Is Panatomic-X Aerographic II available anywhere?

[Asher Kelman]

Kodak Panatomic-X Aerographic II, 40 ASA (1683416) seems like a very high definition fine film. I'm wondering whether it would be good for scanning or to make platinum and other transition metal contact prints.

Anyway, it does not seem to be available. Is it that warplanes only use digital?

Is there the same film in a different name or pacjage?

Thanks,

Asher

[Murray]

Mr Photo or similar name in Pennsylvania on eBay was selling it in 9.5" x125' rolls in the past.

[argos33]

I have a 9.5" X 500' roll that expired 1986 I may be willing to part with. I just cut a piece off and it seems to be in good condition, although I have not tried exposing it. I will keep you posted, since I doubt I will use very much of it and would be happy to sell you the rest.

Evan

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Evan!

How much experience did you manage to get with this film? What did you process it with, can one do Pyro staining and any chance you have images to share?

Asher

[venchka]

See the ebay auction mentioned in the 5900 sheets of film thread. It's current right now.

[Randy H]

I would like to see this thread continue for kinda selfish reasons. Anybody actually shoot and dev any of this film yet?
I purchased one of those 9.5" x 500 ft rolls quite some time back off the 'bay. Still sealed and sitting in the fridge. I keep meaning to break into it and give it a shot or two, just haven't done it "yet". Would be real interested in others experiences with it. Processing, shooting, "examples?"? Likes/dislikes? My main concern has been the thickness of the sheet. IIRC, it is pretty thin stuff. And did it not have the anti-halation backing also? Would you want to pre-soak before dev?

[Joseph O'Neil]

This film is still listed on the kodak web site, but i could not find any indication of sizes or prices.

[argos33]

Asher, I have not had any experience with the film, but I am going to do some tests with it as I have heard it is quite good. The piece I cut off the roll looked like it did have an anti-halation backing, but I could be wrong. The film is quite thin, at first I couldn't tell if the giant reel had a paper covering around the outside or if it was the film itself (which it was). Assuming it isn't fogged or anything I think it will work quite well for scanning. I plan to cut some down into 8x10 sheets and give them a try sometime within the next week or two, so I will keep you guys posted. D-19 is the only compatible developer I have on hand so I am going to try that to start. Once I get some images I'll upload them.

[Gene McCluney]

If I recall, Jim Galli uses cut-down aerial roll film for some of his large-format photos, but I think he uses a roll of Efke brand.

[Mark Sampson]

3412 is meant for high-altitude aerial work. Thus it's a very fine-grain, high-resolution film with fairly high contrast. Naturally, Kodak's exposure and processing recommendations reflect this. If you want to use it as a normal (ground-based) camera film, D-19 will give unusably high contrast. Try an exposure index around 64-100, and develop in a standard developer. A little testing will show you what works best for you. The film has resolution so high as to test any scanner or lens/camera setup, and will be far above the requirements for any optical enlargement. The real question, from a photographer's standpoint, is whether it will give you a pleasing tonality. That will be for you to decide.