HAS ANYONE TRIED ATOMIC X FILM AND HAPPY WITH IT?

<p>http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/atomic-x-iso-100-4x5-panchromatic-sheet-film?variant=11659375619</p>

<p><br />secondly the monobath process claims to offer black and white photography without a darkroom </p>

<p>This subject seems related to PANATOMIC X which this new film claims to be similar to<br>

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00CzLv</p>

<p>Price is reasonable. I would like to see it in 120 rolls. No I have not tried it but I bet you could do a search on Flickr and find some examples. I have heard and seen both good and bad from the monobath. Monobath formulas are tailored for one film and all the bad examples I have seen were with higher speed films. I believe what they mean by no darkroom is you can load the film in a dark bag into a daylight tank.</p>

<p>Monobath formulas have been around for a long time, though usually known for not being very good. It seems that they do have an advantage of not needing to time accurately. </p>

<p>My favorite developer, especially with Panatomic-X, has been Diafine, for many years. Diafine is a two bath developer, so four including rinse and fix. But Diafine, like the mentioned monobath, does have the advantage of not needing accurate, or film dependent, timing. </p>

<p>The Diafine recommended EI for Panatomic-X has been between 160 and 250. I suspect that lower values are better, but I did use it for many years at 250.<br>

It seems that one goal of the link mentioned is a replacement for Polaroid type 55, which gives both a viewable print and a negative that can be used to make more prints. Polaroid obviously needs a monobath, as it all happens in the goo between the negative and print. </p>

<p>I am not quite sure what they mean by no darkroom. With the usual tank, you load the film into the tank in a darkroom or changing bag, then do the rest in the light. It seems that with this monobath, you put the film into the already full tank in the dark. That sounds harder.</p>

<p>It would simplify tray developing of roll film, though. I did manage to tray develop a roll of VP122 in Diafine, with four trays. I spaced them apart enough to reduce accidents. It would be easier with one tray, though. I have another roll of VP122 that I will try with HC-110.</p>

 

<p>As to the actual question, Panatomic-X isn't hard to find on eBay. I suspect it is good to about 50 years with normal storage conditions. (Room temperature not in tropical areas.) </p>

<p>I also have some Pan F+ which I like, though the recommended EI in Diafine is 80.</p>

<p>Glen are you thinking of Plus-X? Panatomic-X was rated around 50-64 in Diafine.</p>

<p>Maybe it should have said 50 or 64, but the box used to say 250, and I used it that way for many years. </p>

<p>OK.</p>

 

<p>Those were really great responses. thank you. I think the tonal range is very appealing and the promise of a simplified process makes it attractive as well as an alternative to New 55 film for other uses or as a newly available panatomic x.</p>

I did a very careful film speed testing of Atomic-X in Ilford-DDX 1+7 at 70*F using BTZS tubes and got a personal film

speed of asa 40 at a scene brightness range of 7. While I agree that this film gives a very nice tonal range with really nice

separation in the shadows and highlights it isn't anywhere near a iso 100 speed film. I like it but the I would like it more if

it were a full f.stop faster as advertised. I was actually looking for a replacement for my dwindling stock of TMAX 100

readyload and it may well become that even being 1/2 as fast .... It is practically grainless and does seem to exhibit a lot

of traits attributable to Panatomic-X including its speed ....<div></div>