To those who don't think that Tmax 100 shot at 50 done in Microdol-X 1:0 (not Perceptol nor D-23/25) is not pretty darn close enough to match Panatomic-X shot at 25 in Microdol-X 1:0, I encourage you to Try It. Otherwise you're just spouting Conventional Internet Wisdom. And I know about the sharpness difference with doing 1:0 vs 1:3; its the use of the stock 1:0 that gives those creamy tones.
See a few of the Tmax/Microdol-X combination at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/02...m-another-era/
I've long wanted to try Tmax 100 in a well-seasoned large tank of replenished Microdol-X.
Yes and sadly the results were never as good as the hype. I have tried many film developer combinations and the contrast is always a bit more than desired. Another negative is these films have no latitude forcing you to bracket every shot several times. At least for me not worth the bother.
Originally Posted by henry finley
It is difficult to generalize regarding the "sharpness" of diluted solvent developers, particularly extra fine grain formulas like Microdol(-X) or Perceptol at 1+3. In any case it is hard to measure things like acutance objectively. It would also appear to depend on the film. 1+3 is generally sharper than 1+0, but by how much?
An example concerning Panatomic-X in particular would be the Altman-Henn (Kodak) paper we discussed recently on here. The study included a series of fine grain developers based on D-25 and a series of "sharpness" developers based on Beutler. The results for speed, "acutance" and granularity were compared with D-76 as a reference point. Panatomic-X was one of the three films tested with the series of developers and the results were compared with D-76 1+1. The other films were Plus-X and Tri-X. One thing that jumps out from the data is how different the results could be depending on the film. For Panatomic-X, the best balance of speed, sharpness and granularity seemed to come from D-25. Perhaps surprisingly, sharpness with D-25 scored the same as D-76 1+1, while granularity was significantly lower, and the speed penalty was quite small. The results appear to support unconfirmed claims/reports that Panatomic-X was optimized for D-25, a developer that one would typically expect to produce relatively poor sharpness and low speed. By the way the results for Tri-X were totally different. D-76 could not be bested by any of the test developers. One potential "problem" with the study was the use of continuous agitation, which would tend to limit the formation of edge effects particularly with the sharpness formulas tested.
Of course D-25 is not Microdol. I'm just using the example to illustrate how it is more difficult to generalize regarding the behaviour of a developer than we might think.
Well that's interesting reading Michael R 1974, thanks.
I am a big fan of Panatomic-X in D-76 1:1 and when Panatomic-X was discontinued I spent a long time looking for a replacement.
For a long time, I avoided 35mm TMAX-100. Purely out of anger. How could they replace my favorite with a film that by one measure (I think resolution) wasn't better? This grudge kept me from even trying the new films.
Years later, I realized that what I really wanted to do was shoot 4x5. So that's what I did.
Switching to 4x5 gave me an opportunity to move to a faster film. I tossed off my prejudice and gave TMY-2 a go. I am happy I did. Now 4x5 TMY-2 is my new personal favorite, and my de-facto replacement for 35mm Panatomic-X.
I have a precious few rolls of 35mm and 120 Panatomic-X that I use occasionally. Sensitometrically, Panatomic-X is good as new to me.
I appreciate it for what it is... But it isn't as sharp as I remember. It isn't as grainless as I remember. At first I thought it had degraded with age. But now I know the problem is my memory. I have vintage negs and current negs and they ARE a little soft and grainy. And they look identical to me. The chief advantage for me to shoot this old film is that prints from vintage and current negs can be shown side-by-side, without the vintage shots standing out anachronistically.
I work for Kodak and the opinions and positions I take are my own and not necessarily those of EKC.
Thanks henry finley,
I've been enjoying your posts too... This is a good site.
Though I work in enterprise software, a lot of my co-workers are deeply interested in photography. I brought a Kodak 35 to a team meeting and everybody knew how to use it. Some team members are in different parts of the world but we treat each other well.
Kodak certainly had high standards- which made their atrocious-at-times Kodachrome processing all the more baffling.
Originally Posted by henry finley
I like to shoot Pan F+ at EI 64 and develop in Diafine. This also tames the contrast nicely. I don't know how it would compare to 32-40 in D23 1+1, not having tried that. It's a great combo IMHO but it's not Pan-X.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
For Christmas I gave my wife's parents a mounted and framed print 15" square from a 6x6 negative on Pan F+ in Diafine. Even up close it appears grainless.