panatomic X

[analoguser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found two rolls of Panatomic X (ASA 32) in my desk drawer which were exposed around 25 years ago. They were exposed at ASA 80 for processing in a slide kit. I want to process them now for negatives "pushed" to 80 ASA speed. I have Xtol and don't wish to spend for another developer just for this little and unimportant one time project. Does anybody have any idea as to how to develop Panatomic X exposed at ASA 80 in Xtol?

[Guest Ornello]

I found two rolls of Panatomic X (ASA 32) in my desk drawer which were exposed around 25 years ago. They were exposed at ASA 80 for processing in a slide kit. I want to process them now for negatives "pushed" to 80 ASA speed. I have Xtol and don't wish to spend for another developer just for this little and unimportant one time project. Does anybody have any idea as to how to develop Panatomic X exposed at ASA 80 in Xtol?

 

I doubt anything of value can be obtained here. The film was seriously underexposed to start with (exposed for reversal processing), so I would not waste my time. The latent image is probably deteriorated beyond salvaging. The latitude of slow films is almost non-existent. Toss 'em. If they had been exposed at EI 20 you might have had a chance.

[maxspbr]

Panatomic X!! The very very best film I ever shot. Unhappilly I only got few rolls, soon the production stopped.

 

I believe you can got some interesting results with it. Try with half roll with plus 1/3 developement time. Probably will be OK (I did this with 12 years old Plus-X). You will have a starting point, if necessary to vary the developing time.

[Guest Ornello]

Panatomic X!! The very very best film I ever shot. Unhappilly I only got few rolls, soon the production stopped.

 

I believe you can got some interesting results with it. Try with half roll with plus 1/3 developement time. Probably will be OK (I did this with 12 years old Plus-X). You will have a starting point, if necessary to vary the developing time.

 

25 year-old underexposed latent images are almost certainly gone by now. Not worth the trouble.

 

Film that has not been exposed has a better chance of being usable than exposed film. Latent images on old film deteriorate faster than new images on old film.

 

I can recall seeing rolls of color film with several sets of Christmas photos on them, from customers. The recent ones were fine; the old ones, from 2 or 3 years back, showed color shifts and loss of contrast.

[dave_d]

Kodak used to be good at helping people with issues like this. It might be worth giving them a call and see what they tell you. Kodak Information Center at 1-800-242-2424.

[drolfe]

Black and white film exposed on a U-boat during WWII by Lothar-Gunther Buchheim were processed successfully in the 1970s, used in his book, "U-Boat War."

 

Worth a shot.

[analoguser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks to all you gentlemen ...

Not sure now if it is worth the trouble.

[Guest Ornello]

Black and white film exposed on a U-boat during WWII by Lothar-Gunther Buchheim were processed successfully in the 1970s, used in his book, "U-Boat War."

 

Worth a shot.

 

But this was underexposed to begin with, and that's the basis of my analysis. As I said, if it had been exposed generously it might have had a chance.

 

Was the u-boat film kept on the sub and recovered later? If so, it was in quite cool conditions (on the sea floor). Film stored at room temperature is a different story.

[maxspbr]

Well, I tried with 12 years-old latent image Plus-X - and worked. There is, certainly, a little fog over all the film, but no trouble to enlarge.

 

The films were in the worst conditions.

 

I would try to develop; the worst can happen is to loose time. Not that bad. The same I did with mine Plus-X; a hot night, nothing special to do, let's see what we get. (And I am very happy about this: the rolls had several images from my student days).

 

25 year-old underexposed latent images are almost certainly gone by now. Not worth the trouble.

 

Film that has not been exposed has a better chance of being usable than exposed film. Latent images on old film deteriorate faster than new images on old film.

 

I can recall seeing rolls of color film with several sets of Christmas photos on them, from customers. The recent ones were fine; the old ones, from 2 or 3 years back, showed color shifts and loss of contrast.

[Guest Ornello]

Well, I tried with 12 years-old latent image Plus-X - and worked. There is, certainly, a little fog over all the film, but no trouble to enlarge.

 

The films were in the worst conditions.

 

I would try to develop; the worst can happen is to loose time. Not that bad. The same I did with mine Plus-X; a hot night, nothing special to do, let's see what we get. (And I am very happy about this: the rolls had several images from my student days).

 

But these rolls were underexposed to start with. There will be only faint traces of an image.

[drolfe]

I don't recall the particulars of Buchheim's old film, but it was not recovered from the sea floor. I believe it just knocked about among his things, forgotten in the chaos of the war and subsequent years. It was probably not kept under optimal conditions.

 

I don't know, of course, how many of his exposures were viable, but they seemed to have been made under a wide range of lighting conditions, as one would imagine, and there were enough to fill a very interesting and compelling book.

[cbretteville]

Souped a 20 year old roll of Tri-X in D76 some time in the late 80s. The roll was one my dad had shot one May 17 (our July 4) when I was about 4. I found it in a drawer with mittens, scarves and hats. A little fogged, but no problem.

I'd say it is worth a shot.

Carl

[Guest Ornello]

Souped a 20 year old roll of Tri-X in D76 some time in the late 80s. The roll was one my dad had shot one May 17 (our July 4) when I was about 4. I found it in a drawer with mittens, scarves and hats. A little fogged, but no problem.

I'd say it is worth a shot.

Carl

 

But this film is underexposed. That's significant. Even if it were to have been processed right after exposure as a negative, it still would have produced poor results. It was exposed for reversal processing, at EI 80.

 

"I found two rolls of Panatomic X (ASA 32) in my desk drawer which were exposed around 25 years ago. They were exposed at ASA 80 for processing in a slide kit. I want to process them now for negatives..."

[giordano]

It's a very long time since I reversal-processed B&W film, and it was Pan F and FP3, not Panatomic X. But the difference between EI 32 and EI 80 is only just over one stop, so it's definitely not a question of gross underexposure. As I recall, the underexposure was purely to balance the amounts of silver used between the negative and positive images and shadow detail in the diapositives was perfectly adequate.

 

Thanks to the low senstivity of the film, fogging should be less severe than with, say, Tri-X of the same vintage.

 

So I'm sure it's worth a try. I'd start with half a roll and develop it as if it were a matter of pushing the film about one and a half stops.For the rest, rely on the fact that negatives that in the old days would have been almost unprintable are now reasonably scannable.

[aesop]

...that's two days of discussion - more than enough time to have processed the two rolls. Life's too short and grim to throw away a potential surprise. Go for it, analoguser, and let us know what transpired.

[Guest Ornello]

It's a very long time since I reversal-processed B&W film, and it was Pan F and FP3, not Panatomic X. But the difference between EI 32 and EI 80 is only just over one stop, so it's definitely not a question of gross underexposure. As I recall, the underexposure was purely to balance the amounts of silver used between the negative and positive images and shadow detail in the diapositives was perfectly adequate.

 

Thanks to the low senstivity of the film, fogging should be less severe than with, say, Tri-X of the same vintage.

 

So I'm sure it's worth a try. I'd start with half a roll and develop it as if it were a matter of pushing the film about one and a half stops.For the rest, rely on the fact that negatives that in the old days would have been almost unprintable are now reasonably scannable.

 

But the exposures are 25 years old. Slow films have less latitude. If this had been Tri-X Pan you would have a point. There is nothing to be gained from this.

[stunsworth]

There is nothing to be gained from this.

 

And nothing to be lost other than a half hour of the OP's time and a shot of developer. Maybe there'll be nothing there, but if I were in his position I'd be curious to find out.

[ismon]

Panatomic-X in Rodinal was my standard for many years. I regularly exposed as ASA 100, and developed @ 1:100 for 11 minutes. Lovely negs, easy to print.

[Guest Ornello]

And nothing to be lost other than a half hour of the OP's time and a shot of developer. Maybe there'll be nothing there, but if I were in his position I'd be curious to find out.

 

and I'm saying I can satisfy his curiosity by saying he'll get nothing of value.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stunsworth]

and I'm saying I can satisfy his curiosity by saying he'll get nothing of value.

 

Maybe not, but as I said I'd be curious to find out for myself.