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

[braxus]

Being these films were all designed to give similar looks, tones, and grain, I decided to shoot all 3 on a local location. Made up a video on it. Take a look.



Not a definative test, but one which I wanted to do to see for myself, and to also give TMAX 100 another try. TMAX 100 was a film I never fell in love with, because it just seemed a little boring/ flat compared to other films I've used. Shooting this test helped me see, its not all that different. I used my Primefilm XAs film scanner for these, and the same film profile to keep it similar. Vuescan didn't have profiles for 2 of the 3 films, so I used the TMAX 100 profile. Didn't adjust much in Photoshop other then brightness. Im sure someone may chime in saying that they got different results, and that is fine. This is what I got with what I had here.

 

[Helge]

“Boring and flat” is expletives I’d never have used about TMX. It’s anything but. Even if the curve has a long nice straight, it’s not characterless.
But nice video and channel. Subbed.

 

[braxus]

I think what it is with TMAX 100 was it didn't have the contrast or glow I was getting out of other films, or the range of tones like Pan X. But it goes to show I didn't use it enough to get it to work for me. I still don't think I'll bother using it, since Acros 100 is out there. Delta 100 was kinda flat for me too. But I guess development would help cure this, if Im looking for more character.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

TMAX 100 and Xtol 1+1 was gorgeous (same with TMY!) I prefer Acros, mainly for its sharpness (feels sharper to me than TMAX), and unparalleled reciprocity characteristics.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Love the record collection. I had that Beethoven cello and piano music album, but I can't for the life of me remember who was playing on it. Is that the Kempff/Fournier version?

 

[braxus]

I had that Beethoven cello and piano music album. Is that the Kempff/Fournier version?

Yes actually. I had to double check it, but that is who is listed on the label on the record itself.

 

[Bill Burk]

Recommend: use yellow filter with Panatomic-X (reducing it’s effective speed to 16 on a handheld meter), or shoot the other two without a filter at 64 (for the 2/3 stop extra that I like to give black and white film). Panatomic-X does not need extra exposure as it fully reaches 50 in speed tests (this is part of its legend - Even Fred Picker discovered it’s the only film that rates full speed in Zone System tests), probably because of its spectral sensitivity, T-Grain films tend to dip in blue making them good without a filter for clouds (and they drop sharply near infrared making them good for infrared viewing when loading and developing)

 

[braxus]

I always shoot Pan X at 32 ISO on my cameras with internal light meters. Never had an issue at that speed. Never knew that it can be rated at 50.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think its spectral characteristics fools the tests, 32 is fine for it.

I’m especially interested in this comparison because I picked apart the announcement when “they” told me TMAX100 replaces Panatomic-X.

I have resisted kicking and screaming the whole way. But it’s really nothing. The difference is 170 vs 200 resolution with TMAX100 winning, but Panatomic-X has better/finer grain (slightly).

As you have proven it’s really hard to tell unless you really look closely. Take a real close look and see which looks best. I thought I saw better moss on the Panatomic-X

 

[Down Under]

Panatomic-X. Why?? It hasn't been made since the late 1980s. I bought my last two bricks of new stock of it in 1993, I now have about six rolls of 35mm left and 50-60 rolls of 120, even older (probably 1980-1982), so antique stock. I've not used any of the latter for several years, for all I know it may be fogged or even fungus'd.

Stupidly, earlier this year I sold off all my precious cans of bulk Pan-X to a shooter in Singapore. He wanted it badly, badly, badly, so I quoted him a ridiculously high price, he called my bluff and said he would pay it, and he did. So I am now no-bulked of Panatomic. My loss. I rather miss it, sort of, but on the odd occasion I posted something nostalgic about this film, other users criticised me for being old-fashioned. TMax 100 was just as good, they insisted. And it is.

No big lot of Panatomic has been offered on Ebay for a long time, and if/when an occasional roll is posted, the seller wants bg buck$ for it. But then I got good money for mine too, so.

As for the video, I will be watching it. The comments from other posters have whetted my curiosity, and I happen to have small stocks of the other two films in my darkroom fridge.

Also an excellent choice of music, going by one poster's comment and the OP's confirmation.

 

[madNbad]

I’m surprised the 20 rolls of Acros II for $175 usd is still in the classifieds.

 

[braxus]

I still have a decent stock of Pan X in 35mm and a few rolls in 120, and one box of 4x5. This film is still relevant, due to the fact it doesn't age, and you can still find the odd roll here and there. I've been consistently bugging Alaris to reintroduce this film, though that's probably a fools errand. But yeah it's prices per roll have really increased the last 2 years. My video was to show TMAX and Acros look similar enough to be a good substitute for Pan X.

 

[Helge]

I still have a decent stock of Pan X in 35mm and a few rolls in 120, and one box of 4x5. This film is still relevant, due to the fact it doesn't age, and you can still find the odd roll here and there. I've been consistently bugging Alaris to reintroduce this film, though that's probably a fools errand. But yeah it's prices per roll have really increased the last 2 years. My video was to show TMAX and Acros look similar enough to be a good substitute for Pan X.

They’ve hinted that it’s not impossible.
It’s not a hugely complex film to make.

AFAIK Laser had something to say about it in his recent interview.

 

[Helge]

Panatomic-X. Why?? It hasn't been made since the late 1980s. I bought my last two bricks of new stock of it in 1993, I now have about six rolls of 35mm left and 50-60 rolls of 120, even older (probably 1980-1982), so antique stock. I've not used any of the latter for several years, for all I know it may be fogged or even fungus'd.

Stupidly, earlier this year I sold off all my precious cans of bulk Pan-X to a shooter in Singapore. He wanted it badly, badly, badly, so I quoted him a ridiculously high price, he called my bluff and said he would pay it, and he did. So I am now no-bulked of Panatomic. My loss. I rather miss it, sort of, but on the odd occasion I posted something nostalgic about this film, other users criticised me for being old-fashioned. TMax 100 was just as good, they insisted. And it is.

No big lot of Panatomic has been offered on Ebay for a long time, and if/when an occasional roll is posted, the seller wants bg buck$ for it. But then I got good money for mine too, so.

As for the video, I will be watching it. The comments from other posters have whetted my curiosity, and I happen to have small stocks of the other two films in my darkroom fridge.

Also an excellent choice of music, going by one poster's comment and the OP's confirmation.

Aviphot Pan 80 (HR-50 and Retro 80s) is not too far off from Panatomic X Aerographic.
Pull it a bit and use a low contrast developer. Then you’ll get results that will remind you of contrasty Pan X.

 

[Bill Burk]

Panatomic-X. Why?? It hasn't been made since the late 1980s. I bought my last two bricks of new stock of it in 1993, I now have about six rolls of 35mm left and 50-60 rolls of 120, even older (probably 1980-1982), so antique stock. I've not used any of the latter for several years, for all I know it may be fogged or even fungus'd.

Stupidly, earlier this year I sold off all my precious cans of bulk Pan-X to a shooter in Singapore. He wanted it badly, badly, badly, so I quoted him a ridiculously high price, he called my bluff and said he would pay it, and he did. So I am now no-bulked of Panatomic. My loss. I rather miss it, sort of, but on the odd occasion I posted something nostalgic about this film, other users criticised me for being old-fashioned. TMax 100 was just as good, they insisted. And it is.

No big lot of Panatomic has been offered on Ebay for a long time, and if/when an occasional roll is posted, the seller wants bg buck$ for it. But then I got good money for mine too, so.

As for the video, I will be watching it. The comments from other posters have whetted my curiosity, and I happen to have small stocks of the other two films in my darkroom fridge.

Also an excellent choice of music, going by one poster's comment and the OP's confirmation.

Slow, fine grained film with standard grain, a normal panchromatic color response including blue and red (which the newer films chop).

I used it in its heyday for thoughtful photography, and because it retained its characteristics I can go back to a location and take photographs of the same subject matter and the new shots fit in with the old vintage ones.

I revisited Little Sur creek decades apart and the prints can’t be told apart.

With 100 speed film that doesn’t need a filter, although the grain and resolution are similar, the speed difference means the pictures would be taken with different f/stops and shutter speeds which make different looks (if there is water)

 

[gone]

“Boring and flat” is expletives I’d never have used about TMX.

That's sorta my feelings too, but it's simply individual taste. T-Max is a film that has never delivered what I want w/o extensive work in the darkroom. But, I like contrasty film w/ good grain and some pop. Never got that from T-Max.

If I shot it enough it could probably be nailed down, but I'd rather put some Tri-X in the camera if I'm going to use a Kodak film. I can shoot that at 100,200,400,800, and just develop it normally and get great tonality. I think that's what's lacking w/ T-max, some good tonality (compared to other films).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I get these results from scanning Tmax 100 and 400 (35mm, 120, 4x5). I find these films sharp, grain-free and have nice tones. Scans easily and has lots of flexibility in editing contrast and exposure changes. I have no comments on printing. I'll leave that for others.
Tmax 100 https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...&tags=tmax100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1
Tmax 400 https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...&tags=tmax400&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I get these results from scanning Tmax 100 and 400 (35mm, 120, 4x5). I find these films sharp, grain-free and have nice tones. Scans easily and has lots of flexibility in editing contrast and exposure changes. I have no comments on printing. I'll leave that for others.
Tmax 100 https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=tmax100&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1
Tmax 400 https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=tmax400&user_id=55760757@N05&view_all=1

The TMY images seem to have a bit more snap to them, than the TMAX images. Are you using the same developer for both?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The TMY images seem to have a bit more snap to them, than the TMAX images. Are you using the same developer for both?

I devlop in outside labs. One uses Xtol and the other is the equivalent of D76 (Clayton F76). Also, keep in mind that mine are edited scans. So there's a lot of room for changing exposure, contrast, etc.

 

[grat]

I was under the impression that Clayton F76 / FA-1027 is a significantly different developer from D76?

 

[braxus]

They’ve hinted that it’s not impossible.
It’s not a hugely complex film to make.

AFAIK Laser had something to say about it in his recent interview.

Care to share the link to the video? I'd like to see what they had to say about it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I was under the impression that Clayton F76 / FA-1027 is a significantly different developer from D76?

I'm not personally aware of the comparison. I'm only repeating what North Coast Photographic in Carlsbad, CA told me that it was the same. They use the Clayton 76 as a standard developer for the BW film I sent them for processing.

 

[grat]

Fair enough. I'd heard some pretty complimentary things about it, and was considering trying it out as an alternative.

Thanks.

 

[Finn lyle]

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. The T-Max series of films are just lovely though, I like using TMX to get super creamy images of still lives. Always shocked by the resolution

 

[Cholentpot]

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. The T-Max series of films are just lovely though, I like using TMX to get super creamy images of still lives. Always shocked by the resolution

I've found DoubleX to be a good replacement for Plus-X. It is a little grainier but it fills that niche for me.