Kodak Panatomic-X

[midnightcommando]

<p>Hey everybody.</p>

<p>I have shot a grand total of two rolls of Panatomic-X in my life. One was at a party, that was actually quite an amusing night and I got great photos. The other I was photographing scenery in the blue mountains.<br>

I used a Ricoh body both times, I forget which, it's long gone now, its shutter broke and it wasn't worth it to repair (i'd acquired a Pentax KX which used the same lenses) ...<br>

I'm soon to have a Kodak Retina IIc. And nothing would please me more than to shoot Panatomic on it, just for the sake of nostalgia (an age I never existed in, perhaps) ... Only problem is they stopped making the stuff twenty years ago.<br>

Does anyone know either where I might find some Panatomic, or if there is a widely available film today with similar characteristics? (You can't just walk into a shop in Sydney and ask for Agfapan APX 25 unfortunately, or Efke 50 :()<br>

I know about Pan F+ and would use that, but ideally I'd like something just a tad slower. Development isn't a problem, I can do that myself.<br>

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated immensely.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Pan F+.  USE ISO 25 or 32 and figure the development according.  Start with 15% less than Ilfords recomendation if you have a condenser enlarger.</p>

<p>I bought a new100` roll of Plus x.  Very impressive if you have a wet darkroom.  I do not like how it scans.   It is the only film I have ever had trouble scanning, and it is not overdeveloped.<br>

  </p>

[michaelchristensen]

<p>I never shot it.  Before my time in photography, but I came across an exposed roll in a tool box located in the garage .. shot sometime in the year 1956-57 .. and on a whim had it developed at a pro lab in St. Louis (about 2005) .. what a rich experience that was .. my immediate impression was this was amazing film .. and nothing I've seen since has quite approached what Panatomic-X achieved.<br />Information about this film is difficult to come by .. and nothing new, improved, nor for that matter anything considered technoligically superior .. looks exactly like Panatomic-X.  Sadly, the photogrpaher who shot that film died without seeing those photos .. it was exposed on a Voigtlander Vitessa T/Rodenstock lens .. purchased in 1955 in Germany .. and included scenes of my mother and father's first house in Topeka, Kansas ..<br />Oh, I do wish I could buy a package of this film somewhere .. or just learn more about it .. sadly, my interest in photography came too late to share talk of cameras and film with dad .. who subsequently went on to taking family photos and travel pictures on Kodachrome with an instamatic .. but I'm convinced that Panatomic-X is just too beautiful and rich a film to be forgotten.  I'll follow the thread perhaps someone has had some experience with it ..</p>

[michaelging]

<p>You find some every once in a while on Ebay which has been frozen. It was one of the first films that I shot when I got started in photography in the mid 1970's and it spoiled me. Try it in some Microdol-x at  1 to 3 , for great midtones and fine grain.</p>

[midnightcommando]

<p>Ronald: Yes, I toyed with a few rolls of Plus-X about the same time, and I've used the new PX also, I personally like the older one but then again I like contrasty negatives ;)</p>

<p>Michael G: Awesome, i'll hit up Ebay :)</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I liked it very much. But Kodak couldn't wait to discontinue it. They said it was difficult to manufacture. So they gave us T Max 100 instead, in 1986. Usable, but a poor substitute.</p>

[midnightcommando]

<p>Usable my foot! :p</p>

<p>(sorry, I _really_ love the tone and contrast of panatomic)</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I still have some 35mm and 120 Panatomic-X in the freezer.  My best results came from shooting it at 64 and developing it in Edwal FG-7 1:15 with plain water (no SS).  The tonality was great, the sharpness very good and the grain extremely fine.  Pan F+ is the closest thing to Panatomic-X that is still available.  I find that it takes more effort to get good results with it than with Panatomic-X but not as much effort as TMX requires.  If I just put a roll of Plus-X in my Bronica GS-1 will get finer grain in an 8X10 or 11X14 than any 35mm film would give me.  Panatomic-X in 120 size is really nice.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Years ago, I use Pan-x and liked it very much. Wish they still made it. (also, Royal-x, which was at the opposite end of the ASA ratings.)</p>

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

<p>If your are looking for the closest look I have found, try T-Max 100 in Microdol-X, 1:0, rated either 64 or 50 depending on your contrast index. When Kodak discontinued Pan-X and introduced Tmax 100, that was their recommendation. Looks Real Close. </p>

[midnightcommando]

<p>Hmm, Ok, I'll try T-Max. I'll try it in both 35mm and 120, to be fair ;) I have a Rollei and a Leica here which I can battle against eachother if needbe ;)</p>

<p>I'd love to know where I could source Efke 25, I must say. That would be an interesting film to play with.</p>

 

[luca_stramare2]

<p>The only information I found on Panatomic X was in an old Kodak book, something like a guide for the amateur photographer, published around 1955. It's amazing how after WWII any product to look cool had the name "atomic" in it.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Panatomic came out in 1933 ; a 35mm film for the Leica and Retina; to make big enlargements. It was also in Bantum/828 too .Later it was available in smaller sheet films too; plus 120. Apollo 8 used a special 70mm wide with perfs in a magazine EL Hasselblad.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>There is a film that I have a roll of, but, haven't tried it yet. I got it from freestyle. It is Adox CHS 25 ART. The ISO is also 25. Comes in a plastic film cannister. Just like 35 film.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I shot about 50% of my film in Panatomic-X and the other in Tri-X. Looking at the old Panatomic, I am not as impressed as I used to be. Compared to Fuji Acros, the Rollei film and some others, the new stuff is as good, if not better. But then I am not as concerned about grain as I am sharpness these days... something I didn't understand when I was a youngster.</p>

[User_503771]

<p>Freestyle also has Efke ISO 25. I'd imagine that if you monkey with the development a bit, you could get good results from it.</p>

<p>They even sell it in 100-foot cans, for self-loading.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Michael</p>

<p>The Efke 25 looks great at 25 in Diafine.. no super high contrast that way... No monkey.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

<p>I used to use Panatomic -X in 620 roll film sometimes but never could develop it with enough contrast for my tastes. Liked Plus-X better. Then switched to 35mm and Kodachrome.</p>

[andreboulet]

<p>Hey, i have just found 2 new rolls (exp. 03/81) of that film where i work... I gonna try those soon.</p>

[JRCrowe]

<p>Panatomic-X developed in Rodinal was a good combination. I got very good negatives with that combination back in the 70's</p>

[john_castronovo]

<p>I used to shot lots of Panatomic-X, mostly in 8x10 sheet size. It remains my all time favorite black and white film and I was very sad to see it go. The stuff was virtually grainless.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Don't give up on trying to find some Panatomic-X. at least in 35mm. But it does command a princely price. I saw a 100' roll of bulk FX go for 100 USD on ebay recently. I wanted it, but I wasn't willing to pay that much for it. Most that shows up is usually 24 or 36 exposure rolls from with 1986 to 1991 expiration dates. Most of what I have bought and used falls between those two dates. I also snagged a few rolls of FXP (Panatomic-X Professional) in 120. Excellent results. What is surprising is I have some FX that expired in 1977 and I've gotten good results with it. Yes, it does show some fog, but not so bad that I can't compensate in printing. I use HC-110 dilution B to minimize fog.</p><div></div>

[midnightcommando]

<p>I ended up getting some Panatomic-X (thanks very much Dan!) and loaded one roll in my Zorki and one in my Kodak Retina. Both superb cameras in their own right. ;)</p>

<p>Expiry date 9/1981.</p>

<p>This is one of the prints I made from it. (Caveat Emptor: I suck at printing.)</p><div></div>

[alan_fisk1]

<p>I liked Panatomic-X as well, and I also remember its strange, distinctive smell; like a freshly-baked cake. Does anyone else remember that, and can anyone explain what was in the emulsion to produce that odour?</p>

[ricardo_court]

<p>Late post, I know, but it seems there is still interest.<br>

I began shooting at age 10 or 11 with Panatomic x and a Rolleicord IV in the late 70s. I didn't know the difference, it was just the film in dad's drawer. I shot scores of rolls of the stuff. I never used a meter (wouldn't have known how!), just sunny 16 and the graph on the back of the Rollei. I remember that my friends in photo class were in awe of my huge negs (I was the only 120 shooter) I loved that I could pick out a detail and enlarge the hell out of it, right down to the grain, and still get fun usable images, something none of my classmates could do.</p>