Panatomic X from 1949!

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by jglass, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. jglass

    jglass Member

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Location:
    Austin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just got a roll of it, plus a roll of Plus-x from 1955 to play with. In 35mm.

    Just for fun now, but wondering if you have any tips to increase my chances of something showing up on the film when I develop it.

    Should I overexpose a couple of stops?

    Should I over develop also?

    What should my start times be on souping in D-76?

    Should I use D-76 stock or 1+1 as I usually do?

    Thanks.
     
  2. fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Honestly, I wouldn't bother using it at all. Keep it as a curiosity. After more than 50 years, it's not likely that you'll get any decent images from it.
     
  3. chrism

    chrism Member

    Messages:
    73
    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Santa Clara,
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    If you want to try, maybe shoot it at ISO 12 or ISO 25 and then develop in HC-110.
     
  4. Curt

    Curt Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,560
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    EI 16, Rodinal 1:50 12 minutes, agitate for 20 seconds initially, then agitate at 5 minutes for 10 seconds, then agitate at 10 minutes for 10 seconds, rinse then fix, hypo clear, wash, photoflo, hang to dry.
     
  5. jglass

    jglass Member

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Location:
    Austin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Okay. So I've got one for blow it off and two go for its. Interesting.


    Chrism: why HC-110?

    Curt: why Rodinal?

    Anyone else?
     
  6. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Member

    Messages:
    5,004
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well it's not too often someone beats me, but I believe you have.

    I've got a near-full 100-ft bulk roll of 35mm Panatomic-X with an expiration date of 9/1963. That's two months before John F. Kennedy was assassinated. A few years back I couldn't resist spooling up a short roll and trying it out. Exposed at the box speed of ASA 32 and developed in home-brewed D-76d (1+1) for the original Kodak-recommended time/temp (which slips my mind at the moment) produced very usable negatives with only slightly elevated base fog.

    For some idiotic reason I decided I should keep the remaining film in the freezer. Then I realized it was the year 2005. What the hell were you thinking, Ken...?

    :blink:

    I'm a firm believer that the best vintage aircraft museums are the ones where the displayed airplanes have oil drip pans under them. So my vote is to use the film. Or at least some of it. You can always keep the box and can for souvenirs.

    Ken
     
  7. Athiril

    Athiril Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,961
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Overexpose, underdevelop. Exposure will be more separated from fog, fog will develop to a lower level. :smile:
     
  8. Curt

    Curt Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,560
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Location:
    Pacific Nort
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Rodinal worked for me for 30 years and when Agfa Pan 25 was available I used it with that too, now I use it with Rollei Pan 25 and Ilford Pan F. You are free to use anything you want though, many will work well.
     
  9. Brian Legge

    Brian Legge Member

    Messages:
    541
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I've had good luck with HC110 and expired films. I've just overexposed dramatically (one stop every decade down, shoot at 25 if it gets that low). Decent luck so far.

    This was Plus-X Pan expired in 1961 or so, exposed earlier this year:
    [​IMG]
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/cannelbrae/4565245560/

    I think i shot it around ei 25 and developed using a relatively default HC110. Can't seem to find any more specific notes unfortunately.
     
  10. Marco B

    Marco B Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    The Netherla
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That is a great result! Love the picture also.
     
  11. jglass

    jglass Member

    Messages:
    396
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Location:
    Austin
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks all. I'm not really into souvenirs or collecting such things. So I'll shoot it probably.

    Ken: What does "elevated base fog" look like? Is it obvious?

    Does everyone agree that I should overexpose and underdevelop?

    Thanks again.
     
  12. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,070
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I used some old panatomic x not too long ago. It was fine if shot and developed as usual in D76/ID11, albeit a bit foggy and low contrast. So I'd say rate it at 16 or 20 or so, and develop normally or perhaps cut the dev time a bit.

    To see what the base fog is, you could just shoot a frame or two with lens cap on. Instead of getting a clear base, you'll see that it's a little bit greyish. That's your base fog. The more fog you have, the less density range you have available for your image, hence the loss in contrast. But it's not fatal and you may even like the subdued contrast. You might try it for portraiture even.

    I will take a guess that the red sensitivity reduces over time, and therefore it might benefit by a yellow or red filter. But this is just a thought, I didn't try it yet, with my remaining panatomic x (I have several boxes of it from the 80s and a 100 ft roll from 1973).
     
  13. Nokton48

    Nokton48 Subscriber

    Messages:
    490
    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A couple of years ago, I received numerous 100' rolls of 70mm Plus-X, expired in 1980. I think I will overexpose it, and use HC-110.
     
  14. Ken Nadvornick

    Ken Nadvornick Member

    Messages:
    5,004
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Location:
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    What Keith said...

    Base fog is the residual density present in an unexposed part of the film. It looks like a very pale neutral density filter. It builds up over time as film ages and is usually a greater problem for faster films. If it's not too dense, you can usually just print right through it to get at least acceptable results.

    Ken
     
  15. Marco B

    Marco B Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2005
    Location:
    The Netherla
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think this is an important notion. I once received a Kodak TMax 3200 roll of someone that was way (10 year or so) over date. As expected, it had huge base fog, which I wouldn't call "very pale" but more like "grey".

    Than again, of all things I read here on APUG, these extremely fast films seem to die first, and that was certainly the case with that roll, although with proper exposure and compensation for speed loss - in hindsight I estimated some 2 stops looking at the negatives - it would probably still be printable, but not great.
     
  16. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,070
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I am not sure but maybe benzotriazole is the way to go, if you have a lot of base fog. Ron might have some suggestions there.

    But my thought is to use the base fog and think about the kinds of images that could benefit by lower contrast. Besides base fog, you will see slightly larger grain and perhaps reduced red sensitivity.