Kodak Panatomic X Shooting/Developing

A

ash13brook

Established
Local time
4:25 PM
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
130
A friend gave me all of his film. It has all been freezer kept.
Among the mix are two 36 exposure rolls and one hundred foot roll of Panatomic X.
For now, I'm going to assume it's still good.
I had just started in photography when this film was discontinued, so I have no experience with it other than maybe shooting a couple of rolls way back then (1989-1991?).
I have all I need to roll it up.
What I need is advice on shooting it and developing it.
I think I'll be shooting it in a Leica "on the street".
Do I shoot it at box speed?
What is a good developer to maintain the super fine grain?

Thanks,
Matt
 
Matt, I wish someone would tell me to come get his freezer film! And Pan X, what a find.
It has been 40 years since I shot a roll of that, and it wasn't many rolls, as Plus X was the thing then, so I'm not giving any advice, but I will be listening in.
 
When I used Pan X I tried a few different developers, including Microdol X and D-76. I settled on D-76 as it served me well for what I was trying to accomplish with the film. All I used back then was 35mm film as my enlarger wasn’t capable of medium format or any other size and I didn’t allocate any moola for the larger stuff.

I soon moved on with film as my photography needed a higher speed film. Plus-X was a good all around film for me back then. To me Ilfords FP-4 Plus is the same as Plus-X. And I can still buy the Ilford film.
 
OMG!!! A bulk roll of Pan-X !!!

I'm incredibly envious.

Its likely still plenty good. That stuff will last a very long time when stored nicely.

I actually have my last roll of Pan-X in a camera right now. A little bittersweet.

I remember developing Pan-X in microdol, HC-110, D-76, and Rodinal. I don't remember which gave me the best results -- which of course would be the tiniest grain and decent tonality. I'm guessing Microdol was a Kodak recommended developer, but dilute HC-110 is what I intend to use this time around. Dilution B (suggested above) is probably fine, I intend to use Dilution H.

I can't say how much of a lucky score you've received. Enjoy! Also consider trading a few rolls with someone for some higher-speed film. You might get tired of working in the limitations of ISO 32 and crave some ISO 400. Heck 100 might seem fast.
 
ash13brook said:
A friend gave me all of his film. It has all been freezer kept.
Among the mix are two 36 exposure rolls and one hundred foot roll of Panatomic X....
Do I shoot it at box speed?
What is a good developer to maintain the super fine grain?

Thanks,
Matt
Click to expand...

Hi Matt,

Some of us love slow film. It has such incredible detail.

I still use Panatomic X film, although mostly in 120 roll format (expiry date circa 1989) and 4" x 5" cut down aerographic roll. There is (detectable) base fog, depending on how critical your imaging requirements are - which you can suppress in several ways. If you know the vintage of your Panatomic X, here are some solutions:

Box speed is ISO 32: you can shoot at ISO 8-25 in order to cut down the development time proportionally and restrain the base fog. I see your open apertures are not quite fast enough perhaps to work your rangefinder comfortably at this ISO. Perhaps then, you might need to try one of the other development techniques.

Average generic developers like D76 or HC110 are alright for average medium grain film. Perhaps it feels a little wasted on such a fine film. If you must, Rodinal's acutance is preferable however you may need to adjust for the development time in view of base fog.

A 1% Benzotriazole solution to the developer acts as a restrainer. Alternatively, Sodium Metabisulphite can be used. You will have to experiment by adding low concentrations into the developer, since there is a trade off in tonal range with using either kind of developer restrainer to compensate.

The principle of using an 'energetic' developer like Kodak HC110, is helpful for Panatomic X when it can shorten the developing time: the shorter your developing times for your working ISO, the less time there is for base fog to develop. If you can source it, Fuji Artdol (discontinued) is more successful than Kodak HC110. Development times are typically contracted to 2 1/2 minutes - phenomenally short and delivering a full tonal scale: even with HC110 dilution B, such short development times are unheard of. By the time you push for HC110 dilution H, significant increase of development times obviate all the benefits of using an energetic developer to achieve rapid development without base fog ascension.

Finally, I'd recommend consideration of using a staining development technique with a (speed) compensating developer like PMK Pyro (or Pyrogallol proper) staining development if you haven't already tried this method: the yellow-green stain masks base fog. Typically at ISO 16, development times run into 8 - 8 1/2 minutes at 21 degrees C. The base fog is extremely hard to detect in with this staining developer technique.

There are a number of darkroom developer resources (including Steve Anchell's useful primer and the Book of Pyro) which really bring out the best of this film. It's worthwhile learning how to match the development technique with such a fabulous film since you will be one of the last of this generation to shoot with Panatomic X. If you really cannot shoot any lower than ISO 32, then Ilford Microphen (a compensating developer or a similar like Microdol) would be better for the half stop speed increase, but still falls short of the other development techniques above.

Kind regards,
RJ
 
I also have a small stash of Panatomic-X left, bought "as new" in the early 1990s when Australian camera shops were dumping the stuff, often for a low as A$1.00 per roll. I bought up big then and have kept it chilled (not frozen) in my film fridge - it has served me well over the years.

I had 200 rolls of 35mm and 120 at one time and now have about 20 rolls of 35 left, which I am keeping for special shoots where I need large prints or super fine scans of details like building construction, stone work etc etc.

With careful work in the darkroom you can still get up to 16x20" prints with good detail out of a Panatomic negative. Note the key word, "careful".

Without going into many technicalities about this film, I tend to shoot it in normal light conditions (if our harsh Australian sunlight can be called "normal" in any sense of the word!) at EI 25.

I develop it for normal time in D76 1+1.

I'm seeing some base fog in my negatives, but nothing that cannot be printed or scanned through.

Panatomic contrast tended to be a little higher than the other Kodak films of that era but D76 seems to tame it.

Enjoy shooting your Panatomic. I had three 100-foot rolls of it at one time.

We users and shooters of such glorious films as Panatomic-X and Plus-X are probably the last to benefit from the best Kodak era of all...
 
Last edited:
I loaded up 100' of Panatomic-X into eighteen 36 exp cartridges and I've been saving them off in the deep freeze.

Beutler "Leica" Developer was recommended to me by TomA. It's easy to mix and it's just Metol and Sodium Sulphite as I recall. I shot a roll a while back but it's not been souped yet, it's on my list of things to do when I have time.

Beutler was also marketed as "Neofin Blue".
 
Panatomic X

Panatomic X

i too have a few rolls left, now ancient. As with others here, I tried various developers, and if my memory (also ancient) serves me, I remember the results using Rodinal as the best. Thinking of TomA, I'll use his recommendation on these...
 
Nokton48 said:
Beutler "Leica" Developer was recommended to me by TomA. It's easy to mix and it's just Metol and Sodium Sulphite as I recall.
Click to expand...

Metol and sodium sulphite is D23. Beutler has a second solution with sodium carbonate. The ratios of components are completely different too.

When I used Pan-X I liked dilute Microdol-X. It also looks great in dilute Xtol or Rodinal, but in Rodinal you lose quite a bit of speed when you don't have much to start with. In Xtol you can shoot at box speed.

Marty
 
Wow.
Thanks for all the responses.
I have quite a variety of black and white film, so I'd like to keep the number of developers to a minimum as I work my way through some of it.
I'm not even sure what's still available as I haven't developed film in close to 15 years.
HC-110 and D76, I know are. What about either Microdol or Rodinal?
Also, I thought my old 1988 Kodak Black and White Guide would have all this, but didn't. What would be "normal" times for HC-110 dil b and D76? I really would like to keep with either of those if I can get good results.

Thanks,
Matt
 
RJ-
I wish I would've spent the time learning that part of photography when I first started.
So, if I'm staying with less specialized developers, do you think I'm better off using the HC110 Dil B over straight Microdol because of the shorter developing time?

Matt
 
Interesting that the Kodak leaflet states that the sharpest results are with Microdol 1:3. Something to consider?

Regarding the question about HC-110 or Microdol (or D-76) as a function of developing time, I'm now curious as well: I was taught that longer development times (more than 5mins) are desireable because of the critical need to nail exact time when development times are short. But, I read in an earlier post in this thread that longer development times may encourage more base fog. So, which to favor now???

Also, I tend to favor HC-110 as my "commercial" developer (aside from Caffenol I mix up myself) because it remains good even after years of storage. I've had HC-110 work as new 6+ years after first opening. (I've had 30-year old Rodinal that worked as new). My D-76 seemed to fade in potency after a few months. So, a brownie point and a vote for HC110.
 
Hi Marty,

Thanks for your knowledgeable input regarding Legacy Mic-X. Have you used straight Mic-x with Pan-X? I replenish as I have mentioned and I'm not interested in diluting it.

TomA suggested bracketing the first roll, which I did do. If I can soup it with my other films (I run everything roll and sheet in Mic-X), that would be great!

Regards,
-Dan
 
ash13brook said:
RJ-
I wish I would've spent the time learning that part of photography when I first started.
So, if I'm staying with less specialized developers, do you think I'm better off using the HC110 Dil B over straight Microdol because of the shorter developing time?
Click to expand...



Hi Matt,

You're still on time to learn how to match developers to your imaging style and taste! Equally, freezing your remainder stock of Panatomic X until you feel comfortable with working with a slow speed fine grain developer helps milk the best out of the Panatomic X.

HC110 dilution B for expired Panatomic X will work. Any developer recommendation above will work to yield some sort of image. Perhaps some recommendations will not net you sharper or even better tonal scale prints than using in date Fuji Acros developed in Paterson FX39 (compensating, high acutance, fine grain and great tonal scale). Equally, the base fog entails, the failure to print bright whites - perhaps perceptible.

If HC110 or Microdol were the only two developers on earth available for you, the shorter HC110 dilution B times for an ISO of 16 (maximum) would work okay (and cut down development time proportionally) - instead of box speed. Can you shoot at ISO 16, or do you need a Noctilux :)

Kind regards,
RJ
 
Nokton48 said:
Thanks for your knowledgeable input regarding Legacy Mic-X. Have you used straight Mic-x with Pan-X? I replenish as I have mentioned and I'm not interested in diluting it.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I used well-replenished Microdol-X a long time ago. My time was 25 minutes at 20C at ei32. But this was when test strips were more widely available and I would check speed and developer times frequently. It could vary 10-20% either way from that point.

Nokton48 said:
TomA suggested bracketing the first roll, which I did do. If I can soup it with my other films (I run everything roll and sheet in Mic-X), that would be great!
Click to expand...

It will look different to dilute fresh Mic-X, but replenished Mic-X will work fine, and I am sure you can figure out an EI and a time in your system.

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