tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post4679250976300813374..comments2024-03-27T13:44:38.472-07:00Comments on Urban Decay: Kodak Panatomic-X: the Best Black and White Film*Kodachromeguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09234925040052813302noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-91843913083079697762023-04-22T09:04:29.995-07:002023-04-22T09:04:29.995-07:00Thank you, Anonymous. I have recently been using A...Thank you, Anonymous. I have recently been using Acros 100. It is an amazingly good film. <br /><br />For 120 size: I think recent and fresh Acros is about as fine resolution as my 30-year-old Panatomic-X, even with the latter having been frozen all these years. <br /><br />For 35mm: If I had more time, I'd like to use TMax 100 some more, but for now, Acros suits my need in 35mm. kodachromeguy@bellsouth.nethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06220306502819757568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-8935661666873185362023-04-20T09:06:28.572-07:002023-04-20T09:06:28.572-07:00A passing comment, this. It's heresy, I know, ...A passing comment, this. It's heresy, I know, and I may well be burnt at the stake for thinking it, let along putting the words to the keyboard. But here goes anyway. <br /><br />A close digital equivalent to Panatomic, I've found, is what I find I can do with the B&W film simulations in my Fujifilm XE2. The Acros with yellow filter produces mid tones most pleasantly reminiscent of what I once got with '35' Panatomic. For a deeper mood, the Acros with red filter is super good. <br /><br />Like we used to do with film, and notably so with Panatomic-X, it's important to not overexpose or underexpose digital B&W too much. <br /><br />I realize I may be offending some with this, but in this digieverything era, we have to make do and work with what we have. <br /><br />So yes, no more Panatomic, but I make do with Ilford FP4 and careful (relatively mind) spot-on time development in D76 1-1. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-36103607279296588642023-04-20T09:00:11.590-07:002023-04-20T09:00:11.590-07:00Back to this thread after a few years.
I recentl...Back to this thread after a few years. <br /><br />I recently used the last of my Panatomic-X. Ten rolls of 120 probably dating to the early '80s - I vaguely recall having bought it in 1983 to take with me on a trek across Australia with my Rolleifled 3.5E2 (Planar). <br /><br />In those heady days when film was actually affordable and we all took the time to think about our images and compose ever so carefully and one or two images did the trick of 1,001 digicrap ones, I used a lot of Panatomic. I bought it from Kodak Australia in 100-foot rolls and souped it in D76 1:1 which gave perfect mid tones. <br /><br />ten years ago when I retired I did a stocktake at home and found I had more than 200 rolls of 120 and eight or nine 100-footers of 35mm. All now used up. The last of the 120s was shot about a month ago. The 35 went during the Covid lockdown when I went back to film photography to preserve what remains of my sanity. (SO has serious doubts about this, but please let's not go there, okay?)<br /><br />I agree that TMax it not what Panatomic was (in spite of Kodak's marketing entreaties when it came out, I suspect it was never meant to) but the 100 and 400 TMaxes are still good films in their own right. So he admits, grudgingly... <br /><br />I now use Ilford FP4 and HP5, both excellent films in their own right. But they are NOT Panatomic, that was one of a kind. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-45029010208900424502021-03-07T16:59:18.663-08:002021-03-07T16:59:18.663-08:00Link to two Panatomic-X images I took in 1971. I ...Link to two Panatomic-X images I took in 1971. I couldn't tell you what kind of 35mm camera I used, but I do know I developed everything in D-76 at that time. Sorry for the low resolution scan, but check out the tonality. I have many more of these.<br /><br />https://bspurlin.wordpress.com/wbcn/arnie-ginsburg-images/Bill Spurlinhttps://bspurlin.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-714591986567106792021-02-14T04:51:07.124-08:002021-02-14T04:51:07.124-08:00Panatomic X was one of those films that may not be...Panatomic X was one of those films that may not be replaceable, like Verichrome Pan. I've started using a lot of the Ilford just because they support the film world, unlike Kodak, who could really care less, and will pull the plug the minute Tri-X reaches a profit margin they don't like. That said, I've tried Pan F 120 from Ilford over the years, even before Panatomic-X was gone, and just never warmed to it, never had that "X" look. Some of the "slow" old world "euro" films might be a match, but I haven't got around to testing them. <br /><br />Interesting to note, on your comment about VOC's in Panatomic-X hastening its demise. As a pro, I can tell you that a lot of photographers never warmed to the "cleaned up" Kodachrome 64 and 25, over the old dirty Kodachrome II, which looked beautiful. I never did, altho it didn't meet my processing turn around time anyway for my business. I did try the 120 Kodachrome Kodak reintroduced in the 80's and it was OK, so maybe they fixed some of the problems with cross-over, BUT, it just goes to show you, sometimes a lot of the old "dirty" stuff just could not be made "clean" and be as good! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-80210577314264888962020-09-03T15:55:44.141-07:002020-09-03T15:55:44.141-07:00Hemulen, these 1970s frames from London are really...Hemulen, these 1970s frames from London are really interesting. Some of the storefronts resemble ones in New York City in the 1960s and early '70s. This demonstrates the archival value of film. And you are right, you can develop just about any B&W film to be as contrasty as you wish. Thanks for writing. Kodachromeguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09234925040052813302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-27342753000239710992020-08-26T13:14:25.032-07:002020-08-26T13:14:25.032-07:00You can definitely get “black and white” with it, ...You can definitely get “black and white” with it, a while back I scanned some negatives of my mother’s of a roll she shot in the early 70s in London https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_island_ghost/albums/72157649050869823 .https://www.blogger.com/profile/06997769037777266730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-68304991754421829412019-10-08T20:44:02.255-07:002019-10-08T20:44:02.255-07:00I'm going to be the contrarian on this one. Be...I'm going to be the contrarian on this one. Because Pan X is ISO 32, it's way too slow for me, especially if used w/ a yellow filter. And while the pics are sharpish (who knows w/ web photos?), they look like digital....gray. I want BLACK and WHITE. So for those reasons, and because it just looks "better", Tri-X all the way baby.momus1https://www.blogger.com/profile/16413172482639227614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-42117914247008581102019-05-23T09:25:27.124-07:002019-05-23T09:25:27.124-07:00I tend to agree, but TMax 100 is excellent. So is ...I tend to agree, but TMax 100 is excellent. So is Ilford Delta 100. I tried Fomapan 100 Classic as a substitute, but had mixed results. Sometimes, it was really nice, other times the dark areas were just muddy:<br /><br />https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2017/01/cement-silos-of-redwood-with-fomapan.html<br /><br />Cheers!Kodachromeguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09234925040052813302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-61721467842462973372019-04-06T10:33:03.019-07:002019-04-06T10:33:03.019-07:00Panatomic-X was a film waaaay better than TMAX 100...Panatomic-X was a film waaaay better than TMAX 100. In my opinion , true look of classic film photography.<br />And with Rodinal looks great indeed.Josu.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-80639930083574560032017-07-05T07:22:16.640-07:002017-07-05T07:22:16.640-07:00Sorry, I plan to use it!Sorry, I plan to use it!Kodachromeguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09234925040052813302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-418200345166548412.post-31291354096293866592017-07-02T22:20:24.023-07:002017-07-02T22:20:24.023-07:00Are you selling that brick? If so, how much? That ...Are you selling that brick? If so, how much? That was my favorite film!Werewolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07696038527807783811noreply@blogger.com