Pan X:

http://www.pbase.com/braxus/image/80384359

http://www.pbase.com/braxus/image/80384420

http://www.pbase.com/braxus/image/80384459

http://www.pbase.com/braxus/image/80384576

http://www.pbase.com/braxus/image/80384511

The above one was cropped somewhat from original. I think these were all scanned on my flatbed, so grain has been softenned somewhat.

htmlguru4242 · Jun 12, 2007

Over the past year, I've obtained 4 rolls of Panatomic X, and I've already gone through 3 of them.

I've never done a purposeful comparison, but I have to say that I've never used anything quite like the Pan-X. Plus-X is close grain-wise (developed in D-76), though the tonalities are much different. I think it looks wonderful, but that could just be the fact that I really like working with older material to see what I can get out of it.

I've found, as Jim mentioned, that it was extremely easy to work with. The first roll I shot was a little foggy, but the rest of them worked wonderfully at the speed and development times on the box.

Braxus, if you're throwing out or selling any of your Panatomic-X, let me know; I could use a few more rolls.

braxus · Jun 12, 2007

I wont be throwing them out, since they are still usable and produce nice results. If I do sell them- they'll be on Ebay. But so far I haven't decided to dump them yet, even if others are telling me to get rid of them anyway. I would just like to find out what made this film special. What was it really good for doing?

braxus · Jun 12, 2007

Well I enquired at the lab that uses HC-110B. They can develop only so I'll take my test rolls to them. I got out of my freezer my 100' Pan X from 1978 (the other is from 1986, but hasn't aged as well), and one roll of fresh Efke 25 with one roll of Plus X dated late 2005. I bought those two rolls before they expired and immediately went into the freezer. I'll shoot them Friday and scan them in after. I'll try and post the results Friday or Saturday. I just hope I can get someone to pose for a few shots. If not it will be landscape views.

Christiaan Phleger · Jun 13, 2007

Just ask the prettiest girl you know, "Say, I need to test this neat old film, it is supposed to have simply luminous skin tones". Works every time.

aldevo · Jun 13, 2007

RidingWaves said:
Just ask the prettiest girl you know, "Say, I need to test this neat old film, it is supposed to have simply luminous skin tones". Works every time.

I will vouch for this being true.

Plus X compared to Panatomic X

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency