Bought some vintage Kodak Panatomic-X, expired in 1982

<p>And I'm going to go out and shoot some today. Will rate it at ISO 32. Anyone shoot this film much lately? I am hoping for printable results when I develop it next week. I don't have any HC-110 but am thinking of using Rodinal.</p>

<p>I'm sure Rodinal would do the job (I am a fan), but I would think something like xtol would be stunning.</p>

<p>HC110 dilution B is what I use exclusively for Panatomic-X. I've shot expired Panatomic-X dating back as far as a 1964 expiration date (then it was marketed as an ISO 40 film). Also three rolls from 1977, but most of what I have has a 1986/88 expiration date. Should get very little fog. Never tried it with Rodinal so I don't know what to expect. If possible, try to grab some HC110. <br />If you can't get any HC110, I appologize in advance since you said you don't have any.<br>

Here's a shot from expired Panatomic-X (1964) processed for 5 minutes at 68 deg. F in HC110 dilution B.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's one from some Panatomic-X that expired in 1977. Same processing data. Both negatives scanned with Epson V600 at 2400 dpi and resized for posting with MS Office Picture Editor.</p><div></div>

<p>Peter, no Xtol here, but I have a friend who used to develop his Panatomic-X in Rodinal 1:100 and he got excellent results. I will probably use 1:50. </p>

<p>Mike, nice images. I hope I can get that kind of tone. I'd like to use HC-110, I'll see if the lab I'm using has some, but I doubt it. I have some Rodinal I bought last year which should do the trick. I'll certainly post some scans here when I get the negatives developed on Monday.</p>

<p>I never liked TMAX 100, preferring Plus-X or Tri-X instead. I loved Agfa 25 in 120 format, but lately I've been interested in shooting 35mm black and white (have my Rolleiflex up for sale currently as I need the cash for a trip in September). I'm excited to shoot this Panatomic-X. This weekend I hope for sunshine and will bring my tripod with me.</p>

<p>The film came out just fine, no sign of fog that I could see. 6 minutes in Sprint 1:9 (decided to try it instead of the Rodinal), film exposed at ISO 32. Next roll will expose at ISO 25 and probably develop for 7 minutes.</p>

<p>Follow up. The film was a little bit under exposed and a little bit under developed, I've concluded after trying to print some of the images. Next will be expose at ISO 25 and develop for 9 minutes, not 7 minutes. I think scanning is ultimately much easier and more rewarding than printing on RC paper. I bought some Seagull RC, about half the price of Ilford nowadays, and it is just horrible. As a box of 100 sheets of Ilford is about twice as much now as it was a few years ago, I think I am about done printing in the darkroom. It's just not worth the expense anymore for me.</p>

<p>You should try scanning the underexposed negatives. Some scanners actually handle underexposure better than overexposure. At least that's my experience with the Epson V600. </p>

<p>Mike, I will definitely be scanning these. But first I want to nail the exposure and development of this vintage film. Will be out shooting this weekend and will try again on Monday. Stay tuned.</p>

<p>Here is a scan from one image I took on the Panatomic-X. It has a prominent grain structure due to the high energy developer I used (Sprint).</p>

<p><img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/i-2GzZZmw/0/L/i-2GzZZmw-L.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <em><strong><a href="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/i-2GzZZmw/0/XL/i-2GzZZmw-XL.jpg">Seattle, July 2011</a>.</strong></em></p>

<p>Good tones and sharpness, Dave. Grain doesn't seem prominent from my monitor. Rodinal, BTW, would be most likely to emphasize grain. Many users, though, like the sharpness of Rodinal. </p>

<p>Thanks Mike, I'm really enjoying this film.</p>

<p>A truly amazing quality film that was designed specifically for full strength D76 (not that other developers wouldn't work well). If it were still being made, I would used it.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

<p>I recently developed some panatomic-X (I believe) I exposed 40 years ago. I use Diafine, which gives about IE250 for Panatomic-X. (This was bulk Panatomic-X bought from Freestyle, which doesn't have any markings on the film.) It came out just fine!</p>

<p>So, I recommend Diafine with it, and a somewhat higher IE, though maybe not quite 250.</p>

<p>-- glen</p>

Interesting discussion - I recently bought a roll that had expired back in August 1971 and stuck it through my Yashica Mat. ISO 32, red filter, two extra clicks on the shutter knob. "An extremely fine-grain panchromatic film of low speed and moderate contrast", it says in the little paper sheet that came in the box.<br>

<br>

Example one:<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7029/6797589281_779f90756c_z.jpg"><br>

<br>

Obviously very blotchy - doubly so given that I boosted the contrast with Photoshop - although the detail is there. I had no control over development, which was done by Genie Imaging in the UK. The whole roll turned out, although I bracketed a lot so there are basically only five photos. Here's the second example, without any retouching:<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6797589903_a274b990b6_z.jpg"><br>

<br>

Very old-world look there. I have no idea how the box was stored. Still, 1971.