Bought some vintage Kodak Panatomic-X, expired in 1982

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by photo5, Jul 15, 2011.

  1. 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.
     
  2. I'm sure Rodinal would do the job (I am a fan), but I would think something like xtol would be stunning.
     
  3. 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.
    If you can't get any HC110, I appologize in advance since you said you don't have any.
    Here's a shot from expired Panatomic-X (1964) processed for 5 minutes at 68 deg. F in HC110 dilution B.
    00Z2pp-379973584.jpg
     
  4. 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.
    00Z2pv-379975584.jpg
     
  5. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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).
    [​IMG]
    Seattle, July 2011.
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. Thanks Mike, I'm really enjoying this film.
     
  13. 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.
    Lynn
     
  14. 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!
    So, I recommend Diafine with it, and a somewhat higher IE, though maybe not quite 250.
    -- glen
     
  15. 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.
     

Share This Page

1111