Favorite developer for Plus X Pan?

[cooltouch]

I have some old Plus-X Pan that I've had in the freezer for years, that I bought from a friend who had kept it in his freezer for years. Expiry date is 1983.

I used to shoot quite a bit of B&W, but that kind of tapered off over 15 years ago, so this stuff has just sat in the freezer since then.

Anyway, I have a small developing tank, and I plan to run a test roll of this film through my trusty old Nikon F2, and develop it, see if it's still any good. Back in the day, I used D-76 pretty much for all my B&W developing tasks, fixing it with regular old Kodak fixer.

Looking at the info sheet that comes with the film, I see that Kodak recommends HC110, D-76, or Microdol-X. I checked with B&H and see that all three formlations are stil available. I'll probably just order some of the D-76, but I'd be curious to know what you folks use, and why you prefer it.

Best,

Michael

 

[DWThomas]

I use HC110 1+63 ("Dilution H") and shoot at about 80. I go that way because I do the HC110 as a one-shot, and working from the liquid syrup is economical and simple. I go about 9:30 at 68º F; inversions and a rap or three on the counter (stainless steel tank) during the first 30 seconds, then 4 inversions in about 5 seconds once per minute thereafter. Your mileage may vary, usual disclaimers, etc.

"At the Foundry" and "1939 Farmall" in my gallery are examples.

DaveT

 

[nuckabean]

I'm kind of limited right now to what we have at school which is clayton f76 but I just did a roll of pxp in it and I'm very happy with the results.

Yes, I know they're all cats, but one of my cats was sick so I decided to shoot a roll of all my kitties just incase something happened to any of them. He's fine now thankfully.

 

[bdial]

I've shot tons and tons of it processed in D-76 straight and 1:1. My preference for D-76 is 1:1, though lately I've been using Xtol, which works well IMHO.
That said, you may get a little less base fog with old film with HC-110

 

[MikeSeb]

D-76: cheap, easy, decent film speed (better than HC-110 IMO).

 

[fschifano]

Mike is right. D-76 is hard to beat with FRESH Plus-X. XTOL is very good too. There's little point to using Microdol-X since the film has pretty fine grain to start. But your stuff is what, 26 years past expiration? Four or five years out of date is usually OK for slow and medium speed films that have been stored cold. Twenty six year old film is something else. Cold storage slows down the aging process, but doesn't stop it. See what happens, but don't be disappointed if there's a lot of base fog.

 

[removed account4]

sprint film developer works very well with plus x,
it is kind of like ID11 and d76 ...
but different because it won't block up
your the highlights if you over develop your film,
and it is metol free if you happen to be allergic to that stuff.

i prefer using a coffee based developer with a little
print developer mixed in to boost the contrast a tiny bit.
i use the coffee-stuff because it gives me a nice stain and a grain that
doesn't shine through with some of the other developers.


have fun!
john

 

[jim appleyard]

You're not going to do any better than D-76. You can use pretty much any dev with this film and you can get a bit of different look with other devs, but not "better" than D-76.

Frank is right about Mic-X; Plus-X is a pretty fined grained film and doesn't need MX, but MX is still a valid dev and will do a good job.

 

[Anscojohn]

The standby for many years with films which might have age-impelled fog, is HC110.

 

[wogster]

I have some old Plus-X Pan that I've had in the freezer for years, that I bought from a friend who had kept it in his freezer for years. Expiry date is 1983.

I used to shoot quite a bit of B&W, but that kind of tapered off over 15 years ago, so this stuff has just sat in the freezer since then.

Anyway, I have a small developing tank, and I plan to run a test roll of this film through my trusty old Nikon F2, and develop it, see if it's still any good. Back in the day, I used D-76 pretty much for all my B&W developing tasks, fixing it with regular old Kodak fixer.

Looking at the info sheet that comes with the film, I see that Kodak recommends HC110, D-76, or Microdol-X. I checked with B&H and see that all three formlations are stil available. I'll probably just order some of the D-76, but I'd be curious to know what you folks use, and why you prefer it.

Best,

Michael

It depends to some degree on how often you intend to shoot it, if your planning on shooting a lot of rolls over a shorter period of time, then go with D76, since you already know it. If you shoot primarily colour or d*****l, and plan on shooting a roll, only occasionally, then the keeping properties of HC110 syrup are supposedly pretty good, so if it takes you a while to get through the film, your not buying new chemistry for each roll.

 

[whlogan]

I like Rodinal 1:75 @ 70 deg for 40min with only one agitation after 20 min.... sort of semi-stand.... good results ..... always with Rodinal

Logan

 

[Wade D]

I've been using some Plus-X 4x5 sheets that expired in 1989. D-76 with a small amount of potassium bromide added seems to reduce age fog pretty well. 6-8 crystals of the KBr dissolved in warm water then added to the D-76 is the mix that has worked best for me. It doesn't take much and is best not to over do it. There is still some base fog but it is manageable.

 

[2F/2F]

Back in the day, I used D-76 pretty much for all my B&W developing tasks, fixing it with regular old Kodak fixer.

If that is what you did, and you liked what you got, do it again. There is nothing wrong with D-76; especially when mixed in small quantities that are used up quickly. You can purchase a 1L package of D-76 if you think a gallon will be too much. I'd try down rating the film so that your low tones do not get "eaten up" as badly by the fog, and I would also try overdeveloping the film to add some contrast lost due to fog and the overexposure that I mentioned.

After the test roll, I would suggest that you use the film for situations in which its unique age-related "problems" will make it a good artistic tool, instead of trying to get top-notch results from almost-30-year-old film.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

D-76 1:1 was the standard for this film, in the age when this film was the standard: Very fine and tight salt&pepper grain; Nice linear response of CI to developing time.

 

[ragnar58]

What do you intend to do with the negatives? Analog printing or scanning? It's not clear if you have a darkroom for printing. I think you could get away with more base fog when scanning than with printing.

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions and advice, guys. I've learned a lot. I have only about a dozen rolls or so of this stuff, so it's mostly a case of "waste not, want not." I think I'll follow an above suggestion and shoot a test roll. Given that the film is 26yo, and based on the comments here and in a local forum in which I posted a similar message, I'm thinking I should go ahead and buy some HC-110 for developing the test roll. If it looks foggy with HC-110, then I probably won't hold out much hope for it. If not, then great.

I don't have a darkroom setup any more (sold off the last of my darkroom gear five years ago), so I just plan to scan the negs and add any worthwhile scans to my archives. Good point about acceptable fog levels when scanning. I've got some experience with getting rid of fogging in PP.

-M

 

[cooltouch]

I thought I would resurrect this thread because I finally got off my duff and bought some B&W chemicals so I could try out this 26-year-old Plus X Pan I have. Just to recap, I bought the film from a friend probably in 1990 or so. He had kept it in his freezer, and I've kept it frozen ever since.

Yesterday I paid my local camera shop a visit, and was somewhat dismayed by the small selection of darkroom items they carry now -- but at least there was still a selection of sorts. I was tempted to try HC-110, but they didn't have any, so I went with my old standby, D-76. Bought some Kodak Fixer as well.

So I ran a roll through my Canon F-1 last night. The lens was an FD 50mm f/1.8, wide open for the first shot, and f/8 for the second two. The flash used in the Volvo shots is an old manual-only Yashica Pro-50 DX. Nothing particularly noteworthy in terms of the artistic quality of the images. Mostly I wanted to insure that they were exposed accurately according to the rated ISO, which is 125. I figured I should expose this first roll at rated values, and develop it at rated times and temperatures as well. So to develop the PX-P, using the info sheet that came with the film, I chose 5 minutes @ 70 degrees.

As for results, I was pleasantly surprised. There might have been just a slight bit of base fog, but not enough to adjust for. The film's ISO of 125 still seems to be about right. Maybe 100 or even 80 might have worked a bit better, but I got negs with good density at the rated ISO. Here are a few examples. I did a bit of post processing to the two Volvo images, but not much. I found if I increased the contrast significantly, the shadows began to clump up and started looking ugly.

I think I've become a fan of Plus-X Pan -- at least the old stuff. I'm assuming the new PXP is the same formulation?

I really like the fine grain and overall smoothness these negatives exhibit. Good contrast, nice sharpness. Next, I want to take some shots under ordinary daylight conditions and see how they compare.

 

[rwboyer]

I thought I would resurrect this thread because I finally got off my duff and bought some B&W chemicals so I could try out this 26-year-old Plus X Pan I have. Just to recap, I bought the film from a friend probably in 1990 or so. He had kept it in his freezer, and I've kept it frozen ever since.

Yesterday I paid my local camera shop a visit, and was somewhat dismayed by the small selection of darkroom items they carry now -- but at least there was still a selection of sorts. I was tempted to try HC-110, but they didn't have any, so I went with my old standby, D-76. Bought some Kodak Fixer as well.

So I ran a roll through my Canon F-1 last night. The lens was an FD 50mm f/1.8, wide open for the first shot, and f/8 for the second two. The flash used in the Volvo shots is an old manual-only Yashica Pro-50 DX. Nothing particularly noteworthy in terms of the artistic quality of the images. Mostly I wanted to insure that they were exposed accurately according to the rated ISO, which is 125. I figured I should expose this first roll at rated values, and develop it at rated times and temperatures as well. So to develop the PX-P, using the info sheet that came with the film, I chose 5 minutes @ 70 degrees.

As for results, I was pleasantly surprised. There might have been just a slight bit of base fog, but not enough to adjust for. The film's ISO of 125 still seems to be about right. Maybe 100 or even 80 might have worked a bit better, but I got negs with good density at the rated ISO. Here are a few examples. I did a bit of post processing to the two Volvo images, but not much. I found if I increased the contrast significantly, the shadows began to clump up and started looking ugly.

I think I've become a fan of Plus-X Pan -- at least the old stuff. I'm assuming the new PXP is the same formulation?

I really like the fine grain and overall smoothness these negatives exhibit. Good contrast, nice sharpness. Next, I want to take some shots under ordinary daylight conditions and see how they compare.

Good job and good choice of developers - I am one of the ones that is not an HC-110 fan, the only thing it has going for it is that it keeps for years and is economical used as a one shot. Stick with the D76 or if you want to try something else there are a million other ways to go besides HC-110.

In higher dilutions for one shot/economy HC-110 has horrible looking grain, it changes the curve shape and depresses the mid-tones in just about any dilution, the speed is not fantastic especially with the depressed mids. It is horrible nasty stuff.

RB

 

[2F/2F]

It's one thing to have an opinion, and another to throw it around as fact. HC-110 is just fine, and really not all that different from D-76 as far as actual results go. I used to use D-76 for everything, until I actually tried HC-110, and realized that it is nearly the same as far as results, yet superior in ways. For one thing, it is incredibly more consistent and versatile than D-76. There is never any question that your HC-110 will be good, and never any question that it will give exactly the same results batch to batch. I still use D-76 sometimes, but HC-110 is extremely far from being "horrible nasty stuff." It is less grainy in standard dilutions or high dilutions than D-76, for one. Secondly, if you have taken the time to nail it down, as you should do with any developer, the shadows, midtones, and highlights can be handled in whichever way you would like, with the importance of exposure not to be overlooked. The difference is there, but it is also very minor, and I question whether anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference has really put in the time to do any objective analysis. Both are great film developers, and either one can be manipulated to achieve near-identical results. Also, the assumption that lower speed and "depressed" midtones is a bad thing is 100% subjective. There is so much anti-HC-110 opinion flying around, and every bit of it that I have read is extremely vehement, yet 100% subjective. Go figure. You don't hear me railing against D-76 or X-Tol just because they are not my cup of tea as much as is HC-110.

Good job and good choice of developers - I am one of the ones that is not an HC-110 fan, the only thing it has going for it is that it keeps for years and is economical used as a one shot. Stick with the D76 or if you want to try something else there are a million other ways to go besides HC-110.

In higher dilutions for one shot/economy HC-110 has horrible looking grain, it changes the curve shape and depresses the mid-tones in just about any dilution, the speed is not fantastic especially with the depressed mids. It is horrible nasty stuff.

RB

 

[rwboyer]

It's one thing to have an opinion, and another to throw it around as fact. HC-110 is just fine, and really not all that different from D-76 as far as actual results go. I used to use D-76 for everything, until I actually tried HC-110, and realized that it is nearly the same as far as results, yet superior in ways. For one thing, it is incredibly more consistent and versatile than D-76. There is never any question that your HC-110 will be good, and never any question that it will give exactly the same results batch to batch. I still use D-76 sometimes, but HC-110 is extremely far from being "horrible nasty stuff." It is less grainy in standard dilutions or high dilutions than D-76, for one. Secondly, if you have taken the time to nail it down, as you should do with any developer, the shadows, midtones, and highlights can be handled in whichever way you would like, with the importance of exposure not to be overlooked. The difference is there, but it is also very minor, and I question whether anyone who claims to be able to tell the difference has really put in the time to do any objective analysis. Both are great film developers, and either one can be manipulated to achieve near-identical results. Also, the assumption that lower speed and "depressed" midtones is a bad thing is 100% subjective. There is so much anti-HC-110 opinion flying around, and every bit of it that I have read is extremely vehement, yet 100% subjective. Go figure. You don't hear me railing against D-76 or X-Tol just because they are not my cup of tea as much as is HC-110.

I kind of thought my use of adjectives signaled that my thoughts were my opinions on HC-110's behavior. Note that I did nothing to state any concrete numbers relative to speed, RMS granularity, etc, etc.

There are some things that I do not like about D-76 as well. At the end of the day in virtually any of these "what is the best film", "what developer should I use", it all boils down to one's particular taste and needs.

but... I am sure glad that you are around to make sure that I know my opinion is actually my opinion, it is supremely reassuring. So I don't upset you too bad let me restate my opinion just for you:

I THINK HC-110 is horrible nasty stuff and produces results that I do not find spectacular in any particular way. I found that for what my needs are and what I like my negatives to look like that it has absolutely no redeeming features. The only nice thing about it is that it will make exactly the same negatives no matter how long you leave it laying around.

As for facts - I have my own based on my own testing and Kodak has published theirs. Mine correspond pretty close to what Kodak datasheets tell me in terms of curve shape and it is pretty easy to see for yourself and has been common knowledge since about the beginning of time that the grain advantage HC-110 has at high strength goes away completely as you dilute it.

RB

 

[Andrew Horodysky]

D-76 or XTOL (my favorite) will do just fine with Plus-X.

As well, I've down-rated it to EI 80 -- in contrasty lighting -- and with Rodinal, lead with some smooth mid-tones.

Another "opinion".

 

[cooltouch]

Thanks, Andrew. I shot a roll yesterday, again at ISO 125, and took advantage of a sunny day. All the photos came out well within the normal range of density. Here's an example:

Canon F-1, FL 55mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2. D-76 @ 71F for 4.75 minutes.

I did some post processing: a slight amount of contrast enhancement, some light high-pass sharpening, and some noise reduction.

 

[2F/2F]

What the hell is "post processing"?

 

[Sirius Glass]

What the hell is "post processing"?

Something digital shooter do to save an otherwise bad image. I do not see why it was needed to be done since we a looking at a scanned negative.

[Inserting cop-out here] I'm just sayin' ... [/cop-put]

Steve

 

[tjaded]

A question that got passed over there somewhere...is the old Plus-X Pan the same as the current stuff? Anyone know how different they are/what the differences are?