Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,158   Online: 817
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Panatomic-X

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,630
    The characteristic curve as that different?

    Pan-X was a little before my time, but based on what I've read/seen the lust people have for it has more to do with nostalgia than its actual characteristics.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, Western Suburbs
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,436
    Dear dbuchheit,

    Not to worry. I was a PanX lover and yes, I'd still use some if available, but today's films are absolutely amazing. Spend your early time back enjoying playing around with them. You will enjoy it.

    Neal Wydra

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by onepuff View Post
    I haven't tried it myself but have seen some pictures from ADOX CHS 25 and they looked pretty good. What about CHS 50 maybe as another faster alternative? Has anyone any first-hand experience of these ADOX films?
    The Adox 25, 50 and 100 "CHS-ART" films were badged versions of the Efke films. They stopped all production last year.

    Adox still supply CMS20 (a microfilm style film) and Silvermax (which was a one-off batch and will soon also come to the end of existing stock), plus also an ortho film. They have stated that they will be producing improved versions of the old Agfa emulsions, but that there is still too much old Agfa stock in the distribution networks to make selling a new version economic.

    I never used the Panatomic-X when it was available so don't have a clear idea of what can best replace it. If there was a long, low-contrast type of result then you could perhaps pull one of the slower emulsions - PanF, FP4, or Foma-100. The new technology films would inevitably have a different look wouldn't they?

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    714
    I remember a Kodak publication/information sheet about tmax 100 and Pan-X and Kodak recommended Tmax 100 shot at 50 processed in Microdol-X 1:0 as a 'direct replacement' for Pan-X. As far as I can tell in comparing the few old rolls of 120 Pan-X I still have left, Kodak is correct: thats the very closest I've ever gotten to the creamy tonality of Panatomic-X, and of course the grain (what you can see of it) is different but the tonality and excuse me, 'glow' is there. Try it.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    714
    I seem to recall it was a small kodak info sheet that was put out in response to photographers freaking out that Kodak was discontinuing Panatomic-X. Kodak's response that Tmax 100 was the 'replacement' didn't go over very well at all, especially since in those early Tmax days lots of photographers were having a few adjustment challenges. I will look, I may still have that printed info sheet in an old notebook.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    20
    Long toe and "glow" being more important than speed (I mean slow...) and grain, I think, in this distinction. I can often, but not always, get the contrast I want from Tmax 100, so I typically don't use it. I grew jaundiced to flat-grained films as having flat contrast, except for Acros.
    As a substitue for Pan-X I would recommend trying Ilford Pan F 50. Used to be cheap, now other people have discovered it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post

    Pan-X was a little before my time, but based on what I've read/seen the lust people have for it has more to do with nostalgia than its actual characteristics.
    Yeah, I suppse that's partially true with anything that is now gone, but what i liked about FX was that i could soup it in just about anything and get a great neg.

    IMO, TMAX is not a great sub for FX. Yes, I can shoot TMAX at EI 50, but playing by the same rules i could shoot FX at 16. I shoot a lot of waterfalls at slow shutter speeds and sometimes and EI of 50 is too high. FX was great for this.

    For my $.02, I'd go with Pan-F.

  8. #18
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    I bet Acros is going to come closest to the look you want. I shoot Pan F and it's a great film too but Acros will probably look more like Pan-X.

    The only reason to use a film as slow as that today even if you could find one would be to intentionally use long shutter speeds and/or wide apertures in light that otherwise wouldn't permit it without ND filters. Today's best 100 speed films are finer grained than Pan-X was. They do look different (TMX I agree with Gerald looks VERY different) but Acros has pretty steep highlight contrast. That will probably be closest.

    And with gear prices the way they are today I don't understand putting a 35mm camera on a tripod and shooting stopped down at slow shutter speeds for landscapes. Just get yourself a bigger camera. Getting grainless looking results, if that's what you are after, will be so much easier. The only reason I'd shoot landscapes in 35mm off a tripod nowadays would be to shoot transparencies for projection since 35mm projectors are common and cheap and medium format ones are neither. At one time, when medium and large format gear was expensive it made sense to use the finest grained films you could get to make big enlargements of landscapes and such from 35mm negatives. Now used film gear is so affordable, just use a bigger camera. Like in vehicles where there's no substitute for horsepower, there's no real substitute for a big enough negative, though today that can easily be 6x7 or even 6x4.5, today's films are SO good.

  9. #19
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    Quote Originally Posted by henry finley View Post
    When I was a kid back in the 70's, I did the Panatomic and Microdol 1:3 bit on scenics. D-76 is too rigorous on a high contrast film like that. And I was going for the view-camera look with a 35. I was never happy with my sharpness, not like I imagined it would be. Although I DID get view-camera grain out of my Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL. This was like...1972, maybe. 73 and 74. Wasn't until about 2 years ago that a brainstorm dawned on me. I was shooting what?--f/11 and 1/60 or 1/30 on a tripod? It was the leaves, the branches, the grass, and many other thing that the breeze was moving. OF COURSE they are not going to be sharp. So the moral is to use the plus-x speed films. And use the Microdol 1:3 on the 35's and even the 2 1/4 cameras if you're doing scenics. Few scenics can stand grain as part of the photo like you get from D-76. Forget about the slow-speed film. That's my frank advice from and to myself. I misspelled scenics I see. Oh, well.
    If you want sharpness, I wouldn't use Microdol-X (or the modern clone or Perceptol) for any film. It gets finer grain at the expense of sharpness. With today's films there's no need for it.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    87
    Images
    2

    Thanks

    Thanks everyone for all of your input.

    Looks like I'll just have to experiment, I have a number of the films listed already with more coming.

    There was reference to Microdol-X. I think it's gone too, but I believe Ilford has a similar developer still in production. I hope formulas for the extinct developers become available so at least we can make our own.

    One comment too if I may. Remember that much of what we do is subjective and a matter of taste. Some (as has been demonstated on this forum) love grain, the more the better, while others do not. So, if one is asking about a substitute, you would logically look toward a product that would have a similar appearance or properties. As an example; I lean toward warmer papers. In some cases, more brown than black. I'm not sure that anything like that even exists anymore. Can you guess what my next posting might be?

    Now, I wonder if those 2 bulk roll of High Contrast Copy Film in the freezer are still good?

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin