If I loved using Panatomic X 25 years ago, what should I be shooting today?

[robklurfield]

Any suggestions are here are welcome. In scanning some long-lost negatives, many of which were shot on Kodak 5060, I've begun to realize how much I miss Pan-X.

I've tried a few rolls of Adox CMS 20, which though quite nice, is challenging to work with, its contrast being a little more extreme than I'd like.

I'm considering Rollei Pan 25, ATP 1.1 and ATO2.1, Adox CHS 25 and Efke KB25. Are there others I ought to consider?

What do you use and why? What do you recommend? I want something that's sharp, fine-grained, easy to shot and easy to process (if such a thing exists).

 

[Keith]

Does it have to be ISO 25?

My favourite slow fine grain film is PanF+ ... it just has a look that I love and it seems quite forgiving. Pushed to 100 it gets a little more contrast but I guess it could be pulled successfully too to go the other way?

 

[Fawley]

I never did use Panatomic X, but I shot a couple rolls of Adox CHS 25 recently and I was surprised at the low level of contrast given the film speed. In fact the film seemed not a lot different than FP4 so I'm wondering why I just don't stick with that. Three of the shots taken with CHS 25 are in my gallery. "Parked", "Closeness of Stranger" and "On the outside". All of these shots were printed on relatively normal contrast paper.
Ilford Pan F on the other hand, I do find very contrasty.

 

[robklurfield]

given my general technical ineptitude and laziness, the ISO isn't all that important (gosh, I almost typed ASA).

Keith and Fawley thanks for the tips/comments.

I think I have only pulled or pushed anything maybe twice in my life (and it probably shows, too).

Does it have to be ISO 25?

My favourite slow fine grain film is PanF+ ... it just has a look that I love and it seems quite forgiving. Pushed to 100 it gets a little more contrast but I guess it could be pulled successfully too to go the other way?

 

[Tim Gray]

I would suspect T-Max 100 is pretty fine grained. Flexible and reasonably easy to process (don't have to deal with special developers, etc.). Might be worth taking for a spin.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I use Tmax 100 developed in Rodinal 1+50 or D-76 1+1 with great finegrained results with beautiful tonality.

Tmax 100, Rodinal 1+50, 120 film

Tmax 100, Rodinal 1+50, 120 film

Tmax 100, D-76 1+1, 120 film

Tmax 100, D-76 1+1, 120 film


Since Pan-F was mentioned, I liked it too but I usually use Tmax since its easier to find where I live, and cheaper, for equally nice results:

Pan-F, Rodinal 1+50, 35mm

Pan-F, Rodinal 1+50, 35mm

Sorry I don't have any 120 film examples of Pan-F, never shot it in that size.

 

[sniki]

In the 25 ISO area, personally I'm very satisfied of results with Efke Ortho 25 and Rollei Ortho 25 - I'm pretty sure they are each other clones, all but price.
I do recommend standing development technique with Rodinal 1:200, a very good lever to control contrast and - according to exposure - contrast/ratio on these film.
My start point is 60 minutes at 25 ISO, 45 minutes at 12 ISO and 35 minutes at 8 ISO.

 

[Noserider]

Tmax 100 shot at 50-64 processed in Microdol-X 1:0 is a the Kodak recommended replacement for Panatomic-X, and for me its as close as a match as you'll ever find. I have 20 rolls of Pan-X 120 in the freezer but Tmax 100 done that way has now replaced that for most shooting. You may also want to try Fuji Acros in Xtol.

 

[Nokton48]

Ilford Pan F + is my favorite ISO 25 speed film. Use it in 120 and 35mm.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Delta 100 in a finegrain developer (Perceptol, etc.) is the sharpest you'll get and extremely fine grained. True ISO in Perceptol maybe 80; try EI 64.

Although I like Delta 100 in 120 I prefer Pan F for tonality among fine-gran films in 35mm. Try a two-bath developer and box speed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

Back when Panatomic-X was discontinued Kodak called TMAX 100 the replacement, the last ones I got had a sticker on the can lid saying this. I never managed to make that transition, and just went to Plus-X and dealt with the grain change by using Microdol-X 1:1. Perceptol would cover that ground now.

These days I use PanF+, and I shoot it at 40 and 32, develop it in DD-X 1:4. Pretty darn Panatomic-X like in look, though the grain is still bigger. Should run some in Perceptol 1:1....

Efke25 is close also, though less close because of contrast. I like Rodinal for that film.

I've found the Rollei 25 films are much contrastier than I generally like, as are all the ATP versions, and while I've managed to mostly tame the Ortho25 and the Pan25 I still get surprised from time to time with excessive contrast depending on the light and my attention to development procedure.

PanF @ ISO 40 in DDX 1:4

Ortho 25 @ ISO 20 in Rodinal 1:50 (I have in my head that this was the Adox version, but I've been told by Adox that it was at one time the same thing as the Rollei branded stuff)

Efke 25 @ ISO 20 in Rodinal 1:25

 

[SamStewart]

I think I have 100ft of the stuff if you want it!
i'll never end up using it.

 

[ZeissFan]

I think Kodak has done a good job with TMax 100. I also like the Adox CHS films. I'm not sure you'll be able to replicate the look of Kodak Pan-X.

Rollei ATP is more like Kodak Tech Pan than Pan-X.

I think the Adox films give the older-world feel.

I'm also a big fan of Ilford Pan F and FP4, but not HP5.

 

[kossi008]

For a while there, I was big on the Efke 25 (or Adox CHS 25 it's an Efke clone, and I suspect Rollei Pan 25 to be at least the same emulsion, too).

But then I found out that Pan F rated at Iso 32/16° and developed in Spur SD2525 gives me very similar tonality, so I streamlined my low-speed palette to Pan F, which I can either use as an Iso 25 film (as described above) or rate at Iso 50/18° and develop in Rodinal or Xtol.

If you cannot get the Spur developers, you could also try CG512 (Rollei RLS) or Perceptol or Microdol-X, I guess.

What I'm trying to say is: I haven't tried everything, but I suppose Pan F pulled one stop looks great in a lot of developers. I, for one, don't need Iso 25 films any more...

 

[johannielscom]

I think I have 100ft of the stuff if you want it!
i'll never end up using it.

Hi Sam,

if Rob won't take it, I will!

 

[robklurfield]

go for it. bulk loading is one complication too many for me at the moment.

Hi Sam,

if Rob won't take it, I will!

 

[Tom A]

I think I have 100ft of the stuff if you want it!
i'll never end up using it.

The good thing with old Panatomic X is that it does not really age. Some years ago i found a 100 ft roll that had rolled into the back of a cabinet in the darkroom. It had been there at least 17 years!!!!! I shot it - rated at 50 iso and it worked fine. Some nominal fogging, but nothing that could not be scanned or printed through!

 

[stephaneb]

I find Rollei 80S amazing. It is the best replacement I have found for the Agfa APX 25. Finer grain than even Acros and much better acutance. Tonalities to die for in Rodinal 1+50. IE 50 in Rodinal.

 

[Nokton48]

Sam and I have made a trade arrangement. I exchanging a 100' roll of Fuji Presto 1600 B&W for his 100' roll of Panatomic-X.

I think I have 100ft of the stuff if you want it!
i'll never end up using it.

 

[robklurfield]

glad this worked out for everyone. one of the reasons I love RFF.

Sam and I have made a trade arrangement. I exchanging a 100' roll of Fuji Presto 1600 B&W for his 100' roll of Panatomic-X.