Jump to content

Panatomic X and Aging


25asa

Recommended Posts

Ebay Item number: 270113102320

 

Anyone interested there is some on Ebay right now for sale. 14 rolls of 35mm.

Might be someones chance to try this film.

 

Now the second point. Anyone on here who still has stock of this film in 35mm

or 120, can you comment on how your film has aged in terms of grain size? My

Pan X films have very little fog, which is good, but I also notice the grain

size is also more noticable for a 32 ASA film. Somehow my film has larger grain

then one would expect. Ron Mowrey mentioned because the films has a few layers

rated at different speeds, the layer with the bigger grain has been fogged

more? Something like that. Anyone comment on their Pan X?

 

Also for fun why not show us your Pan X pics you have taken, old or new, that

you really like. Here below is a pic of what the Pan X box would look like had

it still been made today. And if anyone wonders there is no chance at all Kodak

will ever bring back this film. None. Not even if you had a million dollars to

do a run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one roll loaded in one of my cameras right now, so I'll report on it when I finally finish it and get it developed. I developed one roll from the same lot, and it looked decent. I haven't gotten around to scanning it yet. I don't recall it being particularly grainy, though, but then like I said I haven't looked over it that closely. I don't know when this particular lot expired.

 

By the way, I put my other 8 rolls up on Ebay after testing the first roll. I got $102 for all 8 rolls, which really surprised me. I didn't have boxes for any of them, either. If my sale is any indication, I would expect this lot to bring at least $150 and possibly $200.

 

I've also just bought a big lot of expired 120 film, and in it were two or three rolls of Pan-x. As they weren't boxed, I don't know the expiration, but the oldest boxed roll from this same lot expired in '91 as I recall. Since I don't have enough to bother trying to sell it, I guess I just need to shoot it and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently shot some with an expire date of (I think) 1986. It had been refrigerated for all the time I had it, maybe ten years. It looked great. No fog to speak of. In general slow film ages more gracefully than fast film.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last fall I bought 18 35mm rolls of Pan-X on e-bay for $86. They had an exp. date of Sept. '85, and a date on the plastic that said "11/11/83", which was probably when it was purchased. The stuff had not been cold stored, so I knew I was taking my chances by bidding on it. Even the lab I brought it to was skeptical.I just know I heard that the shelf life of Pan-X is incredibly long because it's slow monochrome film. Anyway I got totally blessed because the test roll I got back from the lab showed no fog or grain whatsoever on the negs or prints. This particular bid was good for me 'cause these days I just can't afford to drop $150 - $200 on film at a time, I just bought a house.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 or 6 years ago, the local camera repair shop gave me a box of 2x3 Pan-X sheet film from the late 1960's -- it had not been refrigerated. The results had definite fog, but were still printable.

 

I started doing photography in the late 1950's when Pan-X was available in drugstores, and never really found the 35mm or 120 versions useful because of the slow shutter speeds required. OTOH, I have a freezer full of Verichrome Pan -- YMMV :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Scott. All film gets increased grain with age, not just Panatomic-X. In fact, for me at least, it's the grain increase that eventually stops me using outdated film, rather than the fog level.

 

I had a huge reel of cine-stock FP4, dated 1987, that I was using for "messing about" shots until quite recently. Over the years, I watched the grain grow from typical FP4 fineness to about the same as Tri-X. It might have been a different story if I'd frozen it, but I didn't have the freezer space.

 

Anyway. I don't know what causes this grain increase, but I'm pretty sure it's nothing to do with different speed layers. In fact I didn't think that Pan-x had multiple speed layers. It might be the gelatin matrix, which normally constrains filamentary silver growth during development, getting weaker and looser with age. That's just a guess. Perhaps someone knows the reason for sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was PanX discontinued? How long ago was it?

 

I recently suffered the embarassment of asking for it at a local camera shop in Chicago, and then having the staff heckle me aloud, as though I was joking in my request.

 

I hadn't shot anything but TriX and PlusX for years, and just felt like shooting a low-speed film that day. Had no idea that Panatomic X production had ceased. Ended up with an Ilford ISO 50 speed film instead.

 

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brother Scott, I just looked at a couple of contact sheet of Paantomic-X film in 120 form and that was 4/23/07 and same for the photograph I shot of the young lady. It was done at night. I will see how to get it posted on Photo.net for my gallery. I will go back to ebay.com and check the film out. Rufus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Scott already knows this because we have discussed it before, but I see substantially more grain in long expired Pan X even if it has been kept forzen. I have some frozen 1988 expiry and it absolutely has noticable grain at 11x14 from 35 MM negs, while prints from negs shot in the 70s do not.

 

Jay L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Pan X does have remarkable keeping qualities. Got a roll expired in 1988 last year and contrast is fine and low to no fog. It does have a small increase in grain, but since it's already very fine, this does not show up in 8x10 enlargements.

 

Just for the record, Panatomic X roll films were officially discontinued in 1989. The only thing close to it today are the Efke ISO 25 and 50 emulsions. Rodinal 1:50 is an exellent developer for Panatomic X. They have times on all of the old AGFA Rodinal boxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Efke is made in more formats then most films. It is in 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10, and many of the odd sizes including metric. That's the beauty of Efke films.

 

Panatomic X was only available in 35mm and 120 near the end. I don't know if it was ever made in sheet sizes (other then Polaroid Type 55).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found that while Pan-X is excellent stuff and ages well, Plus X pro has served as a worthy

replacement. Someone on a different forum thread suggested this to me. I used a lot of

Pan-X and Tech Pan in High school, but found Tech Pan was much better than Pan-X

especially when trying to make poster size prints from a 35mm negative. While Kodak claims

T-Max replaced Pan-X, it did not. The 2 films have very different results. Also the base film

seems to have a different hue. I never saw Pan-X in 120 format.

 

However I would like to keep some Pan-X in the freezer for just such a day where the proper

opportunity arrives, especially in 120 format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Lehman, I am a fan of Kodak Verichrome Pan 120. When I started to try different Kodak film. Verichrome Pan was the film I truly loved the most. I did purchase a few rolls of Pantomic - X in 120 form and love the result. By the way if you are interest, I would not mind I would love to purchase a brick of Verichrome Pan 120 from you, Rufus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...