Kodak Panatomic X Shooting/Developing

RJ-
I've realized that I have 20 rolls of this film, so having it's own developer seems not "excessive".
I can shoot at ISO 16, although I would prefer 32. I mostly shoot a Leica w/28 mm. No reason in the world I couldn't shoot on a sunny to slight overcast day. I've shot plenty of Kodachrome 64 at night and shutter speeds to 1/2 second with acceptable results fairly regularly. Summer is coming and I spend some time in Florida. So, plenty of light. Shooting that slow isn't my preferred way, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Might slow me down to my benefit.
So, if you were going to say "Matt, just get this developer and get busy", which would it be?
Also, which book by Steve Anchell are you referring, too? Might as well learn SOMETHING from this.

Thanks
 
I recently picked up a brick and a half of 35mm Pan X from a retired photog. Been slowly working through it with HC110 1:100, diluted straight from the syrup. Been running with semi-stand, so my times are likely of no help for "straight" developing.

I rate it half box speed but depends what kind of "look" you prefer and how much contrast your lenses give.

Go have fun!
 
Hi Andrew -

It's a hard call. Your preference for street photography, is almost the extreme opposite of mine, in landscape work, where slow film is at most detailed. If you were to adopt my work flow, it would probably constrain your shooting style.

If I were to offer advice, it would be useless! I prefer Fuji Artdol and its flash development of 2 1/2 minutes with extreme pulling. I haven't come across any other photographer who happily admits to using it or finding it - not very helpful since I only have a few packs left to match the remaining stock of Panatomic X.

In some respect, you probably will have to at least try one roll of Panatomic X in HC110 dilution B for 4 1/2 minutes at 70degrees using minimal agitation - the effective film ISO reported by Kodak, drops with increasing agitation of the tank which is worth bearing in practice. This is what Fixcinater is controlling by his 'semi-stand' (minimal agitation) method, to preserve shadow detail and restrain highlight overblowns. The outstanding issue then, is still the variable degrees of base fog in expired rolls of Panatomic X. Maybe that is why I'd recommend learning about the range of development methods, and tailoring it according to your own specific knowledge of your own shooting style, film and development technique.

Once you have a reference point for your own work flow with a developer you are comfortable with, then the fun on the rest of the rolls start.

Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook is still affordable:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Darkroom-Cookbook-Alternative-Process-Photography/dp/1138959189


and grounds many different strands of developing film like an artist' palette of paints, to choose from, in order to interpret the canvas.


Gordon Hutchings' Book of Pyro is great - specialist great and one of the greats in photographic literature - but unfortunately rather costly now:

https://www.amazon.com/book-pyro-PMK-formula/dp/B0006P3UEW

It is more specialised than Steve Anchell's general primer on darkroom developer technique. You could leapfrog Anchell and go straight for Pyro and Hutchings' gives a reasonable guide for the simplest Pyro developer for Panatomic X - PMK Pyro - of which the formula is on the internet:

http://www.cabbagetownphoto.com/pyro.html

it is toxic, so you have to take standard handling precautions: many photographers just buy the ready made Part A + Part B solutions {1:2 + 100ml Water) and develop between a reference value of 6.5minutes - 9 minutes at 20 degrees C depending on ISO. The cheaper powder form is not difficult mixing up from the raw constituents - but this is the start of specialist developer technique. If it's not for you, definitely don't go backwards to track down Patrick Dignan's vintage primer!

There is a useful Pyro Flickr group run by Jay de Fehr - you'll find Pyro developers and photographers tend to be close knit and supportive - perhaps more pedantic and fastidious about how we develop film, instead of the fast and easy beans on toast HC110 method. When you compare Pyro negatives form Panatomic X side by side with HC110b or Microphen, the negative' contrast range is really striking with Pyro.

That's the one I think will be most rewarding - go Pyro! You can practice the Pyro developer on any other film: Fuji Acros (ouch! discontinued as well), Ilford FP4+ and hone your development technique - it transfers very well and your dilutions of Pyro PMK are always going to be Part A: Part B: Water as 1:2:100 - less than 10 minutes for any of these film at 20 degrees.

Then the Panatomic X will be ready for use :)


RJ
 
A compromise solution.

Sacrifice a roll. Shoot the same scenes at 32, 25 and 20. No need to go any lower, old Panatomic-X holds its EI speed remarkably well.

Many processing suggestions here, read everything and then decide. Me, I would soup it in D76 1+1 for either the recommended time or 10%-15% less, the latter being best for bright scenes. If in doubt, go for the full time. It's a test, after all, and you can look at the finished negatives and then decide.

Expect some base fog, nothing dramatic. Expect also that you will be amazed at the resolution you see in your negatives and finished prints.

Someone posted a comment about Kodak "fashion" which made me grin. Until the MBA bean counters in Rochester took the (ill-fated) decision to go mod in about 1990, and we know what happened then, "fashion" was the last thing Kodak could ever be accused of. Reliability, yes. Dependably, for sure.

Fashion? Like, DK-60a or Polycontrast/Polycontrast Rapid?

I rest my case.

PS Excellent image from greyscale. I also have done some of my best work with this film in its time.
 
Here's a sample from one of my rolls. I adjusted contrast a bit in post, but the combination was higher contrast than what I thought it would be. Definitely more inherent contrast than say, Tri-X.

My flatbed scanner is very much the weak link, shows noise and is not as sharp as the neg is (where the DOF actually is). Looks OK for web sizes.

Leica M3
Canon 50/1.5 LTM
Pan-X
HC110 1:100 semi-stand
Canoscan 9000F


Stump - Leica M3 by Anthony Gross, on Flickr
 
That Pyro sounds great.
Except...man, does it sound like something I don't want to mix up in my kitchen!
Is it really as bad as it says? Is it that bad once it's mixed? I could mix it in my garage, I suppose. What do you do with the developer once your all done?
Also, do you reuse the developer that just developed the film after the fix and rinse to get the stain?
I might try the HC100, also, since I already have some.

Thanks,
Matt
 
Hi Matt

Are you developing in your kitchen and not in a dedicated darkroom?

If you are in a kitchen, scrub the Pyro PMK developer off the list!

It lasts shorter than Ilfosol S - generous estimates range around 15 minutes half-life :)

It is one shot, once you mix Part A+B into water: essentially, it exhausts so rapidly, that you have to agitate, to prevent streaking from the chemical by-products. I tend to develop in a 16 litre tank (for sheet) - it feels the same as any other developer, only the set up is slower.

Hutchings abandoned his advice to re-stain the fixed negative back in the developer after originally touting its superiority. Thus the development cycle is straight-forward - develop, stop and fix. Perhaps the difference I'd recommend, is the 1% Benzotriazole solution added into the developer. I kind of do this out of habit, instead of checking densitometries (my densitometer runs on Windows XP I think it's nearing extinction!).

The Pyro developer exhausts rapidly: you cannot replenish it. The volumes of Pyro are tiny though and very economical. In developing Pyro, the agitation cycle is different from standard development: the Kodak inside 'cocktail' method (where the film is moved up and down in the developer liquid, rather than tank inverted). If you are developing roll film, you can use a cocktail agitation method, although I don't think it's necessary, so long as you have at least 600 ml per 120 roll, or 400 ml per 35mm roll. If you work too tightly with just 500ml per 120 roll or 300ml per 35mm roll, the developer exhaustion for the volume is too close to the tolerances and so you get the awful bromide drag (streak marks) phenomenon.

Kind regards,

RJ
 
ozmoose said:
Someone posted a comment about Kodak "fashion" which made me grin. Until the MBA bean counters in Rochester took the (ill-fated) decision to go mod in about 1990, and we know what happened then, "fashion" was the last thing Kodak could ever be accused of. Reliability, yes. Dependably, for sure.

Fashion? Like, DK-60a or Polycontrast/Polycontrast Rapid?

I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Fashion, as in
/ˈfaʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: fashion; plural noun: fashions
2. a manner of doing something.
"the work is done in a rather casual fashion"
synonyms: manner, way, style, method, mode; More

Kodak's usual manner of naming products was confusing. It's less so now they have so many fewer products.

Apologies if my non-American and somewhat old-fashioned English is confusing. I come from the peripheries of the English-speaking lands and was schooled by a religious order who taught that the only 'correct' English was Fowler's 'Modern' English Usage (1926).

I'll dig up some Pan-X scans when I can get a minute.

Marty
 
I still might have to try the pyro. Just with great care. I'm pretty neat with developing in the kitchen sink.
So...after developing, how do I get rid of the exhausted pyro? Is it dilute enough to wash down the drain?
And for sure, I'll try the Legacy Mic X, too.
Thanks,
Matt
 
Hi Matt,

If you can avoid selenium toned toast by developing in the kitchen, you've really mastered Marie Kondo's art of tidiness.

My darkroom was designed to expel exhausted chemicals into the soilstack. Generally most photographic darkrooms expel exhausted pyro via the water drains from the sink - there is no environmental consequence since it is less toxic on a macro scale than washing up powder' inorganic phosphates, or bis-phenols which are more problematic than traditional photographers :)

Kind regards,

RJ
 
Thanks, RJ.
I think I have try it. I see the PMK Pyro is all liquid, so no dust. I'll probably put a little exhaust fan in the window and put all the dishes away...
Maybe wait until my wife is out...

Thanks,
Matt
 
Also, I assume because of the high dilution, I should develop only one roll in a two reel tank and only two(probably won't ever develop more than two at a time) in a four reel tank?

Matt
 
Hi Matt,

I find the liquid Pyro stock solutions tend to work out fairly costly compared to powder mixing. Perhaps you can find the liquid in a nearby stockist - there are import restrictions on liquids overseas for us here. I found I always ran out of Part B [powder Sodium Metaborate] faster than Part A, and just found the home chemistry powders more flexible.

The liquid is great to start off with - and then refine your interest and technique.

Sandy (of the LF Photography Forum too) favours mixing Pyro to form Pyrocat HD.

ABC Pyro is also a modification of the original powder mix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6P29hjhtzw

He shows the agitation technique in the video (much of it is redundant and not applicable, since the ABC Pyro has been developed to prevent the rapid exhaustion challenges when sheet film processing).

For 35mm format, the liquid Pyro is great to start experimenting. That's right on with the volume ratio per film. A 400ml [Part A 4ml, Part B 8ml, 400ml distilled water] is convenient - although 5ml:10ml:500ml is easier to work consistently for a 35mm film - you can see the advantage of having a syringe measure.

Kind regards,
RJ
 
A year or so ago, a friend gave me a roll of Panatomic-X which had belonged to his father and had been stored in the garage....in Texas...for decades. He had no idea how old it was, but certainly was not from the last batch produced. Old, probably real old. Stored in a hot garage for decades. The leader on this film canister, once I opened the box, surprised me because it was long and thin, exactly like the leaders used by Barnack Leicas. Not sure when Kodak went to a current leader shape, but the only reference I could find to Pan-X with that kind of leader was from a 1946 roll.

I loved Pan-X, and always bang on about it here when anyone mentions how much they miss Plus-X. Wasn't expecting much if anything from this roll and just shot this as a lark, taking pictures of pretty much anything and nothing. Now, I wish I had been a little bit more judicious as to subject matter, but it is what it is. Still love this film. This is the one I want Kodak to bring back.

Developed in HC-110 yesterday at 4:30 minutes, because that is what I had handy, so results are grainier than if I had used Microdol, most likely.
Nikon F2A very haphazardly shot.








 
Have some expired in 89'. Believe I used Xtol 1+1 for 10mins or so.



Adrienne
Hasselblad 2000FCM | Carl Zeiss 150mm f4
Panatomic-X
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom