Anyone tried Plus-X aerographic?

fil · May 15, 2005

Hi all,

I came across this guy on that auction site:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4204&item=7514601328&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

Has anyone here taken him up on one of these auctions and tried slicing it into 4x5? Did you like or dislike the film (Plus-X with extra red sensitivity)? It certainly is inexpensive per sheet if you work it out.

cheers
fil

removed account4 · May 15, 2005

hey fil

i have 2 long 9 1/2 rolls of ed's film ( mrfoto1 ).
i've used a few sheets, and the extra red sensitivity hasn't really bothered me (i don't shoot landscapes).
it is pretty cheep, but kind of a pain in the neck to cut. if you do get some, remember that 4x5 isn't 4x5 exactly ... when it was a plate size it was 4x5, but film is about 1/16 or 1/32 smaller all the way around.

-john

John Bartley · May 15, 2005

jnanian said:
hey fil
i have 2 long 9 1/2 rolls of ed's film ( mrfoto1 ).
i've used a few sheets, and the extra red sensitivity hasn't really bothered me (i don't shoot landscapes).
it is pretty cheep, but kind of a pain in the neck to cut. if you do get some, remember that 4x5 isn't 4x5 exactly ... when it was a plate size it was 4x5, but film is about 1/16 or 1/32 smaller all the way around.
-john

John,

When you cut for 8x10, are you cutting to 10" off the roll and then narrowing to 8" as a second cut?

Or :

Are you using the 9-1/2" length as the long side (the 10" side) and cutting to 8" so that you actually use a negative that's 9-1/2" x 8"?

removed account4 · May 15, 2005

John Bartley said:
John,

When you cut for 8x10, are you cutting to 10" off the roll and then narrowing to 8" as a second cut?

Or :

Are you using the 9-1/2" length as the long side (the 10" side) and cutting to 8" so that you actually use a negative that's 9-1/2" x 8"?

hi john

i am using the 9.5 as the 8" side and then cutting the 10" off of the roll ...

John Bartley · May 15, 2005

jnanian said:
hi john

i am using the 9.5 as the 8" side and then cutting the 10" off of the roll ...

Hmmm...ok - that's what I had thought of doing also, then one day the idea hit me that 9-1/2" was pretty awful close to 10" (9-15/16" actually) and I'd likely never miss 7/16". When I did the math, I figured I'd pick up 37 extra negatives per roll by cutting them short, so that's what I plan to do once I pick mine up next week.
I'm looking forward to trying this stuff.
The only concern I have is the stability with the negative only held on three side, but I'm sure there's simple solution for that also.

cheers eh?

removed account4 · May 15, 2005

SNIP

John Bartley said:
The only concern I have is the stability with the negative only held on three side, but I'm sure there's simple solution for that also.

cheers eh?

i had thought of doing the same thing ... one cut and that's that ...
but i got a little carried away <G>

oh, john, the solution to your prolem:
double sticky tape ...
it works if you tape film to a glass plate ( in holder ) why not in film holder?

- john

nze · May 16, 2005

Hello

I get good result with this film using PMK, AbC pyro and also rodinal.I use it for my 8.5x6.5 inch camera and also for ym panoram kodak 4x12 inch.

you also must take care of direct sunlight as the film has no any anti halation dye it may result in a pictorialistic effect if you develop with constant agitation and with a non pyro developer (or any contagious effect developer)
I also get better result by developping in tray with normal agitation than by constant rotation.

Christian

Nick Zentena · May 16, 2005

John Bartley The only concern I have is the stability with the negative only held on three side said:
Or you could cut it a little oversized. The oversized 8x10 that J&C has fits half my holders very tightly. The stuff isn't moving on it's on. OTOH it won't fit half my holders no matter how much I curse.

So if you've got a set of one type of holders then just cut the film wider then normal. It'll be a little tougher to load but it won't shift.

John Bartley · May 16, 2005

Nick, John,

Thank you for the good ideas - they certainly give me something to ponder. I'll likely have my film next weekend so I'll try both to start.

Christian,

Thank you for joining in with the development tip on agitation.
I "was" going to make tubes to develop in, but now I think I'll start in trays and use them until I get comfortable.

cheers all

nze · May 16, 2005

In fact, I first use tube constant and get a little to much contagion of the highlight. I decide to atate athe first minute and then every 1 minute , but I got some marks this way ( you may do better than me , but it doesn't work for me.
In tray I got no more problem. foe sure it need more care when I develop 12 films at time but it works great.

jimgalli · May 16, 2005

I find it to be very nice film. I don't have to trim the 5" side to load in 4X5 holders. Development can be problematic for a couple of reasons. The film doesn't have the dimensional stability to hold itself in most 4X5 development holder schemes. I found I could load 10 sheets very carefully in a JOBO 3010 tank but when checked later they were all floating on top of each other. Oddly, that didn't seem to be a problem for even development in those tanks though. The extra red will also be different. If you use red filters none of your current formulas for calculating exposures and factors will carry over to that film. It's excellent for 5X7. Chop at 7" and the 5" side will fit fine. It curls into the emulsion so it holds itself against the back of the holders nice and flat. Hard to load at first but you'll get used to it.

Murray@uptowngallery · Jul 6, 2005

Jukka Vattanen (I sure hope I spelled that right) uses 70 mm version for a lot of things including archtecture & portraits & loves it.

I have a spool (1000') of 2402 I haven't come to grips with yet. I don't have a dark room, so I have to haul it to other locations to use a dark room. It's been pretty traumatic to get off the roll. I hope to get used to it because I have lots of PLANS for it...4x5, 5x7 and 5 x 10 in 8x10 holders. It is quite thin, I've been warned about that for flatness, but sounds like jimgalli has found other benefits from that.

I had a scare (posted elsewhere) today. Kodak gave me some exposed 2402 test strips and I found out today I had forgotten to plug the film refrigerator back in until late spring, and the freezer had enough condensation in it to mold and rust the 100 foot spool of test strips. It was similar inside, although hadn't been opened yet.

I hope my big roll is OK...or I'll be a 35mm & 120 guy again :O(

Murray@uptowngallery · Jul 7, 2005

I misspelled Jukka Vatanen

www.jukkavatanen.com/

Anyone tried Plus-X aerographic?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency