I bought some 1991 dated Panatomic-X from the link within this link:
The 1991 canisters are marked "Being Discontinued, Replace with T-Max 100 Film".
I took some pics at EI=32 and developed in Beutler developer 7.5m 20C with good results.
Exposures included some of a test chart from www.normankoren.com.
After 22 years fog is insignificant, like new film.
The resolution of the film with my Canon EF 50mm f1.8 lens at f5.6-8 was about 70 lppm.This is consistent with some 70's lens tests I have from SLR Photography magazine, they never got much above 70 lppm.I have tested TMX in Xtol with the same lens and obtained ~100 lppm.
Howevever, the idea of the thin emulsion / Beutler combination was, I gather , to give an impression of sharpness from high edge effect,and not from resolution.
I think it works very well, compared to prints from the same subject from APX 100 in Xtol and in Pyrocat HD the Panatomic-X in Beutler does indeed have a higher edge sharpness.I don't have any APX 100 in Beutler for comparison.
I wonder if anyone can comment on this Panatomic-X film.
I can only comment on the EF 50/1.8 - mine easily records 180lp/mm with the right (micro-)film.
70lp/mm is either limited by the film, your technique or both.
I once did a quick comparison with ACROS in XTOL 1+1, Rodinal and Beutler. You can see my conclusion here.
You picked a classic combination Pan-X and the Beutler formula. The results can be stunning in their detail. It is a combination of the film's high resolution and the acutance enhancement of the developer. For best results with the Beutler formula underexpose the film with the intention of printing on grade 3 paper.
Alan, see the summaries of the Altman/Henn study and Richard Henry's tests I posted. Pan-X seems to possibly have been "optimized" for D-25 when it comes to acutance (traditional), granularity and speed.
To me it is an important film in the study of photographic science and processing. Credible, objective test results with the film helped illustrate to me how wrong we might be when generalizing regarding the working properties of film developers. The conventional "wisdom" is sometimes wrong. Depending on the film, a low pH, high sulfite developer such as D-25 can produce good acutance, while a supposedly "sharp" developer such as Beutler or Rodinal might simply increase granularity without a significant increase in actual edge sharpness (ie traditional acutance). Studies such as Altman/Henn which involved Pan-X helped me realize how critical the film type is when it comes to developer characteristics.
Here can be found some photomicrographs x600 of Panatomic-X in 3 developers.
It looks sharpest in Maximum Definition developer like Beutler:
Good lord, that stuff has been gone since 1991? I tell you the years pass so fast now...
I have some 50-year-old Panatomic-X (see here) that exposed and processed just fine in homebrew D-76d. Granted this was a non-scientific observation, but I don't normally photograph scientific objects.
This stuff would still work just fine in normal use today. I think it lasts just about forever.
:)Back in the day my usual combo was Plus X and Beutler. I underexposed a bit and printed on grade 3 fiber based paper, most often Luminos because it was cheap and good.:) The perceived sharpness of this combo was excellent.
Since manufacturers make incremental changes to their films, it is hard to make comparisons. Off hand I don't remember when Altman/Henn and Richard Henry made their tests. But my best results with Pan-X during the 1960's was with the Beutler formula. Truly spectacular resolution. Cross section photographs show that Beutler developer acts primarily on the surface of the emulsion thereby increasing resolution. I tried D-23 but the results were not as good. Never had the patience for D-25's long development times.