Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,586   Posts: 1,622,205   Online: 1048
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 41

Thread: Panatomic-X

  1. #21
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,502
    Kodak branded Mic-X is gone, but you can easily get the same formula (well, probably, but I don't think this one is a big secret) if you're so inclined:

    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/749710...lon?cat_id=301

    I didn't have much use for it with old films and even less with new ones but as always YMMV. The similar Ilford product would be Perceptol, still available.

    Warm papers - Ilford MGWT FB is one of the finest papers I have ever used. It's not "brown" without toning but tones exceptionally well. I develop it in Ilford WT developer and tone lightly in dilute brown toner. Works beautifully.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    667
    I agree with Roger on the Microdol-X for modern films. Xtol is very fine grain with these films, but gives higher film speed and better sharpness. A lot of people said that Microdol-X worked particularly well for Panatomic-X; that seems odd, but enough people liked that combination that I don't discount it. I believe TMX is already finer grained than FX by a bit anyway.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    724
    Yes Microdol-X worked particularly well Panatomic-X, it was rumored and surmised that each were formulated for each other. Hence the X! Just Kidding, the X in Microdol-X is a secret anti-silvering mercapto that Kodak has not nor never will release. BUT apparently Photo Engineer has the name of the chemical handwritten on a small piece of paper in his left shirt pocket.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,399
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Crabtree View Post
    It had a tow and shoulder like nearly all films then, nothing extreme, and maybe even less than Pan F Plus, but still there. Acros seems to be a straight line film with a slight tendency to sweep up in the highlights. That is the look many of us don't like in some modern films, a lot like TMY. TMX is a fairly straight line film, but has a very slight shouldering off in many developers. Tonally,I find it much more like working with older emulsions than Acros.

    As I mentioned, I have some well stored FX and will try to do a comparison or two in the next week or so for my own curiosity.

    I haven't shot Acros for a few months, but have a couple hundred feet of the Freestyle packaged stuff left. I had never really come to terms with it, but just as I was finishing off the last 100 feet I tried it in PMK and thought that was very promising. I don't really like having to mess with Pyro (everything else goes into Xtol right now), but think it might be worth it for the Acros.

    I personally don't at all miss the slow speed of FX, though it sounds like one or two people do. I only put up with the slowness because I like the look.
    Yes, Acros is unique in that rather than shouldering fairly gently like TMax and Delta, the straight line actually kinks upward in the highlights and remains straight at that higher contrast level through the extreme highlights, with a relatively abrupt shoulder thereafter.

  5. #25
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,052
    Ive got a few bulk rolls of 100ft Pan-X squirreled away, and a number of bulk loaded rolls loaded up ready to go. Still a great film even though its way expired after all these years (no perceivable fog). I have shot a fair amount of tmax 100 and I dont think it matches up as a substitute. I think tmax 100 is a great film, its one of my favorites in 120 with its amazingly clear base, and acros is good too, but panatomic X just handles and feels different. Its hard to put a finger on it. Plus you dont need to always shoot landscapes with it, shooting wide in full sun is always a neat trick too.

  6. #26
    PDH
    PDH is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    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.
    Microdol X 1:3 is much differnt than Microdol stock, at higher dultions Microdol is very sharp, Berry Thorton in Edge of Darkness lists the Ilford version at 1:3 for shapness. With modern films I would not recommend Microdol stock, but for that matter I would not use D 76 stock, which is how I wound up with bags of Microdol and D 76 replenisher. The draw back to Microdol X at 1:3 is the prolonged development times which may lead to base fog.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,330
    Since Ilford Pan-F is mentioned as a substitute, my best results are with a lower EI of 32 to 40 and development in D-23 1+1. This seems to tame this films runaway contrast.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Hawaii
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    724
    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.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,330
    Quote Originally Posted by henry finley View Post
    I remember once a big deal at one time about High Contrast Copy Film and H & W Control developer. Wonder if anybody here remembers those days.
    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.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,399
    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.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 01-30-2013 at 09:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 3 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