120 Panatomic-X!

Nokton48

Nokton48

Veteran
Local time
12:34 PM
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
7,039
DSC06081 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Of indeterminate age, I've not had any fogged 35mm Panatomic-X, so I will give this a try. Paid $10 a roll which is about my limit for any 120 film. But Hey, It's Panatomic-X!!

ISO 32, Bracket adding exposure, I figure. Probably HC-110 when I develop. Any thoughts, this stuff is getting hard to find.
 
My thought is the stuff is 20 years old and not worth fooling with for serious work.

one roll to experiment for ISO and fog. Play with rest.
 
Yep. Will be very much fun to play with.

Most times old FX is just fine; holds up well unless badly stored.

This was always my favorite films, along with Verichrome Pan.

And recently I have found some of each.
 
I run old film for people from time to time and have found cooler than normal HC-110b delivers less fog than other developers I’ve tried. The times are generally shorter, which seems to help reduce fog build-up. Anecdotal, as I’ve not clip tested anything, but when I tried Rodinal I got much more fog with films from the same closet a friend found and gave me to run.
 
I got 13 rolls last year with an experation date of 1982! Shot 2 rolls so far at box speed & sent off to "The Darkroom Lab"
Pentax 67
40565519260_9aee72fb69_b.jpg


41513313345_42e5681f1a_b.jpg


41794834304_087d56f5de_b.jpg


37414617370_217f15d633_b.jpg
 
I bought a few rolls last summer and had some packets of Microdol X. It was dated mid 80's aswell. I exposed at box speed and ran normally in Microdol X and was really surprised that there was no sign of fog and shadow detail and contrast was beautiful. Near perfect negs.

Slow films aren't prone to degredation like faster. I also bought some 80's verichrome pan an Tri-X and forth were fogged beyond use.
 
Aerographic is a different film. In the early 70's I worked for an aerial research firm and shot Panatomic in 70mm up to 9x9 inch. It has a low blue sensitivity to help compensate for haze. Contrast was a touch higher too. Contrast might have been more a function of processing though but it's definitely lower in blue sensitivity as all of Kodak aerial films were.
 
x-ray said:
Aerographic is a different film. In the early 70's I worked for an aerial research firm and shot Panatomic in 70mm up to 9x9 inch. It has a low blue sensitivity to help compensate for haze. Contrast was a touch higher too. Contrast might have been more a function of processing though but it's definitely lower in blue sensitivity as all of Kodak aerial films were.
Click to expand...

Don,
How do you think it would work out for pictorial photography?
Could I compensate by using CC Wratten gel filters?
I know it is on a thinner base, I have 500' of Plus-X Aerorecon also.
And many other aerial 70mm films as well.
Thanks!
-Dan
 
Nokton48 said:
Don,
How do you think it would work out for pictorial photography?
Could I compensate by using CC Wratten gel filters?
I know it is on a thinner base, I have 600' of Plus-X Aerorecon also.
And many other aerial 70mm films as well.
Thanks!
-Dan
Click to expand...

I'd just do a test to see how it reacts. You might find you need to add a blue filter on your lens but you might like the lower blue sensitivity. I think you'll find the film unfiltered to have a spectral sensitivity similar to regular panatomic with a K2 yellow to a 15 orange filter on the camera. You might find you'll need to reduce development a little but shoot a few frames and see. Aerial films weren't rated in ISO. They were rated by aerial exposure index. It's been so long since shooting any I don't remember how they relate. Aerial exposures need to be calculated based on altitude and position from the equator unlike terrestrial photography. Kodak made a calculator for the purpose.
 
Panatomic-x 70mm Aerographic by Nokton48, on Flickr


Thank you Don!

I'm waiting for a response from Photo Impex. Want to make absolutely sure it will pull through my Hasselblads............

Interestingly this has an expiry date of 2009. So the last of the last of the last of the Panatomic-X.
 
The 70mm FX aerial film we shot went through our Hasselblad 70 backs with no issues. We had 21 backs and none had any problems with this film. We used one emulsion, Eastman 1515 (I think that was the designation) that was on an extremely thin base and had no problem with the 70 backs. We bulk loaded it in standard 70mm cassettes and we're able to load about 200 shots with no problems 1515 was a super high definition civilian version of a recon film designed for high altitude. It really needed to be shot above the haze layer. Even at 15,000ft it was on the contrasty side. Resolution was unbelievable though. You couldn't imagine what your lenses we're capable of until shot this film. We shot some in 9" x 400' rolls in a Zeiss 9x9 metric camera as well as 70mm in the Hasselblads. I think there was another earlier version caledd 1111 but it's been so long I'm not certain of the number. There wasn't an actual name just a number for some of these films.

Edit: I forgot to mention 1515 was a very slow film. I think we figured about iso 2. Again it's been about 45 years so my memory might be wrong.
 
Yeah I've loaded 250 exposures of the 3404 70mm Plus-X and the A70 works beautifully, although the counter stops at 70 :) Hasselblad had instructions for doing this and it was AOK with them. Number of total exposures loadable depended on the thinness of the film base. They did make a 250 exposure version A70 but I don't have one of those. Regular A70 works fine for me.
 
The company I worked for sent me to Hasselblad to look at the 100ft 70 backs but we decided to stay with the standard A70's. We also looked at the Linhof motorized aerial cameras that shot 5" rolls. In the end we stayed with our quad mount of Hasselblad 500EL cameas and Super Wides plus 9x9 metric camera. We generally ran 4 different types of emulsion and appropriate lenses for the job. We ran a lot of Ektachrone IR, B&W IR, aerocon color neg and B&w neg. 9" was generally EIR or color neg.
 
Recently tried a roll of Panatomic X (1989 expiration)... came out just beautifully! Developed in XTOL 1+1 no problem.



​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom