Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,912   Posts: 1,556,249   Online: 1048
      
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 81

Thread: Panatomic-X

  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,427
    Images
    46
    I never overcame the shock/loss and am still living in denial...

    I have been looking for a suitable replacement since. While I look I shoot a roll of Panatomic-X here and there to see how my search is coming along compared to my known favorite.

    I tried a little of everything and my best candidate is 4x5 TMY-2 as a direct replacement for 35mm Panatomic-X.

    Huh? You say? ... Yes, that's right. I went up to 4x5... And at that rate, I no longer pine for Panatomic-X because... 4x5 is better.

    But when I do shoot 35mm...

    The thing I appreciate most is that prints from vintage negs and prints from current negs on 35mm Panatomic-X are indistinguishable.

  2. #12
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,988
    I shot a roll or two of Pan-X back in the day but not enough to really say how they compare, but I can say I like 120 Pan F+ a lot. I develop it in Diafine, EI 64, and it's very nice.

  3. #13
    NedL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sonoma County, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    900
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I shot a roll or two of Pan-X back in the day but not enough to really say how they compare, but I can say I like 120 Pan F+ a lot. I develop it in Diafine, EI 64, and it's very nice.
    Hi Roger, I've got a couple rolls of 120 PanF in the fridge that I might try this with. 3+3?

  4. #14
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,988
    Yep. I just sort of stumbled on the combo because I had Diafine (mainly for use with Tri-X) and wanted to shoot Pan F and get a bit more usable speed from it. 64 looks a bit thin but mostly prints nicely. By all means experiment with one roll to dial in your own speed but most folks find the box speed optimistic and Diafine will at least get you that.

    Pan F is a nice film but can build highlight density pretty fast. The compensating effect of two bath helps.

  5. #15
    NedL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Sonoma County, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    900
    Images
    16
    Thanks! ( Now back to Panatomic-X! )

  6. #16
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,356
    Images
    299
    I know of one photographer who gave up on photography when Panatomic-X was discontinued. He just quit, in one single moment. Never heard from the guy again.

    But, he had more problems than film choice on his mind, it seemed, so it was probably highly excessive behavior.

    I've never tried Panatomic-X, but at the same time I try very hard not to be 'hung up' on a single type of film. Great pictures look good on any film, but that 'special' film does not improve your photographs much.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  7. #17
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,948
    Still shooting it I was lucky enough to get a few 100ft 35mm bulk rolls.

  8. #18
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    I try very hard not to be 'hung up' on a single type of film. Great pictures look good on any film, but that 'special' film does not improve your photographs much.
    +1 or more. Especially in black and white it's very rare that a photo that succeeds on one film could not be just as successful on some other film.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Especially in black and white it's very rare that a photo that succeeds on one film could not be just as successful on some other film.
    If that was true we would all use the cheapest film?

    The special property of the Adox films distributed in the US by Leica dealers from 1955 and later Panatomic-X was that compared to previous films they gave prints that looked sharper.Adox was a thin emulsion, Panatomic-X IDK,but both were often processed in acutance developers.
    Now, these fine grain acutance films are all discontinued.
    Tabular grain films replaced them.
    IDK which of todays films would give good results with the Beutler developer, as did Panatomic-X

  10. #20
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,988
    I didn't say there was no difference or that a given photo could succeed on ANY film. I said it could succeed on ANOTHER film. If it works on TMX, for example, you won't see much difference on Delta 100, or even FP4+. A bit more grain on both, especially the latter, but very unlikely to make or break the photo. That doesn't mean the same photo would work on, say, Foma 400.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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