Panatomic-X, A Look Back

Keith,

Thank you for the detailed information.

 

You wrote "It's sad what Kodak has stopped making in order to be profitable once again."

 

I know very little about business, but it's obvious this is the era of companies "reinventing" themselves. I just wonder if it is working. Is Kodak profitable again? Looking at their stock value over the past year I expect they are not.

 

I'm just waiting for Boeing to announce they are going to stop manufacturing aircraft and become a major coffee importer. Of course it will all be brought in fresh by air, on the airline Juan Valdez created.

My favorite memory of Pan-X comes from the mid-1970s, winter, in Ohio. There was an ice storm one night. The rain/sleet/snow/etc. stopped falling, the wind stilled, the clouds cleared and the temperature fell, and everything was coated. I positioned a street light behind a big willow tree, and set my 35mm camera on a tripod. I stopped down to maybe f/11 for depth of field, latched up the mirror to avoid vibrations, and opened the shutter with a cable release. Then I went inside the house to get warm. Fifteen minutes or so later I came back out, closed the shutter, and took the camera back inside to thaw the film before I cranked it to the next frame. I got some great images that night: super contrast, crisp focus, every sparkling crystalline detail of the ice on that willow. Sure wish I could find the file with those negatives...

I used to love Panatomic X and Microdol back in the first half of the 60s, when I had a simple rangefinder camera and a darkroom.

 

I had a few rolls of Efke 25 around for a long time recently, with the intention to get some equipment and develop it myself. But then I decided not to bother and sold it.

 

Black and white memories. All gone.

 

Such is life.

 

But thanks for letting me partake in your conversation and look at your nice pictures!

I stumbled over this thread, because I just got something around 120 roll films of Panatomic-X, long outdated, but always deep frozen.

 

I expect to use it mainly in the 6x9 back on my Sinar Norma, but probably also in my 6x6 Bronica. For development I intended to use HC-110...

 

Hoping I can find the time for experiments soon I promise I will post the results...

<p>There's a new kid on the block for nostalgic photographers: Rollei ATP, which is a lot like Kodak Technical Pan. I shot a few films with it at 25 ASA, developed in Rodinal using the Digital Truth Massive Development Chart, and got fine results, not too contrasty, on a semi-sunny day. The second attempt, in moderate late sunlight, was less succcesful - the images turned out to be way too contrasty to even consider printing them. Perhaps I overdeveloped that time. But hey, resolution and fine grain a plenty to justify using the fine optics we use to pay so much money for!</p>

<p>Rollei ATP1.1 (Advanced Technical Pan) is doing well in a low contrast document developer like Rollei Low Contrast 1+4 - 1+6. If you want to shoot it at box speed (iso 32) you need the special ATP-DC developer 1+11,5.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Panatomic-X bit the dust because the formulation involved Cadmium. That was too environmentally hazardous, formulating without it would not recoup the investment (always a slow seller compared to Tri-X and Plus-X), and Kodak sincerely believes T-MAX 100 is a superior film.</p>

<p>I'm guessing here, but perhaps that cadmium content explains Panatomic-X's distinctive smell: like a freshly-baked cake.</p>

<p>I've had good success processing Panatomic-X in HC110 dilution B. My oldest roll was outdated in 1964 yet the results looked good.</p>

Head over to the film Photography Podcast store. They have some Panatomic X on ice just waiting. I got myself a few

rolls. That said, I always preferred Ilford Pan F for the better contrast.

<p>Here's a shot from a roll of Panatomic-X that expired in 1964. I used a Konica Auto S for the photos.</p><div></div>

<p>I used HC110 dilution B to develop the film for 5 minutes at 68 degrees Fahrenheit. An interesting fact about Panatomic-X from this era is its box speed was 40 rather than 32.</p><div></div>

<p>When this film was manufactured, Kodak's HC110 didn't exist yet, but I used the time from a later roll as a starting point. Turned out that five minutes worked fine.</p>

<p>Here's a shot from a roll that expired in 1977. Same development data.</p><div></div>

<p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-printing-finishing-forum/00URFd</p>

<p>100 foot rolls come up on eBay often enough. I believe there is one right now. Sometimes frozen, sometimes not.<br>

Even not frozen, it last a long time. I had a roll of FX120 last summer, ISO of about 200 in Diafine. Pictures look fine, and no noticeable fog. I believe it was use by 1974.</p>

<p>True. The last one I saw went for 65 USD, I think. Also some professional Panatomic-X or FXP turns up from time to time. I've still got a roll of 120 FXP in my refrigerator. </p>