Best exposure index for Plus-x

[BetterSense]

Since shooting more medium format I'm starting to get annoyed at the graininess of Tri-X 35mm enlargements, so I'm looking to buy some finer-grained 35mm film to keep around for bright conditions.

I was going to buy some Foma 100 but then I remembered that Plus-X is available pretty cheaply in the form of Arista Premium 100.

I personally like Tri-X better at 200 than at 400. I find that I have to expose it at 200-250 in all of my cameras to get good negatives (by my definition) in D76 1+1.

Proper Kodak Plus-X is 125 speed, yet the Arista Premium version is 100. This is a small difference, but if Plus-X is overrated like Tri-X, then it's really closer to a 50 speed film. I have heard on motion picture fora that the Plus-X reversal film is drastically overrated and people overexpose it by up to 2 stops and get good footage.

What do you find to be the effective speed of Plus-X and how does it compare to Foma 100 in terms of 'true speed' and graininess?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have you tried Tri-X developed with XTOL?

Have you tried Tri-X in a medium format camera?

Steve

 

[clayne]

135 Tri-X is *grainy*?

 

[bdial]

I find that Plus-X in Xtol 1:1 delivers box speed, actually slightly higher. Other folks here have reported similar results.
I have not compared it to Foma, but especially in MF it's not grainy. It's certainly less grainy than Tri-X.

For the Tri-X (or Plus-X) D-76 straight should make the grain a lttle less apparent, I doubt you'd lose much, if any, speed from the 200 you use now.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Steve, Better Sense,

I was wondering the same thing about Plus-X.
I've been shooting 6x6 color negatives for years and typically de-rate box speed by about 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop, with good, predictable results.

I've recently gotten the B&W bug up my #@*%, and have been shooting quite a bit of it. I have run (5) 120 rolls of each of the following in the last week.

Tri-X 320 (exposed at 200 ASA developed D-76 1:1 68f 14min)
Seems excessively grainy, contrast is hit or miss, negs have good overall density.

T-Max 400 (exposed @ 320 ASA, same dev. as Tri-x above)
Acceptable grain, consistent contrast, good overall density.

Plus-x 125PX (exposed @ 100 ASA, D-76 1:1 68f for 9 min)
Minimal grain, consistently low contrast, negatives too thin.

What is a good starting point with the plus-X?
I know the Tri-X 320 has a pretty long toe, I will probably concentrate on the T-Max. Is the T-Max developer a better choice than the D-76?

Any suggestions for a fine grained, true 400 ASA B&W film?

-Missing Panatomic-X and my Tech. Pan...

 

[BetterSense]

135 Tri-X is *grainy*?

Of course it is. It has wonderful grain. I think Tri-X is definitely a somewhat grainy film, compared to Tmax it is anyway. But really it's not that Tri-X is grainy, it's that 135 is grainy. 11x14 enlargements from 135 are extremely grainy compared to from 6x6, obviously. I figure, if there is plenty of light, why not try keeping a body with a finer-grain film loaded? I figured slower films are less grainy in general. Untrue?

Have you tried Tri-X developed with XTOL?

Have you tried Tri-X in a medium format camera?

No, and irrelevant. I'm happy with the films I use in medium format, and I'm sure Tri-X gives nice fine medium-format sized grain in medium format. I'm usually happy with Trix in 135 too. I like it a lot, I've just thought I'd try a slower/finer grain film in 35mm for a change, to see what it would look like. I think a big part of the "medium format look" seems to be finer grain.

Would XTOL really make a difference in graininess? I just figured it gave slightly more shadow speed.

 

[fschifano]

Let's get one thing out of the way first. Arista Premium 100 is truly relabeled Plus-X. Why Freestyle hints at a box speed of 100 as opposed to 125 is something I don't know and don't care to speculate about. I've used both interchangeably, and have even developed both in the same tank together. They look identical, except for the rebate markings. So go ahead and use it exactly as you would Plus-X.

Achieving box speed with both Plus-X and Tri-X when developed in D-76 or XTOL, either straight or 1+1, has never been a concern. Box speed is easily obtainable with a front lit subject of average contrast. XTOL does indeed deliver slightly higher film speed and a bit less grain than D-76, but the differences are subtle and hard to spot unless you can compare the two side by side. Switch developers to a full strength, fine grain formula like Microdol-X or Perceptol and the smart money says to add an extra stop of light right off the bat. If the subject is lit from the side, or is of higher than average contrast, add an extra stop of light. If the subject is lit from behind, add two. That's all you really need to know to get very good results from either film. Of course, this assumes that your light meter and shutter are reasonably within spec. The films' latitude will take care of the rest, and you'll have no problem printing the negatives.

Plus-X cine film may very well be a different emulsion; but even if it is the same, there are other reasons why the recommended speed rating is different. First, you must consider the processing. Cine film is processed in automated machines using replenished developers, and a well seasoned batch of developer can cost you a bit of film speed over a fresh batch of dilute developer. Then there is the issue of the contrast curve and how it relates to the final product. In a cine application, the negative is meant to be printed onto a relatively high contrast material meant for projection. To achieve a full range of tones, the negative must be developed to a lower contrast index than would be the norm for printing onto a reflective medium like photo paper. In effect, the recommended "normal" processing is about the same as what we do when we "pull", or over expose and under develop the film.

Foma 100 (or Arista.EDU Ultra) is not the same as Plus-X, and is more grainy than Plus-X. It is the only one of the Foma films I've used that actually achieves box speed without developing it to an unacceptably high contrast index. It is, in my opinion, still a very nice film; and one that has a more "vintage" look to it than the more modern looking Plus-X.

I agree that Tri-X can get a bit gritty and grainy looking. Improvements made over the years have given us a modern Tri-X that is noticeably less grainy than the Tri-X of 20 or 30 years ago, but it is still more noticeably grainy than Plus-X. This can be especially vexing when used in 35 mm formats because of the high degree of enlargment needed to crank out an 8x10 inch print. Start cropping to improve the composition, and the grain problem gets worse.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Would XTOL really make a difference in graininess?

Yes. Look at the technical papers from Kodak on the comparison of its developers. XTOL is generally the finest grain developer that they make.

Therefore my earlier post was correct on both points.

Steve

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Motion picture Plus-X; EI 80.

My [less than] 2 cents: I use Kodak 5231, Plus-X motion picture film stock, at EI 80 [although 95% is exposed at Sunny f/11*]. In D76 at 1+3 for 10 minutes, I find it excellent. Easy to print; nice midtones. When I obtained 800 feet of it, I felt very fortunate and have abandoned other films to stick with this Plus-X.

Soon to begin brewing my own Beutler developer, using washing soda.

* It's likely my EI is tending towards 50, as I am generous with my exposures.

 

[BetterSense]

Foma 100 (or Arista.EDU Ultra) ... is more grainy than Plus-X. It is the only one of the Foma films I've used that actually achieves box speed without developing it to an unacceptably high contrast index. It is, in my opinion, still a very nice film; and one that has a more "vintage" look to it than the more modern looking Plus-X.

Thank you. It looks like if I'm going for a fine-grained 35mm film, I might as well go with Plus-X since it's just as cheap.

This can be especially vexing when used in 35 mm formats because of the high degree of enlargment needed to crank out an 8x10 inch print. Start cropping to improve the composition, and the grain problem gets worse.

You can see by the math that 35mm is going to have about 3x the size of grain as 6x6 at any given print size. I've been very pleased with full-frame Tri-X 35mm shots when printed at 5x7, they are very nice, with hardly detectable grain. An 8x10 starts to show visible grain, but it's not bad "obscuring clarity" grain. It's pretty nice grain. Now when I print a negative shot at 1600 and developed in Diafine, then you start to see conspicuous grain in an 8x10 print.

 

[eddym]

Have you considered TMax 100 or Ilford Delta 100? Both would be considerably finer-grained than Plus X.

 

[Anscojohn]

Since shooting more medium format I'm starting to get annoyed at the graininess of Tri-X 35mm enlargements, so I'm looking to buy some finer-grained 35mm film to keep around for bright conditions.

I was going to buy some Foma 100 but then I remembered that Plus-X is available pretty cheaply in the form of Arista Premium 100.

I personally like Tri-X better at 200 than at 400. I find that I have to expose it at 200-250 in all of my cameras to get good negatives (by my definition) in D76 1+1.

Proper Kodak Plus-X is 125 speed, yet the Arista Premium version is 100. This is a small difference, but if Plus-X is overrated like Tri-X, then it's really closer to a 50 speed film. I have heard on motion picture fora that the Plus-X reversal film is drastically overrated and people overexpose it by up to 2 stops and get good footage.

What do you find to be the effective speed of Plus-X and how does it compare to Foma 100 in terms of 'true speed' and graininess?

******
When I first began shooting Plus-X it was ASA 64;and if I recall correctly various Plus - X emulsions bounced up to ASA 80, even as high as 160 before settling at ASA 125; now ISO

 

[gainer]

I have concluded, after years of seeing and/or hearing folks say "I expose so-and-so at such-and-such film speed" all of which are different from the box and each other, only that each one would use the same meter differently, maybe or maybe not winding up with the same negative of the same scene.

Grain? How much closer than viewing distance for proper perspective must one be in order to see grain in a print from 35 mm Tri-X? If a person can only remark on the grain or lack thereof in one of my photos, I will show that person no more. I know. I'm a grump.

 

[DWThomas]

I use 80 for Plus-X and 250 for 400TX - generally incident metering with my teeny tiny Digisix. I use about 9 minutes at 68ºF in HC-110 1+63. Have I done exhaustive testing, no. Am I generally able to get the prints I want, yes. But as gainer hints, there are so many variables one should take the information with a grain of salt and a dash of skepticism. I've been using a similar approach with Acros 100 pretty successfully also.

DaveT

 

[clayne]

Grain? How much closer than viewing distance for proper perspective must one be in order to see grain in a print from 35 mm Tri-X? If a person can only remark on the grain or lack thereof in one of my photos, I will show that person no more. I know. I'm a grump.

Thank you! Sometimes I seriously wonder if people head to galleries with a damn loupe in their pocket.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Grain? How much closer than viewing distance for proper perspective must one be in order to see grain in a print from 35 mm Tri-X? If a person can only remark on the grain or lack thereof in one of my photos, I will show that person no more.

What he said.

On this we agree!

Steve

 

[BetterSense]

Have I offended anyone? Is there something wrong with attempting to control or manipulate the amount of grain in one's photographs by experimenting with different film speeds for different applications?

 

[Thomas Wilson]

"How much closer than viewing distance..."

Doesn't that generally depend on the size of the print and the negative?

A 16" x 16" print from a 6x6 negative is not in the same league as one from a 35mm negative. Excessive grain is subjective, of course, but I generally consider it something to be avoided.

 

[Anscojohn]

Have I offended anyone? Is there something wrong with attempting to control or manipulate the amount of grain in one's photographs by experimenting with different film speeds for different applications?

******
No and no.

And remember what Adams wrote many years back: a totally acceptable (to himself) 8x10 may be made from a 35 mm neg using Pan-X and a soft-working developer.

And films are better now.

 

[Michael W]

BS - you should also consider Fuji Acros which is a very sharp, fine grain film with nice tonality. I've no idea how it goes in D-76.

 

[Chazzy]

Have I offended anyone? Is there something wrong with attempting to control or manipulate the amount of grain in one's photographs by experimenting with different film speeds for different applications?

You're absolutely entitled to try a film with less graininess than Tri-X, if that is what you want to do. Please don't be deterred by a couple of unfortunate comments to the contrary.

 

[sanking]

I find grain to be nothing but a nuisance that interferes with detail and detracts from the image. For that reason I switched years ago from 35mm to medium format and then to large format. Unless we print very large in medium format or large format grain is pretty much a non-issue, especially with fine grain films like Acros, Delta 100 or Tmax-100. For 35mm you may also want to consider Pan-F, Efke 25 or 50, or Rollei Pan 25. I have used the latter in medium format and you can make grain free 30X40 prints from 6X7 or 6X9 negatives. To get the most from these slow speed films you probably need to use a tripod so you can use the optimum aperture of your lens for best resolution.

The low speed fine grain films tend to be very contrasty so I would recommend development in a two bath developer to keep from blowing out the highlights.

Sandy King

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Subject matter, the light quality, and enlargement factor play into what film to use. PX125 records more details. I use it on overcast days for its higher contrast. Between the two films, PX is the film of choice when shooting landscape in small format. Tri-X rated at 250 in XTOL 1:1 is a good choice when shooting inside and enlarging to 5x7. It's more than just grain.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Also consider that Freestyle has another rebadged film.... Arista Legacy Pro-100 and 400 both made in Japan by a premium film manufacturer!!! Hmmm its Fuji ACROS and Neopan 400.... Great at half the price of regular fuji film. I was blown away with the 35mm quality in Diafine.. Talk about easy to learn to use. The two shots here were done with Legacy Pro-100

 

[sanking]

Also consider that Freestyle has another rebadged film.... Arista Legacy Pro-100 and 400 both made in Japan by a premium film manufacturer!!! Hmmm its Fuji ACROS and Neopan 400.... Great at half the price of regular fuji film. I was blown away with the 35mm quality in Diafine.. Talk about easy to learn to use. The two shots here were done with Legacy Pro-100

Is Legacy Pro-100 really ACROS? I read somewhere that it was another Fuji 100 speed film that has been distributed before in other parts of the world but not the US.

Sandy King