Panatomic-X in bulk 5" wide 2000' rolls

[Larry Gebhardt]

MrFoto is always selling Panatomic-X in a 5" x 2000' roll for $299 on ebay. I know this film was discussed here a while ago and some members use it. I have a few basic questions that MrFoto was unable to answer. First, since the film is on a thinner base does this effect the focus. Second, are there any perferations and do they impinge on the image area. Third, is there anyone who is selling this film already cut down to 4x5 or 5x7 so I can try out a small amount before investing in a huge quantity of film I may not like. And finally, do you like the film.

I am mainly interested because of the cost, but I don't want to compromise quality for a cost savings.

[Jim Galli]

Hi Larry. I have a 350 ft. piece of this film. It's on a 4 mil estar base. I'm not sure what everyday sheet film is for thickness. 12 mils? Someone will chime in I'm sure. I never worried about it and have had excellent results. It is rolled emulsion side in. No perfs. (at least mine doesn't) The film has a natural curl towards the emulsion. This tends to hold it tightly against the back of the film holders when loaded so flatness hasn't been a problem. Since it's only 4 mils thick it can only be developed in a tray. It won't form fit to any of our modern tanks etc. For me that rules out 4X5. More trouble than it's worth. Plus X is a tad grainy for 4X5 for my tastes anyway. What I do like it for is 5X7 since I'm still doing them 1-at-a-time anyway. It's a pain to load in 4X5 because the curl is "working against you" But it seems easy to load in 5X7. And last but not least.........I have some in the deep freeze just in case our film daddy's do the bad bad thing and decide not to make it any longer.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Jim, thanks for the info. Have you tried the Combi Plan or the Jobo tanks (2500 or Expert Drums)? If it only works in a tray I guess it isn't for me.

[Gene M]

5" x 24,00" ? Wow ! Now THAT'S large format ! You must need a crane to load the film holder.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Gene, the problem with this is there aren't many pictures that work with that aspect ratio. I beleive that you need an airplane to load it as it is aerographic film. Hmm, maybe if I was to cut it I could use it in my 4x5 or 5x7 camera.

[Gene M]

Ah ! I see.

[kallitype]

the HP Combi 5x7 tank is the best thing since sliced bread. Too bad HP marketing destroyed the dies....

[John Kasaian]

For developing 5x7, try a Unicolor print drum, the poor man's Jobo---works great!

[Jim Galli]

Larry, send me your address offline and I'll send you a piece of the stuff to play with. jimgalli at lnett.com L N E T T . C O M

[David Vickery]

Hello, I don't think that there are any perferations on this film, but I have never purchased the 5" Panatomic-X film so I am not sure. I don't think that the thickness of the film base will make any noticable difference. I talked to Jim G. (here I think?) about buying aerial film and decided to go with the Plus-x rather then the Panatomic-X. He suggested that the Plus-X was less contrasty the the Panatomic-X. So I bought it in the 9.5"x125' version, but I haven't used any yet. I'm still trying to build 9.5"x24" film holders.

[Ed Workman]

The 4 mil thickness is "typical" for roll film...sheet film is about 7 mil. Some aerial film is on a thinner base so one can jam in more feet in a magazine.