Panatomic X question

[FilmIs4Ever]

Jimgalli: when you say you use Panatomic-X aerial film, do you use it for pictorial purposes, or are you in the aerial recon business? I've heard people saying before that you can slit 70mm aerial film in half and use it in some of the more modern SLRs, such as the EOS series.
KenS: Do you mean that Panatomic-X is similar to Polaroid 55/PN solely in terms of speed, or are they actually related somehow?

Regards.
~Karl Borowski

 

[Ole]

Panatomic-X is, as far as I am aware, still being made in the 4x5 format. All you have to do is invest in some Polaroid 55/PN.
...

I've read that assertion before, and it has usually been followed by a flat denial from sombody involved with either Kodak or Polaroid.

The type 55 negative is similar to Panatomic-X insofar as it is different to all other films made today. That is all. They are not the same film, nor even very similar.

 

[KenS]

Jimgalli:

KenS: Do you mean that Panatomic-X is similar to Polaroid 55/PN solely in terms of speed, or are they actually related somehow?

Regards.
~Karl Borowski

When I was "working", I would have some scientists bring me Polaroid 55 negative for printing that had been "pod processed" at an EI of 50 to 80 such that they could get a set of decent re-prints.

As is so often the case, the subject was not available for a re-shoot and I had to do the best I could. After some persuading, I managed to acquire some of their exposed but non-processed envelopes (exposed at EI 32-25) from which the negative was extracted, and then tray processed in HC110 or a diluted (usually) D76 deveoper.

Prints from the those negatives seemed to be a better match to what they wanted to see as a final print.... especially in transmitted UV Polyacrylamide DNA gels. Due to budget constaints for materials, I eventually had to have them change over to 4x5 Tech Pan which I developed in diluted Dektol.

It was at a "professional meeting" about 20 years ago where I was told the the film was actually Kodak Panatomic-X, and worked on that basis ever since.... I would be hard pressed to distinguish a negative from Polaroid 55 P/N and what I remember of Panatomic-X.. with perhaps the exception of a slight contrast change... but that might be more the choice of developer.

Ken
[ waiting for 55 P/N in 8x10 if I could afford the film holder 8-( ]

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

...It was at a "professional meeting" about 20 years ago where I was told the the film was actually Kodak Panatomic-X, and worked on that basis ever since.... I would be hard pressed to distinguish a negative from Polaroid 55 P/N and what I remember of Panatomic-X.. with perhaps the exception of a slight contrast change... but that might be more the choice of developer.

Ken
QUOTE]

I have not compared the current Polaroid 55 P/N film with Panatomic-X sheet film. However, 20 + years ago I did make controlled comparisons and found the two produced identical results when they were exposed the same and processed in the same chemistry.

 

[kb244]

Hrm thanks to this thread I got some ideas what to develop it at in HC-110. I have several rolls of 120s of Panatomic-X, expired 1980 I think. Be nice if I knew the development times for ilfosol S for panatomic, but my small 500ml bottle of ilfosol S is probally oxidated by now with the ammount of air in the bottle, been using HC-110 straight from concentrate. I assume I can use the same kind of times for panatomic-X seen here, but for techpan 25 as well since I got a couple rolls of that.

 

[Papa Tango]

Dont go too slow

Microdol-X is a solvent developer and works best with medium to fast films. What you need with Pan-X is an accutance developer which will enhance the films ability to show fine detail. Suggested developers are Rodinal, Ethol T.E.C and the Beutler developer. If you wish to use Microdol or D-76 then use them diluted 1+2 to 1+3 at which dilutions they become accutance developers.

Jerry

There is also the speed issue. When developing in stock Microdol, there will be at least one full stop loss of film speed. This does not become an issue at 1:2 or greater dilutions. The 1:2 is optimal, as the neg tends to become very soft at 1:3

 

[htmlguru4242]

This is AMAZING film. I [unfortunately] had only three rolls of this a few months ago. I've shot two of them (clipped each in half for developer / speed testing).

They look great in D-76 (both stock and 1:1) and HC-110 Dil. B. though the D-76 looks a little nicer. And they're especially excellent seeing as how they're "Process before 1979 and 1980", and the base fog is nearly non-existant.

I rate it at 32.

The film has a different character from any modern stuff that i've seen.

Somebody mentioned using Panatomic Areal Recon film, which, last time I checked, is still in production. Is that the same stuff as the old 35mm roll films?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The aerial versions of these films usually have extended red sensitivity. That could be a plus for landscapes.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

This is AMAZING film. I [unfortunately] had only three rolls of this a few months ago. I've shot two of them (clipped each in half for developer / speed testing).

They look great in D-76 (both stock and 1:1) and HC-110 Dil. B. though the D-76 looks a little nicer. And they're especially excellent seeing as how they're "Process before 1979 and 1980", and the base fog is nearly non-existant.

I rate it at 32.

The film has a different character from any modern stuff that i've seen.

Panatomic X looked ok in everything I developed it with. However, my best results were always with Rodinal 1:50 and Rodinal 1:100 - IMHO significantly better than I got with D-76, Microdol-X and Edwal FG7.

I've never tried it with Xtol, but I would expect excellent results (superior to D-76, Microdol-X and HC-110).

 

[Donald Qualls]

I assume I can use the same kind of times for panatomic-X seen here, but for techpan 25 as well since I got a couple rolls of that.

Don't use conventional developers and conventional times with Tech Pan; you'll get a high contrast image (that is, something resembling a 4 or 5 stop push with conventional film). Tech Pan and most microfilms want approximately 1/3 the development as conventional films in the same developers. Rodinal 1:100, fifteen minutes with agitation ranging from once halfway (after first minute continuous) to every 3rd minute is a good starting point, if you don't have access to Technidol, POTA, or equivalent. I like Caffenol LC+C, 15 minutes with agitation every 3rd minute (after first minute continuous), for slow microfilms like Imagelink HQ, or 19 minutes, same agitation scheme, for faster microfilm like Copex Rapid; the slow microfilm time should also work for Tech Pan exposed at EI 25, possibly up to EI 40.

 

[Curt]

I've souped it in everything I could find; bottom line, Rodinal 1:75 8 to 10 minutes at 68 degrees F. Beautiful film, it's too bad it's gone, there is nothing like it. I have some 120 left, when it's gone it's gone.

 

[kb244]

Don't use conventional developers and conventional times with Tech Pan; you'll get a high contrast image (that is, something resembling a 4 or 5 stop push with conventional film). Tech Pan and most microfilms want approximately 1/3 the development as conventional films in the same developers. Rodinal 1:100, fifteen minutes with agitation ranging from once halfway (after first minute continuous) to every 3rd minute is a good starting point, if you don't have access to Technidol, POTA, or equivalent. I like Caffenol LC+C, 15 minutes with agitation every 3rd minute (after first minute continuous), for slow microfilms like Imagelink HQ, or 19 minutes, same agitation scheme, for faster microfilm like Copex Rapid; the slow microfilm time should also work for Tech Pan exposed at EI 25, possibly up to EI 40.

Not the easiest, when all I have are conventional (ilfosolS, HC-110, microphen) , and no access to something like say Rodinal.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Not the easiest, when all I have are conventional (ilfosolS, HC-110, microphen) , and no access to something like say Rodinal.

Kodak Xtol should be easily available to you in Michigan and Rodinal (or one or more of the Rodinal substitutes) should be available to you as well.

 

[kb244]

Kodak Xtol should be easily available to you in Michigan and Rodinal (or one or more of the Rodinal substitutes) should be available to you as well.

Hrm as I dont develop myself that often, I don't think it would be feasible for me at this time to be buying up different developers only to oxidate later from not going thru it. Though Rodinal I heard if in a glass bottle seems to last forever.

 

[kb244]

I use to shoot a lot of Panatomic-X, I always shot it at ASA 32 and would develop it for 5 min. in HC-110 dil. B at 68F I found this to be an excellent combination.

Just got done doing what times you said, currently drying, looks good so far, but find out when it comes to scanning them. definitly a minor ammount of heat damage over the years ( 15% to 20% grey fogging on the clear portion of the strip )

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Rodinal can last for years - so will the HC-110 concentrate.

Ilfosol-S might work well with Panatomic X - however, it has a reputation for sudden death without warning.

If you choose to use the Ilfosol-S, it would be best to test first. Do you have enough Panatomic - X to allow you to do exposure/developer testing?

You should get pretty close to Panatomic - X results by exposure & development testing with Efke 100.

 

[fschifano]

Congratulations on your find. Panatomic-X was a really nice film in its day. Today I find Ilford's PanF+ to be a very good substitute.

The next time you find yourself with some unidentified B&W film though, there's no need to go to all the trouble of loading a tank and mixing up a batch of film developer. A few inches of unexposed film in a tray of paper developer will suffice to bring out the edge markings.

 

[kb244]

I have about 4 more rolls of Panatomic-X left, I just went with using the HC-110, I like ilfosol-S for films such as Fuji Neopan Acros 100, ilford FP4+, Kodak Tmax-100 etc. I've tried Ilford PanF+ in ilfosol S with some very contrasty results ( just learned I needed to meter off the shadows and go 2 stops from there to get it tack on with the film ).

Here is results from what I shot yesterday on Panatomic-X , metered @ 32 , developed in HC-110 Dil.B (straight from concentrate, so 10ml chem + 390ml water) for 5 minutes, and fixed with ilford rapid fixer.

Dead Link Removed

I really like the film's ability to capture fine detail, and have very smooth tonality. Also its nice that I got it exposed just enough to see the webbing as well.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I'd try diluting the HC110 syrup 63:1 with water (or an even higher dilution) then stand or semi-stand develop for about 20 minutes at 20 or 21C.

 

[kb244]

I'd try diluting the HC110 syrup 63:1 with water (or an even higher dilution) then stand or semi-stand develop for about 20 minutes at 20 or 21C.

The results being? and I assume I'd have to get like an eye dropper for the dilution since thats like 6 or 7ml in a 400ml total solution, but then again I'm already doing 10ml or so in 400. Meaning if I did the above at 5 minutes, to do it for 20 I'd probally have to use a dilution of like say 3ml for 400ml total. Unless not agitating does something unique.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Not the easiest, when all I have are conventional (ilfosolS, HC-110, microphen) , and no access to something like say Rodinal.

Okay, try HC-110 Dilution F (1+79 from syrup), 10 minutes with continuous agitation first minute, and one agitation cycle halfway.

Though if you have only a small quantity of Tech Pan, I'd suggest getting some actual Technidol (and follow the directions for agitation, including shaking the tank like a cocktail shaker), or get some Formulary TD-3, so you don't have to spend 2-3 rolls homing in on the development time. I've souped several rolls of microfilm in HC-110 Dilution G, but never done actual Tech Pan...

 

[kb244]

Okay, try HC-110 Dilution F (1+79 from syrup), 10 minutes with continuous agitation first minute, and one agitation cycle halfway.

Though if you have only a small quantity of Tech Pan, I'd suggest getting some actual Technidol (and follow the directions for agitation, including shaking the tank like a cocktail shaker), or get some Formulary TD-3, so you don't have to spend 2-3 rolls homing in on the development time. I've souped several rolls of microfilm in HC-110 Dilution G, but never done actual Tech Pan...

Now I might actually be able to get ahold of some Technidol from a co-worker. I figure if I shoot techpan, i'd wana play it safe.

 

[braxus]

A couple years ago I sold most of my rolls of Pan X 120, but I still have 2 bulk rolls of 35mm and several rolls as well. Its a nice film and it keeps very well even when aged. But it does seem to get grainier with age. I have mine done for 7 minutes in Xtol.

 

[magic823]

Its horrible film. I suggest you sent it to me for disposal

Actually it used to be one of my favorite films (along with Kodachrome 25 and Ektar 25)

 

[Whiteymorange]

I just developed a roll of Pan X that expired in 1963. Shot at ASA 25 and developed in HC110 (1 to 31) for 6 min (for part of the roll) and then 8 min. for the rest because the negs were a bit flat. I think I'll split the difference. Agitated first 30 sec. and then at 1 min intervals. Clear, clean negs with a nice tonal range. No fogging evident at all.

Beautiful film.