Anyone Want Return of Panatomic X?

http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p626/braxus351/PanX_zpsfbis4kry.jpg

 

With Kodak reintroducing Ektachrome late this year, they made mention of other films that could return. I wouldn't be surprised if Plus X would be one of them. That said I wonder if Kodak would consider bringing back Panatomic X? Anyone here want this film to return?

Sounds good to me!

I would love to see this film return. Also Verichrome Pan and Super XX (at least in sheet film). But I think the only way we'd get any of these would be if there were enough photographers who had the money to pool and buy out Kodak. Then they would have to manufacture what they were told. But to the OP, Panatomic-X is the one I miss most.

I have to admit to only having shot one roll of it, and while it was a nice film it didn't have me clamoring for more.

 

If they want to make Plus-X, though, all I can say is BRING IT ON!

 

While we're at it, can we pretty please get TXP-320 in roll film-preferably 220?

Once upon a time

 

Modern Photography 1972-09

Edited July 12, 2017 by JDMvW

Here's the end of the article:

I would be happy to see Panatomic X again, especially in 35 mm format. I used it quite a bit 40 years ago when all I had was a 35 mm camera. As the test article from JDM shows, it definitely gave you an edge in the grain/sharpness department if you had enough light to work with. Unfortunately, I doubt that there would be enough of a market for it at this point.

The current Kodak film that best emulates Panatomic X is probably Tmax 100. I have shot both, although not much, and I'm pretty sure I couldn't tell if a print came from one film or the other. Even though they seem similar, there must be reasons why someone would prefer Panatomic X over Tmax 100, beyond nostalgia. What do you see as the benefits of Pan X?

Years ago, Panatomic-X in Diafine, at some EI like 250, was my favorite. I suspect that I would still buy more if they were still making in, but maybe I am not quite as interested as 50 years ago.

I'd love for Kodak to start making Panatomic X again. Early in my newspaper days I was all about Tri-X with both D-76 and Acufine but Panatomic was the better choice for a few things at a time when medium format was out of my budget. It filled a distinct need and would be great to have it back. Plus X too.

 

Rick H.

There are times when I want a SLOW film.

The better to get streaky water movement/flow, even so I will need to use a ND filter.

At the time Panatomic-X was discontinued, I think it had the same RMS granularity as TMX. But image quality depends upon more than just grain. Individual tastes vary of course. Somewhere among my old photo magazines is a comparison test of Panatomic-X, Ilford Pan F, and Agfapan 25. Curious enough to look for it.

Not that the comparison means much, but the Diafine suggested EI for Panatomic-X is (or was) 250, where TMX is 160.

 

Well, I started using Diafine when I was 10 years old, when EI numbers were special, and you followed what the directions said.

 

Now I know, that I can change exposure however I feel like, depending on the scene, or my mood at the time.

 

I did a lot of Tri-X at 1600, too, especially for yearbook photography in 7th and 8th grade, with lots of indoor shots, without flash.

 

I still like Diafine, but more recently have been using HC-110, especially for older film.

 

But it does seem like newer films don't get the big EI boost that older films did.

If the goal strictly is a slow film, what about Pan F?

 

I admit that I have zero experience with it other than a few rolls in the freezer that I should shoot one of these days.

 

I know that even in the shade, I often need large apertures to get hand-holdable exposures with Velvia.

 

I shot a few rolls of Efke 25 back when you could still get it-I found a roll of 50 the other day.

I am about half way through 100 feet of Pan F+, and I do like it.

 

But as above, it doesn't get the EI boost in Diafine that FX does.

But then again, that isn't a real reason for choosing a film.

 

I think it is because this is the film I was using, with Diafine, when I was young, and still remember it.

 

Then again, I have two 100 foot rolls, bought on eBay and obviously expired, that I haven't even opened yet.

I suspect that I am not really in a hurry to see new rolls come out.

I've always suspected, but couldn't prove that the chemists who created Diafine were thinking first of Kodak films. However, its single solution developer, Acufine, seemed a bit more generous with non-Kodak films. For example, in college (mid to late 70's) I tried Diafine with Plus-X at E.I. 250 and liked it. But Ilford's FP4 was also recommended at the same E.I. and gave good results as well. Tri-X did well at the recommended 1000. Panatomic-X might have been 64, but I'm not sure since that was so long ago.

I believe when I first knew it, Panatomic-X in Diafine was EI 250, but in the box that I have that is old enough to say, it is 160. New boxes don't have it anymore.

 

Diafine was first explained to me by my grandfather when I was 10 years old, as the emulsion soaks up part A, and then with Part B, develops using the A that it has soaked up. So, the amount of development depends on how much the emulsion can hold, which might change as film formulations change.

 

It isn't obvious to me that the Diafine formulation that was optimal for films 50 years ago, is still optimal today. Though I do like to put older films into it, so maybe that doesn't matter so much.

 

The data sheet: http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/acufine_tech/acufine.pdf

 

gives EI, times, and temperatures for Acufine, Diafine, and Acu-1.

Correction to my previous post: it was Acufine I tried in college, not Diafine. I did use some Diafine during the early 2000's though.

Formulation of Panatomic-X involved Cadmium compounds, now considered hazardous, would not legally be able to make same film in US now.

Does it really have that much Cd in it?

 

You can still buy NiCd batteries, which do have a lot of Cd and should be properly recycled.

 

But if it is just a dopant for the AgBr, it should be a really small amount.

With Kodak making some emulsions overseas and then importing them, I wouldn't think cadmium would be the problem. Kind of like the mercury in mercury cells. Small amount in each cell, but it was seen as a threat. I'll bet way more mercury gets into the environment from improperly disposed of CFL's.

But to the cadmium issue: so was cadmium released into environment during manufacture, processing of film, or still in the processed film?

I think Kodak could find a way, even though it would have to sell at a much higher price that its other films. If Kodak doesn't think photographers would pay more for it, they should look at what outdated Panatomic-X is selling for on ebay.

I'd like to see Panatomic-X film brought back in 35mm, at least. The more film types available, the more likely people will return to shooting film.

 

Hmm... I don't guess it's

worth the trouble asking

for 220 film...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Although the return of Panatomic-X does seem unlikely, I would wonder how close it would be to the last version made? Or would the improvement in granularity that Plus-X and Tri-X enjoyed a decade or so ago be incorporated into a reborn Panatomic-X?

Having worked in a camera store for more than 10 years back in the 70s and 80s, I'll say this: yes, Pan-X was a very good film, BUT, for every 100 rolls of Tri-X we sold, maybe we sold one roll of Pan-X. It was always #1 in our 35mm out-of-date bin. So what on earth would make Kodak want to bring back this very unpopular film? We probably sold more Kodacolor 828 than 35mm Pan-X. If you really want to see the return of a superior slow speed film, how about Ektar 25. That stuff was great, and they could probably make it even better now.

We sold more in the family camera shop during mid to late 70's than the 80's. By then either color negative or Tri-X. The newspaper was our best Tri-X customer and they bought 100' rolls from us. My dad and I alternated between keeping bulk Plus-X and Tri-X in our loader. The Panatomic-X didn't exactly fly off the shelves, but we always managed to sell what we had. During the late 70's I might use a roll or two a month.

Chuck- I'd love to see Ektar 25 as well. With a good lens at optimum aperture with tripod mounted camera I could get 8x10's that looked as good as medium format work.