Which currently available film(s) make you think of Panatomic-X when you see or shoot them? In your opinion, are they similar, or equal to it?
Films that remind you of Pan-X
-
A
- Thread starter George Mann
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Shen Hao TFC617 A or B
- Started by djdister
-
Free CP40Y Color Printing Filtet
- Started by Roger Thoms
-
For Sale For Sale: 55mm ƒ/1.8 SMC Pentax Takumar Lens (M42 thread) and 50mm ƒ/2 Pentax-M
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
Want to Buy Half Case For Nikon F
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,677
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Pan F, of course. Not identical, but often similar looking in print fashion.
That’s just showing off
And, I shoot Pan F, but nothing out there replaces Panatomic-x for me. Sad to say.
George I’ve had a couple people mention my ortho 25 emulsion has similar grain and tonality to Pan X. Of course the spectral response is different and I’m hand-coating glass, but it made me start thinking about what it would take to replicate Pan X as a first potential film product (after what will undoubtedly be a few years of R&D). So your question has been on my mind lately as well, as well as how much interest there might be. Wouldn’t that be fun?
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,413
- Format
- Multi Format
APX 25 was probably the closest, but that is no longer made. It's still found on eBay, tho. I've got some Rollei 25, but haven't shot any of it yet. Of the current films, probably Pan-F is closest.
TMax 100. A superior film to Panatomic. That being said, if they still made Panatomic-X, I'd gladly shoot it.
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2006
- Messages
- 2,949
- Format
- Multi Format
Heck Yes! I'd buy a bunch
I have seventeen rolls of 35mm 36exp FX in the freezer.
And four rolls of 120
Whenever I see threads like this and interesting they are, I do wonder how many photographers of even many years experience could in a scientific test of say 100 prints pick out which 5 say were from Panatomic X at a percentage that meant that their results were statistically significant?
I appreciate that it is the kind of question that might suggest "troll" which it is not or at the very least is one of these questions where the genuine reply may be: " If you cannot tell then no-one else can explain it to you
pentaxuser
I appreciate that it is the kind of question that might suggest "troll" which it is not or at the very least is one of these questions where the genuine reply may be: " If you cannot tell then no-one else can explain it to you
pentaxuser
Almost any slow fine grained film.
Pan-X has a very specific look that made it my favorite B&W film. As I have not shot any B&W since they discontinued it, and as I don't find most of the B&W images I have seen since to be my cup of tea, it is a genuine inquiry.
Yes, but could you produce and sell it at a reasonable cost?
It may be technically superior, but it is also cold and sterile.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,677
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Maybe it's someone's attitude that's cold and sterile. Blaming the film is always a lame excuse, any film. TMax can become all kinds of things because it's so versatile development-wise. It's like saying a particular brand of stove is no good because everything you happen to cook on it tastes bland. You get a lot more mileage using a dash of salt and pepper than bad- mouthing something.
Yes I am sure it is and my post was not in any way a disguised way to say otherwise. It is just that in my case I have used quite a number of b&w films and the prints from those negatives are strewn in several boxes. If I were to tip them all on the floor I feel sure I would have difficulty distinguishing one film from another
pentaxuser
Ilford FP4 is similar.
Films are not cold and sterile, people are. Panatomic X was a great film, but so is TM100. You could hand a cheap guitar to a gentleman like Segovia, and he would make it sing. Life is about adapting to change. If you know what you're doing the film is irrelevant. But hey! If they made it, I'd still shoot it
When Kodak announced the discontinuation of Pan-X they stated that the direct replacement was Tmax 100 in Microdol-X either 1:0 with a one stop speed loss or 1:1 shot at box speed. The spectral response of Tmax 100 was designed to be equal if not identical. I wish I still had that Kodak technical notice...
Cheeky Bastard.
LOL! I have a half dozen rolls of 120 Panatomic X in the freezer . . . . waiting for my skills to ramp up so I can make the most of them.
Like any other product development in the history of mankind, there's no way in hell to say while it's still just a vision.
Or put another way, if Thomas Edison had tried to estimate the cost of a light bulb before he had even begun tinkering, we'd still be using candles.
How does Pan-F look when developed in D76/ID11?
Films are not cold and sterile, people are. Panatomic X was a great film, but so is TM100. You could hand a cheap guitar to a gentleman like Segovia, and he would make it sing. Life is about adapting to change. If you know what you're doing the film is irrelevant. But hey! If they made it, I'd still shoot it
OK. So how does one get good mid-tones from TMAX while keeping its contrast under control?
Drew, whilst I admire your love for TMax, please understand that some people, myself included, dislike the TMax "look". When TMax was introduced it had a vastly different look than the common films that were then in widespread use. Some people loved it and some didn't. Simple as that.
MattKing
Moderator
Careful work, and a developer like replenished X-Tol.
Let's see if this download of a resized, and not yet spotted scan does the film justice:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |