Thin Emulsion Films c1956

Alan Johnson · Aug 6, 2016

Marc Bergman posted these from "Modern Photography"
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38552878@N02/28520637600/in/photostream/lightbox/
They were THE films until tabular grain arrived.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 6, 2016

Alan Johnson said:
Marc Bergman posted these from "Modern Photography"
https://www.flickr.com/photos/38552878@N02/28520637600/in/photostream/lightbox/
They were THE films until tabular grain arrived.

I was immediately reminded of the famous Norma Desmond line "I am big, it is the pictures that got small." Watch the clip as it really fits. We had the honest fine grain films and then came alone the upstart T-grains.

Paul Howell · Aug 8, 2016

Well sort of, but not really, Pan X was slow ASA 32 often shot at 25 or even lower, much more contrast and easy to blow out the highlights, Tmax 100 has better resolution. The one film I still miss is Virachrome Pan, rated at 120, held shadows very well, and although not a true panchromic (Sp/) film with a light to medium filter was excellent for landscapes

Gerald C Koch · Aug 8, 2016

Paul Howell said:
Well sort of, but not really, Pan X was slow ASA 32 often shot at 25 or even lower, much more contrast and easy to blow out the highlights, Tmax 100 has better resolution. The one film I still miss is Virachrome Pan, rated at 120, held shadows very well, and although not a true panchromic (Sp/) film with a light to medium filter was excellent for landscapes[/U][/U]

This is exactly backwards from my experience. Pan-X had a wide latitude due to its double coating -- one fast emulsion and one slow one. Never experience any problems and I have hundreds of beautiful negatives to prove it.

I do however agree with the statement as it applies to slow films in general. By their nature they have little latitude. So the user must carefully meter each scene and be attentive to how the film is developed.

You really cannot compare something like TMax 100 and traditional fine grain films. They are two vastly different technologies

Paul Howell · Aug 8, 2016

I never had much success with Pan X, I recall using D76 standard times, maybe I did not meter correctly.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 8, 2016

Paul Howell said:
I never had much success with Pan X, I recall using D76 standard times, maybe I did not meter correctly.

I used either D-23 or the Beutler formula when I wanted acutance. Even today I use D-23 with Ilford Pan-F which does have a contrast problem.

MattKing · Aug 8, 2016

Gerald C Koch said:
Pan-X had a wide latitude due to its double coating -- one fast emulsion and one slow one.

Interesting - that seems to describe Verichrome Pan exactly. I never knew Panatomic X had two emulsion speeds.

Jim Noel · Aug 8, 2016

Paul Howell said:
Well sort of, but not really, Pan X was slow ASA 32 often shot at 25 or even lower, much more contrast and easy to blow out the highlights, Tmax 100 has better resolution. The one film I still miss is Virachrome Pan, rated at 120, held shadows very well, and although not a true panchromic (Sp/) film with a light to medium filter was excellent for landscapes

Who made Virachrome Pan? I used Verichrome (an ortho film) and Verichrome Pan by Kodak.

Ian Grant · Aug 8, 2016

Thanks for posting Alan. I have adverts etc from when Adox films were first introduced into the UK in the early to mid 1950s, they were distributed by Luminos who seem to cease trading in the UK probably early 60s and move to the US.

Matt all films had two emulsions speeds, some still do, one is the Tungsten light speed which Adox and later EFKE used in the name, the other is the more common Daylight speed. However being coated with two emulsions of different speeds doesn't give it two Daylight speeds (or two Tungsten speeds either) just greater latitude.

The two emulsions in Verichrome Pan were about giving a wide exposure latitude it like Ilford's Selochrome were designed for simple cameras with no meters. I'm fairly sure the fist films I developed were Verichrome Pan in a Kodak Brownie 127 over 50 years ago. The trade off is a slight drop of quality compared to films like Plus-X etc.

Pan-X on the other hand is more likely to have had two emulsions for contrast control ansd only a slight increase in latitude, the differences far less than with Verichrome Pan. Some think of coatings containing two emulsion as being two seperate layers, that's not always the case often the emulsions are blended before coating a good example is Multigrade papers.

PE could tell you ore, I know that many B&W films are more than one emulsion.

Ian

Ian Grant · Aug 8, 2016

Jim Noel said:
Who made Virachrome Pan? I used Verichrome (an ortho film) and Verichrome Pan by Kodak.

I had a chance of buying some Verichrome plates a couple of years ago and they weren't made by Eastman Kodak, or Kodak Ltd

Same man behind them - CEK Mees, they were made by Wratten & Wainwright, before Mees joined Kodak in 1913.

Ian

Alan Johnson · Aug 8, 2016

I just bought a brick of Efke 25 dated 2014 from Croatia, that would be pretty much the last of it, was a fun film.

Grif · Aug 8, 2016

Pan X at ASA 12 Microdol 3:1 one shot. No memory of times or temp. Early 70's. I've got some 16 x 20's that are amazing (for me).

Alan Johnson · Aug 9, 2016

Here are some curves for Efke 25 in Beutler 1:1:10:
http://imagebrooklyn.com/film_testing/efke25andBeutler_test.htm
Elsewhere it is noted that this film is orthopanchromatic.

Ian Grant · Aug 9, 2016

Like you Alan I have some EFKE 25 left. I've almist finished mt 5x4 but have 2 boxes of 10x8 along with some Frtepan 200, and have an unopend box of EFKE 25 Quarter plate.

Ironically I was shooting EFKE 25 alongside Tmax 100 both at 50 EI and developed for the same time, often in the same tank, and apart from the different spctral responnse negative are quite similar, printing on the same grade paper.

Ian

nosmok · Aug 10, 2016

I just shot some Panatomic X from 1961 and it's still good. I may have rated it at 16 but maybe not and just shot it box speed-- remarkable longevity.

Grif · Aug 10, 2016

I remember going back and forth between Pan X and Pan F(?) the ilford slow product. I remember the Ilford product was a whole bunch easier to get on the stanless reel without crimping it.

Alan Johnson · Sep 9, 2016

The introduction of the thin emulsion Adox KB14 and KB17 (distributed in the US through franchised Leica Dealers) also marked the start of a debate about the merits of solvent and high acutance developers.
As mentioned in Popular Photography May 1955, Willi Beutler argued for his high acutance developers, Neodyn and Beutler in Leica Fotografie magazine.For the first time, the grain was fine enough that a good argument could be made.
Some 40 years later the argument was taken up by Barry Thornton >Developers >Original Beutler:
http://www.barrythornton.com/
I obtained a good result with Delta 100 @EI=100 , Beutler 1+1+10, 15min 20C, agitate 30s start then only every 3 min.
However there seems to be few users of Beutler type developers today.

Thin Emulsion Films c1956

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency