Liked Panatomic-X?

[royall_berndt]

When Pan X was available, I did;t care for it much. Too contrasty...harsh results. But some people really liked it. A few years back, I posted here that I was going to give away a 100-foot roll of that stuff. "The first claimant takes it." My mailbox nearly exploded!

[AJG]

I used this quite a bit before I bought my 4x5. With careful development it wasn't too contrasty and the grain was certainly very fine.

[Dave Luttmann]

I can’t say I ever had any contrast issues with

[JDMvW]

Used to use it a lot, especially for scientific recording. It was handy, at that time, to have two films that shot at the same EI (EI 32 for Kodachrome, ASA(ISO) 32 for Panatomic X)

[glen_h]

It was my favorite for many years in Diafine at EI 160 or 250.

(DIfferent box have different numbers.)

 

I would buy 100 foot rolls from Freestyle for $5. (About 1972.)

 

I now have some, and some Diafine, but am not using it so fast.

[James Bryant]

I used to shoot a lot of panatomic-X in a Hasselblad.

[allancobb]

I’m getting excellent results with my stash of FXP120, shot at ISO 25, HC-110B. The base is fog-free as if new.

 

Yashica Mat124G

 

[glen_h]

I think FXP120 is newer than FX120, which I also have some of.

 

I have some 35mm from the 1960's, and sheet film from 1941. Before December 7th, 1941.

35mm has a gray base (to reduce light piping), I believe 120 is clear base.

 

VP from the 1960's is pretty low fog, too.