Develop the negative of Type 55

[Dani]

I got a box of Type 55 that I'd like to shoot and just use the negative. I've been doing lots of research but I haven't found anything specific.
Anybody has done this? I'm planning on using XTOL

Thanks!

 

[removed account4]

hi dani
rumor has it that the film in old school # 55 was Panatomic X. I used to shoot a lot of pan x back in the day, but sadly a lot of water under the bridge has eroded my memory of development times. this thread might help ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/panatomic-x-question.4310/page-2

good luck !
John

 

[Dani]

Hi John, wonderful! I'll try 7 minutes and go from there. Thank you!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I got a box of Type 55 that I'd like to shoot and just use the negative. I've been doing lots of research but I haven't found anything specific.
Anybody has done this? I'm planning on using XTOL

Thanks!

No need to develop. Just clear with sodium sulfite.

 

[Dani]

But the pods are all dry now. I'm thinking of just carefully harvesting the negatives

 

[dpurdy]

I used to pull the film out and process it in HC110. I am not sure but didn't they change from Panatomic film to some Fuji film way back in the day?... not that that makes much difference.

 

[Lachlan Young]

There's only so many ways that a cubic crystal, normal contrast ISO 32-ish film can be made, so following the Panatomic-X times are as good a starting point as any.

Watch out however for using Pan-F as a reference - it had different design goals - when developed normally it's intended to deliver 5 stops of straight line - as opposed to the 7 of more conventional films. I believe this was partially to do with matching the contrast behaviour of transparency films.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s a very thin film base. I, personally, don’t understand the interest except for experimentation.

 

[Dani]

A lot of free time lately so yes, purely for experimentation and to see what Panatomic-X would look like today.

 

[BrianShaw]

 

[Donald Qualls]

One way you might attempt is to use a monobath. There are two or three good ones out now; I've recently purchased and used a liter size dry package of Cinestill Df96. At 75F it'll process most common B&W negative films in four minutes with standard agitation (one minute agitation after filling, then five inversions each minute). It's also reusable, they say 16 rolls equivalent by adding 15 seconds to your process time for each roll previously processed.

I got good results processing .EDU Ultra 100 and .EDU Ultra 400 together -- do that with regular developer and it'd be either a two stop push for the 100 or a significant pull for the 400.

Since the monobath compensates to a large extent for film differences, you should be okay just processing those negative sheets like ordinary 4x5 sheet film -- I'd do one to start, just to be sure (you can adjust contrast with the Df96, by changing temperature and agitation). I've got a single box of old 55 that I was planning to do this with (after I find my old Polaroid 500). Maybe someday I'll buy and try some New55.

 

[removed account4]

OP GET A GREEN DBI SAFELIGHT

 

[Vaughn]

It was a beautiful film/processing combo. Polaroid gave us some new Type 55 to test when the patent wars were happening with Kodak over Kodak's instant film and patent infringement questions. Might be the Fuji replacement as dpurdy mentioned, but I never knew the source of the new film. I could not tell the difference, but I did not set up a decent way to compare the two.

 

[laser]

I was the Kodak interface between Kodak and Polaroid for the film in Polaroid Type 55 in the mid 1980's and again in the 1990's. It was an unique film SO-139. The internal database called it Panatomic-X Film. But the emulsion that was used by the mid-1980s when I first became involved had no similarity to Pan X. It was specially formulated to work well with the Polaroid pods. Kodak provided the film in long rolls (127mm wide?) and Polaroid chopped and finished it into Type 55 Packets. There was never a Fuji film used in Polaroid Type 55 made by the Polaroid Corp. Fujichrome was used in a 4x5 Polaroid Packet. Polaroid reps and I visited each other annually to review type 55 business while the Kodak-Polaroid trial was going on. We joked about the law suit but there was no hostility from either side.

I'll add a little more information. For each batch we tested the film using a conventional developer and sent our test results and film samples to Polaroid. The film's sensitometric specifications/tolerances were like other Kodak B&W Films. Polaroid adjusted the pod contents to get the sensitometric results they desired. Their adjustment was pH that was about 13+; not much different from drain cleaner. The film was easy to make and easily satisfied Polaroid's specifications and requirements. It was a good business for Kodak and Polaroid was delighted with the quality of the film Kodak provided. I had the impression that the film we provided was higher quality and more trouble-free than the typical Polaroid coated material.

Bob

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[Lachlan Young]

I was the Kodak interface between Kodak and Polaroid for the film in Polaroid Type 55 in the mid 1980's and again in the 1990's. It was an unique film SO-139. The internal database called it Panatomic-X Film. But the emulsion that was used by the mid-1980s when I first became involved had no similarity to Pan X. It was specially formulated to work well with the Polaroid pods. Kodak provided the film in long rolls (127mm wide?) and Polaroid chopped and finished it into Type 55 Packets. There was never a Fuji film used in Polaroid Type 55 made by the Polaroid Corp. Fujichrome was used in a 4x5 Polaroid Packet. Polaroid reps and I visited each other annually to review type 55 business while the Kodak-Polaroid trial was going on. We joked about the law suit but there was no hostility from either side.

I'll add a little more information. For each batch we tested the film using a conventional developer and sent our test results and film samples to Polaroid. The film's sensitometric specifications/tolerances were like other Kodak B&W Films. Polaroid adjusted the pod contents to get the sensitometric results they desired. Their adjustment was pH that was about 13+; not much different from drain cleaner. The film was easy to make and easily satisfied Polaroid's specifications and requirements. It was a good business for Kodak and Polaroid was delighted with the quality of the film Kodak provided. I had the impression that the film we provided was higher quality and more trouble-free than the typical Polaroid coated material.

Bob

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

Thanks Bob for the definitive answer! It goes a very long way to explaining why the New 55 folk had a hard time trying to get a rather more 'standard' neg film to work in a similar system if SO-139 was optimised for the process.

Couple of minor queries: was it possible that the SO emulsion used for T55 got called 'Panatomic-X' because it was derived from a slow speed, panchromatic, monodisperse type emulsion - rather in the way that 'Plus-X' meant a whole family of quite sensitometrically different medium speed, monodisperse panchromatic films (& veering off a bit, what was Verichrome Pan's relationship to Plus-X? I've found some material that suggests a semi-detached relationship to PX, but it all seems very confusing)? And secondly, would you happen to know if the speed of T55 was chosen with the intention of approximate speed matching to the predominant colour sheet films of the era?

 

[laser]

The name in the manufacturing database had little meaning. It may have started with gel and otehr materials similar to Pan-X and then was modified. The modifications could change the speed and other characteristics. Through the changes the name wouldn't change bit the characteristics could change dramatically.


Panatomic-X and Plus-X weren't monodispersed. They had a range of grain sizes. The Pan-X's grain size range was on the low end of grain sizes. T-Max 100 was better behaved meaning the grain size distribution had fewer "clunkers" so grain structure was better. T-Max 100 also had spectral sensitivity that was more like the human visual system.

By 1981 when I became involved Verichome Pan and Plux-X (120) used the same emulsion. PX used a support with an Anti-halation undercoat (AHU) VP did not.

Speed of Type 55. The speeds were selected before my time. The only speed matching I am aware of was before my time. EKTAPAN sheet film was specified to speed match with the color neg of the time EKTACOLOR Professional, Type S.


My experience is that if you wanted a Type 55 negative it was best to give 2/3 stop more exposure than was needed for a good print. I have used a lot of type 55. Much or the use was to confirm focus and layout. Using type 55 was a common practice but was not wise. The variability of color film was much less than the variability of the Type 55 film-pod system ,

 

[MattKing]

By 1981 when I became involved Verichome Pan and Plux-X (120) used the same emulsion. PX used a support with an Anti-halation undercoat (AHU) VP did not.

Fascinating!

 

[BrianShaw]

Fascinating!

Back on the olden days all I use was Plus-X one day my local sho had none and sold me some Verichrome. I was skeptical but pleased with the results. And very pleased with the lower price. No wonder I was equally happy with Verichrome in lieu of Plus-X.

 

[laser]

I should have mentioned: To demonstrate the benefit of the AHU I made a photograph of a very long tonal scale scene. There was an illuminated bare light bulb in an otherwise typical interior scene. The Verichrome Pan image showed halation around the bulb. The PX had recorded the edge of the bulb with crisp edge. So the AHU was effective. In most photographs you would never see the difference.

Manufacturing cost and price are not always at a fixed proportion. VP transitioned from being the main snapshot film (before the advent of Kodacolor/Kodachrome for snapshots) to a low-price offering. As a low-price offering it yielded lower margins. I remember in the 1980's most of the VP was sold in emerging markets (i.e. Latin America) that still used B&W film for snapshots but was very price sensitive. As the amateur color business grew demand diminished and VP was discontinued for all markets. Products were discontinued when the margin fell and there was little chance of recovery.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Panatomic-X and Plus-X weren't monodispersed. They had a range of grain sizes. The Pan-X's grain size range was on the low end of grain sizes. T-Max 100 was better behaved meaning the grain size distribution had fewer "clunkers" so grain structure was better. T-Max 100 also had spectral sensitivity that was more like the human visual system.

Poor choice of words on my part - how tightly controlled was the grain characteristic of these emulsions? My understanding was that they were more monodisperse-ish than what has been characterised as 'k-grain'/ polydisperse emulsions, but not as tightly controlled as more contemporary emulsions - like TMax etc.

By 1981 when I became involved Verichome Pan and Plux-X (120) used the same emulsion. PX used a support with an Anti-halation undercoat (AHU) VP did not.

I'd found a reference in a late 50's piece of Kodak literature to the effect that PX in 135 and VP were essentially the same, barring minor differences - very interesting to know that this was the long term situation. Interesting to note that in the last version of Plus-X the PX/ VP relationship seems to have come full circle into one product for both 135 and 120 and no PXP/ PXT variants.

 

[braxus]

Wasn't Verichrome Pan more designed for cameras that didn't have light meters, hence exposure could be all over the place? And I understood VP had a dual exposure range with its layers of emulsion, like two different speeds of film. Plus X didn't have this as far as I know. That said I love both of these films, as well as Pan X. I wish Pan X and Plus X would return for production again.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Wasn't Verichrome Pan more designed for cameras that didn't have light meters, hence exposure could be all over the place? And I understood VP had a dual exposure range with its layers of emulsion, like two different speeds of film. Plus X didn't have this as far as I know. That said I love both of these films, as well as Pan X. I wish Pan X and Plus X would return for production again.

Here's Bob's background - you can take his statement as the definitive one for post-1981 at least.

 

[laser]

From the mid-1930’s through the mid-1960’s Verichrome/Verichrome Pan Films were Kodak’s primary snap-shot films. The film was spooled with backing paper (a.k.a. roll film or non-miniature) and used in cameras with a low-performance uncoated lenses. The negatives were typically contact printed. Later in the period 2x to 3x enlargements were common. Advanced amateurs and professionals typically used other films, cameras with better lens, and made enlargements.

My assignment in 1981 was to design a family of films using tabular grain technology with Panatomic-X, Plus-X, and Tri-X Films as the benchmarks. The primary improvements were finer grain, improved sharpness, excellent tone-scale, and spectral sensitivity more closely resembling human vision. I wrote a thick requirements document. T-Max 100 Film was much better than Panatomic-X for all important characteristics.

I never paid much attention to Verichrome Pan Film. It was not an important film in 1981. At the time it was the same emulsion as Plus-X Film but on a simple acetate support with anti-halation backing but no anti-halation undercoat (AHU). This was done to provide a low-price film.

When Verichrome/Verichrome Pan Films were the main snapshot film the films had a sharp toe to compensate for use in a high flare optical system. They were double coated to provide exposure latitude. The latitude they were able to achieve was much less than T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 Films. A characteristic curve with a long straight line is a T-grain film characteristic. This yields latitude.

Like many things Panatomic-X and Plus-X Films had reputations better than reality.

I hope that this information is helpful.

Bob Shanebrook, MakingKodakFilm.com

 

[darkroommike]

No need to develop. Just clear with sodium sulfite.

That presumes that the pods on the packets are good.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

That presumes that the pods on the packets are good.

Yes. The pods do dry out over time. The chemistry is a mono bath process.