Panatomic-X Replacement?

<p>I have one roll of Panatomic-X left in my stash of frozen film, and once it's gone, it's gone. Unless I want to buy some really ancient stuff with a dubious past off eBay. No, I'd rather buy something new.</p>

<p>I took a look over at Freestyle and they have several slow emulsions there. It's a sizable selection -- and to confuse matters, each one sounds wonderful, but I can't afford to try them all -- or rather, I can, but it'll take too long to do so. So, I'm wondering if anybody here has any experience with any of the emulsions they offer. Here's a list of all the ones I found at Freestyle that have ISOs of 50 or slower.</p>

<p>Adox CMS II 20 (ISO 12-20)<br>

Agfa Copex Rapid (ISO 50-64)<br>

Ilford Pan F+ 50 (ISO 50)<br>

Rollei ATP1.1 Advanced Technical Pan (ISO 32)<br>

Rollei Ortho 25 (ISO 25)<br>

Rollei RPX 25 (ISO 25)</p>

<p>Also, I develop my own B&W -- I've used Kodak D76 on all my B&W emulsions and it does a fine job. I dunno, are any of these tricky to develop at all? I appreciate any help you care to provide.</p>

 

<p>I can only comment on the Pan F+, which I've been stand developing with Rodinal the last 2 years. I'd use D76 if I hadn't run out last year, and I have probably 2 lifetimes of Rodinal I inherited, so I keep using it. The rendition of Pan F+ with this combo, IMHO is reminiscent of old Plus-X in D76 1:1, but maybe not quite as forgiving. It is an old emulsion, so not quite as "sharp" (if you're a pixel peeper) as some newer ones but quite satisfactory for most of my B&W work, and the negatives scan pretty well.You might try a search for comments on some of the other films....I thinkI remember reading one of them had a spectral response which was unusual...maybe based on an aerial photography emulsion. BTW, if you're the Michael McBroom of the now defunct Camera Bluebook, I've enjoyed your many comments over the years. If you're not, your name puts you in good company.</p>

<p>Tmax 100 is finer grained and faster than Panatomic-X ever was.</p>

<p>Every film has its own "look" so the best you can hope for it to get close. Choice of developer as well as the exposure index you choose are also factors. Of the slow films I've tried recently I like the look of Rollei Ortho 25 best, although it's still not Panatomic-X. </p>

<p>I agree with Larry. Kodak's claim when it came out was that Tmax 100 was finer grained than Panatomic X and that Tmax 400 was finer grained than Plus X. If I wanted to go with a slow traditional film I would try Pan F but I think I only ever shot one roll of Panatomic X. I used medium format when I was looking for fine grain in B&W.</p>

<p>Hello Michael and everyone. I have tried all my tricks on the ATP 1.1 and Copex films (35mm & 120) and have settled on the Agfa Retro 80S emulsions for both these formats. Grain is very good and the film has a box speed (80asa) that is believable. The film also has a "mild" IR effect when used with a 25A (red) filter and renders blue sky without any type of filter. For a roll of either format (36ex for the 35mm) I use a 450 ml Nikor tank, 3.0 ml of Rodinal and 22m developing time. 3 minute DI pre-soak, 30sec constant agitation at developer fill up and (1) ez roll each minute. 80S does not appear to be fussy with fixer, but keep the fixing to under 7 minutes. I use a non harding type. The limitations of picture sizing does not do justice to this scene. No filter was used on the camera. Enjoy, Bill</p><div></div>

<p>Hello again. The only "cautions" for this film is to NOT use an acid stop bath....Two fills of plan water works wonders. Loading should be in a very subdued light environment. Bill</p>

<p>Ilford Pan F is beautiful stuff and most likely has the closest emulsion and base characteristics to old Pan-X. The Rollei films I've tried all were excellent but had super thin base materials that curled a lot in much the same way the old Efke 25 use to. Adox CMS 20 is a pure technical film similar in many ways to Kodak Tech Pan and needs a low contrast developer for reasonable continuous tone work like Technidol or POTA. You can also find the Adox film marketed under the brand Bluefire Police film and buy it in kits with matching liquid developer. <br>

It's hard to top good old Tmax 100 and 400 for great general purpose fine-grained films. I abandoned all other B&W films years ago in favor of them.</p>

<p>Unless you want to tackle C-41, it's not an option, BUT I have come to really appreciate Ilford XP2.<br /> It's ISO 400, to be sure, but it produces essentially grainless, creamy-looking black and white negatives.<br /> I used to shoot a fair amount of Panatomic-X in its day, but the couple of rolls of it I still had in the 'fridge' were not good - I actually had better luck with outdated Tri-X.</p>

<p>Here is the full negative from XP2 and a 100% crop from it on the right. This was taken with a 35-80mm Nikkor on a Nikon 2020.</p><div></div>

<p>I am 79, I used Pnatomic-x and<br>

really did not appreciate<br>

it fully until it was gone.<br>

apparently even old rolls<br>

are still usable.<br>

it seems to take a long time<br>

to deteriorate.<br>

I see mentions that there is an<br>

aeriel film of the same name. <br>

I do not know how close it is<br>

to the original.<br>

also I heard that the N film in<br>

Polaroid 55p/n was made by<br>

Kodak and was really<br>

Panatomic-x.<br>

Modern Photography had a<br>

comparison<br>

and it is interesting to note<br>

that Pan F by Ilford, an otherwise<br>

fine film was far less sharp<br>

then Kodak's Panatomic-x.<br>

I also read that Ilford Pn - f <br>

does not last and if not exposed<br>

and developed deteriorates <br>

fairly rapidly. Panatomic-x sms to<br>

last a long time.<br>

I have no confirmations of this.<br>

only what others have published.<br>

generally slower film are higher in contrast.<br>

and do not act or behave like Panatomic-x.<br>

I would be interested in hearing of a film similar to Panatomic-x.<br>

it seems to have no equal.<br>

but after all film and film cameras<br>

in the eyes of the world obsolete.<br>

A slim possibility is that now<br>

kodak film is manufactered<br>

new corporate ownership. that this comnpany may introducxe or re-introduce old products.<br>

plus x and panatomic x among them.<br>

if anyonme had had good comparable results from other slower films it would be ghood it they shared this.</p>

<p>It is possible Adox might me the company to watch.</p>

<p>Ilford HP5 is still available and is still wonderful. With that I give you a fond farewell.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>Back to the rollei 80s It is a very sharp and low grain film. Here is an example developed in rodinal. if it looks like this in rodinal imagine what you can do with other developers.</p>

<div></div>

<p>TMX is excellent for 35mm and medium format, especially if you're scanning rather than making optical enlargements. Virtually no grain. For me, especially in contrasty daylight, it's best at EI 64-80 for developing in ID-11; or right at box speed in Microphen. Usually I prefer Microphen, both for getting the full speed but also for taming highlights in contrasty light without flattening out the distinctive snappy look. Microphen delivers very slightly perceptible grain, but it's still far from a grainy film. The only time I've seen noticeable grain with TMX was in Rodinal.</p>

<p>I tried Pan F+, just couldn't get along with it well enough to really like it. Easiest good results for full box speed of 50 were in Diafine, but it was grainier than TMX. Also, Pan F+ seems to have a somewhat less stable latent image. It seems to need to be developed ASAP after exposure. TMX can wait for years and still deliver good results, as long as it's not underexposed. But I see plenty of good results with Pan F+ from other photographers. I just prefer the look of T-Max 100.</p>

<p>Agree. I`m currently printing an old TMX strip and I`m surprised in how fine the grain is. I`m lately used to FP4+ in D76.<br>

If I were looking for finest grain I`d buy TMX to be developed in undiluted D76. I think older 25-50ASA emulsions are not worth it to me anymore.<br>

I have read good things about Fuji Across. Never used it.</p>

<p>The oldest Panatomic-X I ever used expired in 1964 and the negatives still looked great. As I have posted images from it several other times in earlier threads I'll resist the temptation to post them again unless requested. </p>

<p>If it's just fine grain then I'd second Lex's recommendation. When I occasionally did outdoor portraits I'd usually use TMAX 100 processed in Paterson FX-39 at 1:9. Still fine grained, at or near box speed performance and pleasing tonality. I tried Rodinal a few times at 1:25 and did notice some grain, but it was sharp grain and not objectionable.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, if you're the Michael McBroom of the now defunct Camera Bluebook, I've enjoyed your many comments over the years. If you're not, your name puts you in good company.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, Stephen, that's me. Still alive and active in a few Internet Forums, including Photo.net. BTW, I prefer "Out of Print" to defunct. Defunct implies that it is broken, no longer useful. Out of Print simply means what it means. The informational content is still intact. *scuse the correction*</p>

<p>Okay, I really appreciate all the responses, guys. It definitely gives me a lot to think about. Along with the Panatomic-X, this frozen stash I have came with other B&W emulsions, including almost a brick of Plus-X Pan, which expired in 1983. It's worked pretty well -- a very usable, fine-grained film. I found that, because of its age, the film strips tended to cup when drying, and that I had to dial in more developing time -- about a minute above the recommended value -- else the negatives would come out rather thin looking. There's some Fuji 1600 in there and a few other rolls of ISO 400, I think. One roll of Ilford -- HP4, I think it is. It's been a while since I inventoried the stash, which is probably close to 100 rolls of mixed 35mm and medium format, color (C-41 and E-6) and B&W. I acquired the bulk of it years ago from an acquaintance, and have added a few finds I've come across, also.</p>

<p>The Plus X is almost gone -- a pity -- and I haven't had the need for that fast Fuji stuff. So I've been buying B&W as I need it, and I've always bought what I knew, which was Tri-X. I develop it using undiluted D-76. I prefer the look to 1:1, which has noticeable visible grain.</p>

<p>Bronica ETRSi, 75mm f/2.8, Tri-X:<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/strandharleys4a.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="600" /><br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/strandharleys3b.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="628" /><br>

I've just always been fond of the tonal gradations I get with Tri-X, especially medium format .</p>

<p>I think what I'm gonna do, since a few of you have recommended it, and since y'all claim the grain to be very fine , is go with the T-Max 100. I'm hoping it scans well. Or actually, I hope it dupes well. I don't use my scanner for 35mm anymore. I have a dupe rig that I use with my NEX 7 instead. It gives me 6000 x 4000 pixel dupes.</p>

<p>However, some of those other films listed at Freestyle sound quite interesting, like Adox CMS II, which claims 6-ft prints on the diagonal, or the Rollei Ortho 25 stuff. A few of the other exotics, just cuz they sound interesting.</p>

<p>Good luck and shoot on.</p>

<p>The only two that will not be a hassle to develop are the Rollei RPX 25 (expensive) and the Pan F+. The others require special developers or extra handling like stand development.<br>

Tmax 100 is finer grained than Pan F and not a problem to develop once you get the development time right. You do need to fix it a little longer than normal to get it to clear completely. Delta 100 is similar to Tmax 100.</p>

<p>Beg to differ Scotty. Re-read my 80s procedure...bones basic if I say so. Larry, be so kind to pop in with your "procedure". Bill</p>

<p>Ditto I use Rodinal and Diafine with Rollei 80s. Also Xtol 1:3 or 1:2 is fine.</p>

<p>I vote for the out-of-date Panatomic-X. <br>

Assuming reasonably average storage conditions, (not in a tropical state or country), I believe it lasts close to 50 years. The prices on the usual auction sites aren't so bad some of the time.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=287732">Bill Bowes</a> "Beg to differ Scotty. Re-read my 80s procedure...bones basic if I say so. ..."<br>

<br>

Bill, I was referring to only the original list. I did not realize that the floor was open to nominations or I would have mentioned Tmax 100 which appears to be the film that killed of Panatomic X.<br>

<br>

I tried 80s and found that it needed an ISO of 40 to get decent shadow details. Coincidentally, RPX 25 does nicely at ISO 40 when developed in Xtol 1+2 for 9:30 at 68F. Carefully handled with conventional developers and methods it is a match for CMS 20 II and you get the bonus of texture and details in the shadows that are blocked up with CMS 20.<br>

</p>

<p>Hello Scotty and everyone. I have used the two TMax films for years and have high regard for them. If you pulled up some of my mixed postings, you will find that I use the same chemistries (Rodinal, 510-Pyro and Caffenol CL) on these films, with the same mixes and times. The 80s film has "edged" out the 100 and 400 Max's, but not eliminated them. The factors favoring the 80s are the blue sky rendering without a Yel or G filter, and the "mild" IR with the 25A filter. It's a matter of not "lugging" around more kit. Keeping solutions and times "standard" just makes the work flow a bit happier! As a note, all my negs are exposed with the Zone System and developed for wet printing density, should I ever start that up again. Bill</p><div></div>

<p>Me again. Just a note: Use of a G (orange) filter with the 80s film gives almost the same sky rendering as a 25A filter, but without the IR "glows". Bill</p>