Current Film Most Like Plus X

[mshchem]

Buy FP4 before it's gone too!

 

[Nokton48]

Multigrade RC VC 70mm PX 1981 Microdol-X by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is recently exposed 70mm type II perforated Kodak Plus-X Pan, processed in straight Microdol-X in a JOBO. The expiration date is 1981. Hasselblad 500C/M, 100mm F3.5 black T* Planar, 70mm Hasselblad A70 film back. No dichroic fog to my eyes.

I was lucky enough to receive 900 feet of this film along with some darkroom stuff, many years ago. It's been deep frozen since I got it.

 

[Paul Howell]

How close is double X to plus X I shot a roll of double X that Ultrafine repackages from movie film, it was ok, I developed in MCM 100 which was a guess at the time, might have been better if I had nailed the time and EI.

 

[Nokton48]

They also made Plus-X motion picture film in 1000 foot rolls; Eastman 5231 is contrastier than 5222 XX in my opinion. Look on flikr for examples.

 

[braxus]

Currently there are 4 B&W films I couldn't live without. Some are discontinued, while one is still available now. The 4 I like are: Plus X (especially for outdoor shots), Efke 25 (this is my top B&W film, it does everything right), Panatomic X (has the really old school look about it with mid tones galore), and Tri-X (because it gives that gritty look with its grain and decent contrast).

 

[NB23]

Since you aren't doing your own processing, it doesn't matter much whatever film you pick. What I mean is that the options for a different agitation scheme or a different developer are gone.

I'd just pick FP4+ or Kentmere 100/RPX, keep at it and tailor the given output (the film someone else developed) to your means, as much as you can.

Different Agitation scheme? Are there any options?
I know the internet has succeeded into make believe many folks that the agitation is optional, and a lot folks go artistic on agitation.

The reality, though, is that agitation is essential and there should be one method for optimal development: 10 seconds per minute.

As for developer, this too is minimal: it will never change the nature of the film that’s been used.

The contrast, the grain, the sensitivity, the relations to colors and how it reacts to filters, spectral sensitivity... are all inherent to the film. One simply cannot use pan-F and turn it into tmax 3200 just because of some agitation scheme and a specially chosen developer.

It just doesn’t work that way.

Tell your friends.

 

[BradS]

Different Agitation scheme? Are there any options?
I know the internet has succeeded into make believe many folks that the agitation is optional, and a lot folks go artistic on agitation.

The reality, though, is that agitation is essential and there should be one method for optimal development: 10 seconds per minute.

As for developer, this too is minimal: it will never change the nature of the film that’s been used.

The contrast, the grain, the sensitivity, the relations to colors and how it reacts to filters, spectral sensitivity... are all inherent to the film. One simply cannot use pan-F and turn it into tmax 3200 just because of some agitation scheme and a specially chosen developer.

It just doesn’t work that way.

Tell your friends.

While it is true that spectral response is a characteristic of the emulsion.
Most of the rest of what has been asserted here is just plain false.
Contrast, for example, is very definitely affected by both developer and agitation.
In fact, developer and agitation are the two primary factors that can be used to control contrast.

Have you ever developed you own film?

 

[NB23]

While it is true that spectral response is a characteristic of the emulsion.
Most of the rest of what has been asserted here is just plain false.
Contrast, for example, is very definitely affected by both developer and agitation.
In fact, developer and agitation are the two primary factors that can be used to control contrast.

Have you ever developed you own film?

I’m tired of this bs.

The film kind is worth 90%. The rest is developer and the “artistic” development scheme. You can never make TRI-X into HP5, no matter how funky you massage that tank.
No matter if you piss a little bit into your rodinal. You will never change the nature of the film.

I’ve been doing steadily for 28 years now.

What about you?

 

[Arvee]

While it is true that spectral response is a characteristic of the emulsion.
Most of the rest of what has been asserted here is just plain false.
Contrast, for example, is very definitely affected by both developer and agitation.
In fact, developer and agitation are the two primary factors that can be used to control contrast.

Have you ever developed you own film?

So you're trying to tell us that by using a specific developer and unique agitation you can make Tri-X look exactly like Pan-X? I have to ask: what planet are you from?
NB23 is spot on; film type is 90% of end result.

 

[Chan Tran]

Back when I was a kid from age 10 to like 16 I used only Plus-X as it's less expensive than Tri-X. I liked it a lot. When I got to 22 I bought my camera and shot only in color. I did shot a few Tri-X when I attend a photography class because that what the instructor recommended. I don't like the Tri-x as the grain is too coarse for me.

 

[BradS]

So you're trying to tell us that by using a specific developer and unique agitation you can make Tri-X look exactly like Pan-X? I have to ask: what planet are you from?
NB23 is spot on; film type is 90% of end result.

ah, no. Actually, I dismissed that statement as an obvious absurdity added at the end for comic relief.

 

[BradS]

I’m tired of this bs.

The film kind is worth 90%. The rest is developer and the “artistic” development scheme. You can never make TRI-X into HP5, no matter how funky you massage that tank.
No matter if you piss a little bit into your rodinal. You will never change the nature of the film.

Well, I think we're mis-understanding each other. II think that part of the problem is that "the look" of a particular film is subjective, undefined and influenced by many factors which are related in complex ways. I don't really know what you mean by " the look of Plus-X". How does one measure it?

What I am saying is that some things, like developer and development methods have a strong effect on the shape of the H-D curve - which is an objective thing and very definitely is a component of "the look". Other things like, an emulsion's spectral response are entirely characteristics of the emulsion. Sure, they can be exploited or controlled...manipulated to some degree with filters but, not without giving something else up some where...

Finally, I think that any mature practitioner has to accept that materials (emulsions, developers, etc) come and go. Either you learn to adapt and figure out how to make the current material look the way you want, adapt you aesthetic, or move on.

Skilled practitioners, people who do photography professionally certainly learn to adapt, to make the new materials "look" the way they want, yes, sometimes even to look like the old materials.

I’ve been doing steadily for 28 years now.
What about you?

I learned to develop film in the summer of 1975 but I didn't really get serious about photography until 1977, when I bought my first "real" camera - a brand new Pentax KX. So...yeah, I been doing it for a while - 42 or 44 years depending on where you want to start the clock - but that isn't really a factor.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Buy FP4 before it's gone too!

+1

 

[pentaxuser]

Buy FP4 before it's gone too!

Should there have been a comic smilie icon here or is there evidence that FP4+ is on its way out ?

Talking of which reminds me: has anyone here seen a commitment from Pemberstone that like Harman before them, there is no intention to eliminate any film in the |Iford range?

pentaxuser

 

[braxus]

Wow. I can't believe the sh*t storm this thread has caused. I found some rolls of 120 PX in my country, so I bought some of it. Its dated 2006, but I've known from other B&W films, it should still be usable. I guess the only way to get a Plus X looking film is to find more Plus X. I just hope its not fogged too badly. Some Pan X I see as well, but he's asking a big price for just one roll of late dated stuff. I have tons of Efke 25 in all used formats, I should be good there for a long time. Tri-X isn't going anywhere just yet. I have some rolls of that, but no need to stock up. I tend to use slower films way more then fast films. I only shoot fast film for night shots or when I just want a gritty grainy look.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm unaware of any replacement for Plus X sheet film. It was a long toe film popular for high-key portrait and fashion work. There are probably ways to introduce a substantial sag in the curve of FP4 or Delta 100 via special development tweaks; but I'll develop sagging jowls first. The curve of HP5 could be realistically tweaked, but it's comparatively large grained.

 

[Nokton48]

I found some rolls of 120 PX in my country, so I bought some of it. Its dated 2006, but I've known from other B&W films, it should still be usable. I guess the only way to get a Plus X looking film is to find more Plus X. I just hope its not fogged too badly.

Very sensible conclusion. I use expired film all the time. See my Plus-X photo above.

 

[jim appleyard]

I guess the only way to get a Plus X looking film is to find more Plus X.

Also look for Arista Premium. It was re-badged Plus -x sold by Freestyle. Can be found on eBay.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Should there have been a comic smilie icon here or is there evidence that FP4+ is on its way out ?

Talking of which reminds me: has anyone here seen a commitment from Pemberstone that like Harman before them, there is no intention to eliminate any film in the |Iford range?

pentaxuser

I think FP4+ will be the last film around after the filmpocylpse. I think Ilford is profitable and here to stay long after Kodak and Fuji are out of the business.

 

[braxus]

Was the Arista Premium 100 film (and why 100 and not 125?) ever sold in 120 or 4x5? All I see mention of it is in 35mm. I have several rolls of Plus X in 35mm myself, but I use medium format way more these days. 35mm only comes out when I want easy shots.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I believe the original question was about Plus X sheet film. Plus X roll film was a different emulsion.

 

[braxus]

Well Im not sure I was specifying the 4x5 over other formats, but I use Plus X in small and medium formats. I had it in 4x5, but never used it. Wish I kept that film. If it was all the same, I'd use Plus X in all formats.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The sheet version was classified as an "all toe" film. A bit of hyperbole; but it was almost entirely an upswept curve for sake of excellent high tone gradation at the expense of shadow separation. It was popular for controlled studio lighting of subjects like Caucasian brides in white wedding dresses. The roll film version has a somewhat shorter toe and is a bit more contrasty, but nowhere near in the contrast potential of Efke 25 or TMax. But since TMX is amenable to a wide range of contrasts depending on development, it bumped several previous films off the log, including both Plus X emulsions. TMax is fussier per correct exposure; but that was apparently the marketing decision.

 

[jim appleyard]

Was the Arista Premium 100 film (and why 100 and not 125?) ever sold in 120 or 4x5? All I see mention of it is in 35mm. I have several rolls of Plus X in 35mm myself, but I use medium format way more these days. 35mm only comes out when I want easy shots.

No, just 35mm and it wasn't around long. IDK why it was labeled as a 100 ISO film, maybe to get people to think it was a new film and buy it.

 

[removed account4]

I guess the only way to get a Plus X looking film is to find more Plus X. I just hope its not fogged too badly.

Braxus
I would buy whatever you find, whether it is labelled Plus X, or Arista Premium100, and enjoy it. Slowish ISO/ASA films don't really fog too badly, so buy it, put it someplace cool where the temps don't change too drastically ( like a basement or root cellar &C ) and just enjoy yourself. I for the most part, only use expired film and never really have trouble with fog. I'm not sure what developer you use (might have missed that entry in the thread) but if you can get Ansco 130 or D72/Dektol print developers ( from personal experience ) they will hold back the fog and give you nice film. The " olde trick " for using these universal type ( film/plate/paper) developers is the dilution factor becomes the starting point for the time, so 1:7 is 7 mins, 1:6 6 mins &c.( I stay away from under 6 mins ). Because Ansco130 has glycin in it use it at around 72ºF Dektol/D72 at the regular 68ºF and regular agitation 1 full min and 10 sec/min. These times are starting times, you might like to develop a little more or less depending on your tastes, but these developers as mentioned cut through fog and give nice snappy full scale negatives. ( don't believe the hype about "golf ball sized grain" &c people who say that just regurgitate what they read from another regurgitater from another and have never used it.
Good luck finding your film !

john
YMMV

ps. great images you uploaded !