Short Test Comparing TMAX 100, Acros 100, and Panatomic X

[braxus]

I've always heard that TMY was formulated to emulate Plus-X exactly in the same way TMX was with panatomic-x, does anyone have experience with that? Plus-X is just before my time and I haven't been able to find any that isn't either wildly overpriced or badly fogged.

You might be on to something there. I don't perticularly love TMAX 100, as I mentioned, was kind of blah to me (as mentioned I'll have to shoot more of it to get a liking to it). Yet I love TMAX 400, because it just looks right to me, and I love its contrast and tones. And Plus X is one of my 4 favorite B&W films, next to Pan X, Efke 25, and Tri-X. I liked what I saw on TMAX 400 so much when I shot a roll again last year, that I got more rolls of it. I tend to like films with more contrast to them, though Panatomic X is the exception to that.

 

[Lachlan Young]

but Panatomic-X has better/finer grain

It doesn't. FX seems about level with more recent PX/ VP and 400TMY-II for granularity - so about an RMS Granularity of 10. If you're used to working with modern medium-to-fast films using tabular or Delta grain growth technologies, it's quite shocking how strong the granularity of FX is (and this is based off FX that had been used & processed in-date).

 

[braxus]

I agree. Pan X you can definitely see the grain over films like Efke 25 and TMAX 100. It's noticeable.

 

[Bill Burk]

TMY2 4x5 (left) vs Panatomic-X 35mm

When 35mm is printed 11x14, Panatomic-X vintage negatives exposed and developed when fresh match expired Panatomic-X with fresh exposure and development. TMAX100 is a fair replacement. I prefer Panatomic-X, but will use TMAX100 interchangeably.


TMY2 is grainier. It’s a wonderful film but it has visible graininess with 35mm at 11x14.

Grain of TMY2 4x5 is as fine as 35mm Panatomic-X printed to 11x14. These are benchmarks of what I want from my nature photography.

 

[Bill Burk]

It doesn't. FX seems about level with more recent PX/ VP and 400TMY-II for granularity - so about an RMS Granularity of 10. If you're used to working with modern medium-to-fast films using tabular or Delta grain growth technologies, it's quite shocking how strong the granularity of FX is (and this is based off FX that had been used & processed in-date).

Kodak mentioned two things, grain and resolution. The two films are very close. Panatomic-X is better than TMAX100 at one of those two measures and I can never remember which.

 

[pentaxuser]

TMY2 4x5 (left) vs Panatomic-X 35mm

When 35mm is printed 11x14, Panatomic-X vintage negatives exposed and developed when fresh match expired Panatomic-X with fresh exposure and development. TMAX100 is a fair replacement. I prefer Panatomic-X, but will use TMAX100 interchangeably.


TMY2 is grainier. It’s a wonderful film but it has visible graininess with 35mm at 11x14.

Grain of TMY2 4x5 is as fine as 35mm Panatomic-X printed to 11x14.

I didn't think that any film in 35mm was a match for TMY2 400 with the possible exception of CMS 20 or so it is claimed but Panatomic X is as fine in 35mm as TMY2 in 4x5 up to 11x 14 or so I think you are saying. This is amazing and on that basis I'd have thought that there should be a demand for it that would mean that Kodak should make it again. You'd think it would be cheaper and appeal on this and the basis you can avoid the cumbersomeness of 4x5 as well

You'd lose a lot in speed but for the kind of shots taken on a 4x5 I wouldn't have thought that a speed of 400 is a priority

Is there any data on its RMS compared to TMY that establishes that's Pantomic X is a match up to 11x14 and what is it about Panatomic X that gives it this kind of quality?


Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

I would guess that TMAX 400 may be sharper then Pan X, but I have no proof to support that. Im only going on how Kodak states its the sharpest 400 speed film out there. I read a comment saying Pan X isn't that sharp, but again its all conjecture.

 

[Bill Burk]

TMAX100 is on a par with Panatomic-X. Recommend TMAX100 anytime, you do not need to pine for Panatomic-X if it’s hard to come by. But if you can get some Panatomic-X by all means try it. You will get good results. You don’t have to make a project out of it or put it on a pedestal. It will just be nice. Yellow filter is a good idea.

TMY2 has more grain than TMAX100. Just a fact. It’s good though.

I’ve never regretted taking 35mm Panatomic-X or 35mm TMAX100 to the mountains. Nor will I ever regret taking 4x5 TMY2 to the mountains.

But I really feel bad about some shots I took on 3200 speed film because I got good shots that could have been more to my liking with fine grain. They make very nice postcards though, I think I sold a dozen.

Similarly, I regret using Tri-X one day from Dusy basin to LeConte canyon (because I had loaded it the afternoon before and had to finish it off). We had a dusting of snow with little rocks peeking through, just very appealing, but I felt Tri-X didn’t do it justice.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I recently used some 135 Panatomic-X that the seller claimed had been frozen. I, too, thought it was more grainy than I remember. However, my memories may be clouded by a romantic vision of how nice Pan-X was, or maybe the film had aged badly. Regardless, it looked pretty good and I enjoyed using it. My version of Silversoft scanner software does not have a Panatomic-X profile, and I usually use Tri-X 400 instead. But I also experiment with other profiles. Some examples:

Last Time Ever: 135-size Kodak Panatomic-X (Abandoned Films 05b)

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

Treasures! The Adolph Rose Antiques, Vicksburg, Mississippi (Abandoned Films 05c)

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

 

[Bill Burk]

@Kodachromeguy the Vicksburg shots sure look grainy. Can you tell by looking under magnifying glass if the scanner added something that isn’t there? The antique store looks more like it.

 

[braxus]

When I scanned Pan X for the video above, I used the TMAX 100 profile. It seems to be the closest thing to what the film would be like. Tri-X has a totally different look, especially with contrast, so I wouldn't use that profile.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

@Kodachromeguy the Vicksburg shots sure look grainy. Can you tell by looking under magnifying glass if the scanner added something that isn’t there? The antique store looks more like it.

Bill, you are right. One roll of film was distinctly more grainy than the other. Maybe it had suffered poor storage conditions at some stage of it's life. But who knows? I scanned them the same way with a Plustec 7600i scanner at 3600 DPI Tiff files. I do not add any sharpening during the scanning process.

I still have rolls of 120 size Panatomic X, and those are uniformly excellent. But I have owned them for 30 years and know they have been in my freezer, so there have been no odd environmental issues.

It's sad, but I think the time is past for many of these older films. For 35 mm, I am now using mostly Fuji Acros film. I have used TMax 100 with great results but have only limited experience with it.

Side note: some of you may recall I tried some 45-year of GAF Versapan film, and it was seriously grainy, but still looked pretty decent.

Expired Film Treasure: 135-size GAF Versapan Black and White Film (Abandoned Films 04)

worldofdecay.blogspot.com

 

[pentaxuser]

When I scanned Pan X for the video above, I used the TMAX 100 profile. It seems to be the closest thing to what the film would be like. Tri-X has a totally different look, especially with contrast, so I wouldn't use that profile.

Based on what you showed in your worthwhile video, Braxus, I couldn't really see any difference between them Had I been viewing them in a gallery and they were spaced apart form one another, my reaction would have been to ask myself if the photographer had accidentally included two other identical shots without realising it

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Bill, in #33 it sounds as if all 3 films are pretty much on a par and certainly this sounds true of TMax 100.

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill, in #33 it sounds as if all 3 films are pretty much on a par and certainly this sounds true of TMax 100.

pentaxuser

If you mean Braxus' video - yes all three are on a par.

For the three I mentioned in #33 what I mean is 35mm Panatomic-X, 35mm TMAX100 and 4x5 TMY2 are all on a par. They all give me what I need and are my benchmarks for quality.

I love and use 35mm TMY2 for casual shots, but I sometimes feel "Could've had a V-8" moments (when I would have preferred better definition and detail in my 11x14 print).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kodak mentioned two things, grain and resolution. The two films are very close. Panatomic-X is better than TMAX100 at one of those two measures and I can never remember which.

FX is significantly worse at both - but has a larger latitude for operator error (which can have an impact on both optimal sharpness and granularity). Tmax has higher information capacity across the board if exposed & processed within design parameters.

 

[braxus]

I have around 25 rolls in 35mm of Pan X, so I won't run out anytime soon. I wish I had more 120 though, as I use 120 film more today than any other format. I only have 3 or so rolls in 120. I do like Acros 100, so I'll probably just stick to that. Unless Kodak in its weird ways, decides to make Pan X again.

 

[Craig]

Have you tried Ilford Pan F? I've never done a comparison to Pan -x, but they are both traditional slow films. I'm sure it would make an interesting comparison.

 

[braxus]

Yes actually. I shot Pan F the same day I shot this Pan X for the video. Pan X has better midtones, but they both offer a traditional grain old fashioned look. I like Pan F too, but I wouldn't say they look similar to each other. Pan F has a contrastier look then Pan X as well. In a seperate video, I did compare Pan F to Efke 25 though.