Atomic X film - a brief review

[munz6869]

I've done a brief review of New 55's Atomic X film here: http://thelargeformatblog.com/2016/03/22/atomic-x-panchromatic-sheet-film-by-new55-review-by-marc-morel

I hope it's useful!

Marc

[Mick Fagan]

Very interesting Marc. I thought your shot of the Speke shipwreck in Kitty Miller Bay was very good. To get that right, everything needs to be right, film, exposure, developer.

Mick.

[cjdewey]

I like the film. I shoot it at box speed, develop it in Caffenol, and am overall very happy with the results. I love the price, and I hope New55 sells a boatload of the stuff.

A couple minor niggles: it seems to have a slight curl, and it's cut about 1/16 inch shorter in each dimension than you'd expect. That makes it a bit tricky to seat correctly in an Epson v800 holder, and it may not be quite flat in the film holder, either: I notice some of the images on my negatives don't make a straight edge parallel to the "darkslide-end" of the film, but rather a very shallow 'V', where the center of the image is closer to the edge of the film than the corners are, like the film is bowing slightly away from the lens. (The image at the "notch-end" goes to the edge of the film.) I suppose that might have some effect on sharp focus.

[adelorenzo]

Great review, thanks for posting.

I have six boxes of this but have yet to open one to try any. I'm using Pyrocat-MC so I'm thinking I'll start with ISO 50 and work from there.

[Peter De Smidt]

It would be interesting to know how this film compares to others.

[Michael Graves]

I've tried two Chinese films and both suffered from the same issue. Pinprick holes in the emulsion. Has anyone seen this to be a problem with this film?

[fishbulb]

I have been thinking about buying Atomic X but have been waiting for some more information - couldn't find much on the web. Thank you for the review! Just ordered two boxes.

I'll be developing in D76 and will report back with the results...

[Domingo A. Siliceo]

Interesting. Is someone distributing this film from Europe? I guess shipping cost from the USA should be prohibitive.

[munz6869]

It may not be Domingo - I ordered from Australia, and it was still pretty reasonable!

Marc!

[SW Rick]

I see New55 now has pre-loaded various "name brand" films available in 5 packs as well (http://shop.new55.net/collections/all/products/1shot?variant=1194818235). What interests me is the statement that "Each sheet film is attached to a focal plane flat tongue that can be re-used, if desired.".

I don't have a Polaroid 545 holder and am not inclined to buy one, having both the Kodak Readyload and Fuji Quickload holders and not needing more "gear" in my life. Sounds like the New55 packs are reusable? Anyone aware of any similar setups which would work with the Kodak or Fuji holders? That would seem to be a great solution, being able to load your own film into packets. Of course there are probably lots of technical reasons such a system would have issues.

[Fred L]

I wonder if the reloads would require taping one edge of the film down which would be tricky unless one had IR goggles. If it fit in a sleeve/pocket instead, that would be great, if dust can be controlled as well.

[SW Rick]

I think I remember a thread from a few years ago by someone who was going to manufacture a "system", but I don't think that ever went to fruition. I suspect this is something devoutly to be wished. The biggest advantage of quick loads for me was the bulk/weight reduction.

[Willie]

Mido cut film holders are still around on the used market. Some like them, others don't. When they fit your style they save a ton of weight and space in the camera bag.

[fishbulb]

Well, I ordered my two boxes of Atomic X on Saturday, and got them on Wednesday. Pretty quick shipping for across the country. Got 12 sheets loaded in film holders last night.

My Atomic X came inside a folded and taped plastic bag, which was inside a sealed light-proof bag that I had to cut open with scissors, which was inside a white box with a top and bottom half.

Each sheet of film has a protective paper sheet in between it, and on the top and bottom of the stack. The film loads easily and has notches in the corner.

Hopefully I will get some time this evening to go out and shoot.

[rbultman]

So it is 5 sheets per box? The HP5 option would be more than $8 per sheet? Am I doing the math right? Seems expensive.

Regards,
Rob

[SW Rick]

Well, I ordered my two boxes of Atomic X on Saturday, and got them on Wednesday. Pretty quick shipping for across the country. Got 12 sheets loaded in film holders last night.

My Atomic X came inside a folded and taped plastic bag, which was inside a sealed light-proof bag that I had to cut open with scissors, which was inside a white box with a top and bottom half.

Each sheet of film has a protective paper sheet in between it, and on the top and bottom of the stack. The film loads easily and has notches in the corner.

Hopefully I will get some time this evening to go out and shoot.

When you say you loaded 12 sheets into holders, are you speaking about the "Quickloads"? Or are you speaking about "bulk" film in boxes? If Quickloads, why do you have to load them into holders (aside from ultimately loading them into Polaroid 545 for exposure? Perhaps I do not understand how their pre-loaded film works.

Thanks

[SW Rick]

So it is 5 sheets per box? The HP5 option would be more than $8 per sheet? Am I doing the math right? Seems expensive.

Regards,
Rob

Yes, hard to figure out how film costing about $1.25 in 100 sheet boxes becomes $8.50. I appreciate this is the only game in town and they are not "making it up on volume", but that's a serious price. OTOH, if the "holders" can really be reused without too much hassle, cost could be reduced.

[fishbulb]

So it is 5 sheets per box? The HP5 option would be more than $8 per sheet? Am I doing the math right? Seems expensive.


Yes, hard to figure out how film costing about $1.25 in 100 sheet boxes becomes $8.50. I appreciate this is the only game in town and they are not "making it up on volume", but that's a serious price. OTOH, if the "holders" can really be reused without too much hassle, cost could be reduced.

Atomic X is regular 4x5 sheet film, 25 sheets per box for $29.95.

It is NOT the polaroid-style New55 film:
http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/atomic-x-iso-100-4x5-panchromatic-sheet-film


When you say you loaded 12 sheets into holders, are you speaking about the "Quickloads"? Or are you speaking about "bulk" film in boxes? If Quickloads, why do you have to load them into holders (aside from ultimately loading them into Polaroid 545 for exposure? Perhaps I do not understand how their pre-loaded film works.

Thanks

Since Atomic X is just regular sheet film, I loaded it into my 4x5 Fidelity Elite film holders in a dark bathroom, just like any other film. :)

[SW Rick]

Thanks for clarifying. I guess things got jumbled: they are also selling "quickload-type" film (not the polaroid type) in 5-sheet boxes with prices for the boxes running about $40-60 per 5-sheet box, depending on emulsion chosen. One of the options is Atomic X. Sorry for any confusion!

[fishbulb]

Thanks for clarifying. I guess things got jumbled: they are also selling "quickload-type" film (not the polaroid type) in 5-sheet boxes with prices for the boxes running about $40-60 per 5-sheet box, depending on emulsion chosen. One of the options is Atomic X. Sorry for any confusion!

Oh interesting. I didn't know they made the quickloads in more types now. Yeah, those do seem pretty high priced for what they are.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Atomic X is regular 4x5 sheet film, 25 sheets per box for $29.95.

It is NOT the polaroid-style New55 film:
http://shop.new55.net/collections/fr...tic-sheet-film

True, but it is the same film used for New55.

[peter schrager]

I just ordered some to try...this thread wobbles on and still no one can give a straight answer..this could be sleeper film. .in price only foma 100 comes close which I really like as it has a certain look to it..I'll post some feedback

[cjdewey]

What straight answer are you hoping for? It's only been generally available as boxed sheets for a few months, so I don't imagine many people have tried it. The name is a reference to Panatomic X, so whatever qualities you associate with that film, consider that's generally what New55 was aiming for. In 4x5, I've used HP5+, 320TXP, Acros, Fomapan 100, and Atomic-X; I've gotten good results with all of them. As an inexpensive medium speed film, I'm happy with Atomic-X and will buy it again. It doesn't replace Acros when I want the reciprocity characteristics of that film. And it may not replace a tab-grain film, if you prefer that to cubic-grain.

[munz6869]

I agree with cjdewey... Information (including my review at the start of this thread, plug, plug ;-) ) is starting to appear on the web. Like any film you just have to try and see. I'll probably stick to HP5+ & TXP when all is said and done, but it's a reasonable film and pretty cheap.

Marc!

[Lenrick]

I exposed a few sheets of Atomic-X a few days ago. My real aim was to test T-MAX 100 in Tetenal Ultrafin developer, but I aslo exposed Atomic-X for comparison, so I thought I'd share in this thread. This is not ment to be a review, just one observation.

Image below was captured on an iPad where I made notes of the Exposure Values in the scene:
149117

From previous experience I've ended up considering Atomic-X a ISO25 film (although, perhaps, my limited testing points more at ISO32). I was very glad to see that Marc Morel had reached a similar conclusion with his extensive testing. Reading his review earlier would have saved me quite a few sheets.

The image below is Atomic-X (ISO25). I placed background bushes in zone V (EV13), and exposed at f/64 and 4 s (added 2 second due to reciprocity failure). Developed in Tetenal Ultrafin together with the T-MAX 100 sheet that is mentioned below this image. Development during 7 minutes, which is considered normal (N) for T-MAX 100:
149118

The image below is T-MAX 100 where zone V was placed in EV13, f/64 and 1/2 s. Developed N in Tetenal Ultrafin together with the Atomic-X sheet that is mentioned above:
149119

The Atomic-X is the much better negative, more textures in more zones. So for this scene in this light, T-MAX 100 developed according to recommendations was not as good as good as Atomic-X just thrown in the development for fun...interesting! It should be noted that I use a really old Agfa DuoScan T2500 scanner, which mean I probably miss out on a lot of information.

The best negative from this session was, however, T-MAX 100 where EV12 was placed in zone V (that is, +1 stop) and later developed at about 0.8*N (5 min 30 s, which I was hoping would give roughly N-1):
149120

Although I think +1/3 stop would have worked better in this case, or N-2 development.

Conclusion: quite a bit of work to get a good T-MAX 100 negative of this scene, no work at all to get a good Atomic-X negative. Lucky or sloppy, or both?

[vdonovan2000]

No methodical testing on my part. I'm just liking the tonal range I get with Atomic X exposed at EI 50, developed in Xtol:

149137

149138

[Neil Purling]

I wonder if the film is the LF version of Shanghai GP3, which used to be all over ebay until recently?
I found that the Shanghai worked out to be around 50ASA in Rodinal.
The price of the Atomic X 4x5 negative film is around equal to the price Fomapan sheet film retails for in the UK, excluding shipping to the UK.
Has anyone had film shipped from the US to the UK? The shipping cost would be a deal breaker.

[Kevin Harding]

Shanghai GP3 (which was produced up to 8x10!) doesn't seem to be in production at the moment. Allegedly, the factory was moving. I do recall that it has a similar notch to Atomic X (single large demi circle).

Since everyone is saying Atomic X is Chinese produced, maybe it is produced by SMPIC. That would be awesome, and would make me wish they were producing in 120 again, too....

[Neil Purling]

With shipping to the UK a box of 25 sheets is UK £ 33.87. It is getting rather close to the price of Ilford FP4, but still a bargain price-wise compared to the same quantity of T-Max 100. I know nothing of the quality of the film in respect of coating defects or pin-holes.
I would have to get to know it personally before I really knew what it was like.

[fishbulb]

Well, one bit of advice for this film. The sheets are a little narrower, about 0.75mm, on the short dimension compared to my Ilford films. They are the same length though. This means you have to be more careful loading Atomic X. It is easy to misload it, sending it down a dark slide groove. And then you'll find out when you remove a dark slide, snap the shutter, and then can't get the dark slide back in.

[AtlantaTerry]

I've done a brief review of New 55's Atomic X film here: http://thelargeformatblog.com/2016/03/22/atomic-x-panchromatic-sheet-film-by-new55-review-by-marc-morel

I hope it's useful!

Marc

Marc,

Would you mind discussing Atomic X film's reciprocity characteristics a little more than what was in your review? I've been trying some 4x5" Arista EDU Ultra 100 which has a terrible reputation in this area.

BTW, when it was readily available on eBay, I used a lot of Shanghai 4x5" film and liked it with either D-76 or HC-110.

Thanks,
Terry

[Andrew O'Neill]

Use New55's reciprocity compensation data as a starting point:
http://www.new55.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/New55-FILM-Reciprocity-Information.pdf

Forgot to add that like most manufacturers, the data may tend to be a bit too generous. That is what I have experienced with the many films that I have used over the years and why it is always a good idea to conduct your own tests.:)

[AtlantaTerry]

Use New55's reciprocity compensation data as a starting point:
http://www.new55.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/New55-FILM-Reciprocity-Information.pdf

Forgot to add that like most manufacturers, the data may tend to be a bit too generous. That is what I have experienced with the many films that I have used over the years and why it is always a good idea to conduct your own tests.:)

OK, that's not too bad. Unlike Arista EDU Ultra 100 which really fades off.

Thanks.

[munz6869]

I agree with Andrew - it's really important to do your own tests. From what I'm reading here and there, ISO's are ranging from 100 to 50 and 40 (and my 25) depending on developers, and reciprocity is vaguely 'as documented by New55', but again, may vary with your own process. If you CAN nail this down through testing, you may have yourself quite a useful and inexpensive film...!

Marc!