I forgot how beautiful Plus X is

dehk · Feb 19, 2012

Yesterday me and my girlfriend drove over to another town looking for something to do. Wandered into a camera shop that I stopped by about a year or so ago. I usually buy a roll or two of film if I have any extra cash with me just to support local business sorta say. Saw they still got some plus X on the shelf so I told him I'd get 2 rolls of 24exp, it was overpriced, but you know. He looked at the box and said well, they are a little outdated so lets take 20% of it. I said, alright, are those 36exp expired too? Sure was, so i walked outta there with 2 rolls of PX 24exp and 2 rolls of 36exp for about 18 bucks.

Been a while since I shot any PX. And when I did i was shooting 120 which they don't make anymore. The last roll of 120 PX I shot with my 645 was perfect. But for 35mm, I don't expect anything spectacular.

Well I tell you what, shot 2 rolls of it through the weekend, just developed it and I came up with one conclusion. - "F" T Max 100.

summicron1 · Feb 19, 2012

if you go to freestyle and buy their arista premium "Made in USA" film you will be shooting something that looks very much like plus-x at less than $2 a roll, but better hurry. Kodak quit making Plus X, so the mysterious American film producing company (who are those guys?) that made the Arista will probably follow suit...

keithwms · Feb 19, 2012

Mmm yep, it's great stuff. I just shot two 9.5x14" sheets of PX myself well, the aerial kind.

Let me suggest Ilford FP4+. You might find it closer in feel to PX than tmax.

tomalophicon · Feb 19, 2012

Good stuff.
I don't think they make it in 35mm anymore either.

dehk · Feb 19, 2012

summicron1 said:
if you go to freestyle and buy their arista premium "Made in USA" film you will be shooting something that looks very much like plus-x at less than $2 a roll, but better hurry. Kodak quit making Plus X, so the mysterious American film producing company (who are those guys?) that made the Arista will probably follow suit...

I know about that and yeah I gotta hurry, but man I am very bad at making or "preserving" money.
Maybe I should quit buying toys for the kids haha

dehk · Feb 19, 2012

keithwms said:
Mmm yep, it's great stuff. I just shot two 9.5x14" sheets of PX myself well, the aerial kind.

Let me suggest Ilford FP4+. You might find it closer in feel to PX than Tmax.

I tried some FP4+ before, even APX100, they both are great, but in the end not quite the same.

dehk · Feb 19, 2012

tomalophicon said:
Good stuff.
I don't think they make it in 35mm anymore either.

Whenever I go into a local camera shop, if they have any bw film at all it will usually be TMax stuff instead of the Plus X and Tri X. Should have been the other way around and maybe we'll still have PX today!

keithwms · Feb 19, 2012

Yes well unfortunately the resolution wankers got the better of Kodak's marketing strategy and as a result we have several rather sterile films... just my own inconsequential opinion, of course, and I am aware that some people feel that they can make tmax sing.

dehk · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Yes well unfortunately the resolution wankers got the better of Kodak's marketing strategy and as a result we have several rather sterile films... just my own inconsequential opinion, of course, and I am aware that some people feel that they can make tmax sing.

For sure after all it's personal preferences / opinions , but in the end I am also glad that I know I'm not the only one thinking that as well.

clayne · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Yes well unfortunately the resolution wankers got the better of Kodak's marketing strategy and as a result we have several rather sterile films... just my own inconsequential opinion, of course, and I am aware that some people feel that they can make tmax sing.

Couldn't agree more. That being said, the Tmax films *are* good films, but my beef is with the resolution wankers.

Actually, Keith, that's yet again another blog article in itself. A lot of individuals find the desire, no need, to attach metrics to things - things that they can inherently measure. And when things can't be measured, either they're more "artistic" or not so easily bench-markable, they don't fall into the same trap. Resolution, sharpness, brightness, blah blah, all of that fall into this resolution pit, be it photography, audio, whatever. The same set of wankers, just a different hobby/art.

Too much left-brain BS.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

dehk said:
I tried some FP4+ before, even APX100, they both are great, but in the end not quite the same.

For what it's worth, I have used and printed Plus-X and FP4+ side by side, and I can't really tell a difference unless I look at the negative sleeve.
What differences do you see?

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Yes well unfortunately the resolution wankers got the better of Kodak's marketing strategy and as a result we have several rather sterile films... just my own inconsequential opinion, of course, and I am aware that some people feel that they can make tmax sing.

It's not hard to make TMY-2 look a lot like Tri-X. Except for the grain.
It's not hard to make T-Max 100 look like Tri-X 320 either. Except the grain. I do it all the time.

pgomena · Feb 20, 2012

I never got the hang of Plus-X, never used it much, and now I don't care. FP4+ is a perfectly good replacement, behaves better (for me) and is available. I prefer it, Acros, and TMX, and I can get any of them to do whatever I need a film to do.

Peter Gomena

Helinophoto · Feb 20, 2012

I bought up 24 rolls in 35mm and secured 20 rolls of 120 some time ago, so I should have enough plus-x to play with for a good while (I'm not excactly a high-volume user ^^). I liked it very much.

I came in late, so I didn't have had the chance to try it out before it was officially discontinued in 120.

I don't think I've tested FP4 yet, but I have 10 rolls (5 of 35mm and 5 120) waiting to be shot when the light gets better over here,

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
It's not hard to make TMY-2 look a lot like Tri-X. Except for the grain.
It's not hard to make T-Max 100 look like Tri-X 320 either. Except the grain. I do it all the time.

Yes well the grain is everything... it controls the edge contrast, doesn't it? Anyway, I have no need to make tmax look like fp4+ or px... I have fp4+ and px.

clayne said:
Actually, Keith, that's yet again another blog article in itself.

A blog article on wanking? Ahem, technicalism.... good idea

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Yes well the grain is everything... it controls the edge contrast, doesn't it? Anyway, I have no need to make tmax look like fp4+ or px... I have fp4+ and px.

I actually disagree. To me tonality is almost everything. Grain is nice, but isn't a deal maker/breaker at all. Tonality shouts out at me from across a room. I can't even think of a time where I went into an art exhibit to study the grain of the prints.

Mark Layne · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I actually disagree. To me tonality is almost everything. Grain is nice, but isn't a deal maker/breaker at all. Tonality shouts out at me from across a room. I can't even think of a time where I went into an art exhibit to study the grain of the prints.

Thomas
FP 4 is a beautiful film. However PX rated @64 ASA and developed in Perceptol behaves in a fine grained way that FP4 does not quite.
Mark

NB23 · Feb 20, 2012

The beauty of Plus-X, as someone once pointed out, is that it's one of the rare films that will behave distinctively with a very distinct lok depending on the developer used.
In HC110 it's just ok. But in Rodinal it blows my socks off.

I dedicated my last 30 rolls to Havana, last month. All shot on XPan. I always loved Plus-X and my 16x20 prints of it always remind me why: the whole image structure, the grain (that's where the whole tonality thing starts, eh?) is just amazing. In Rodinal, it sings!

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I actually disagree. To me tonality is almost everything. Grain is nice, but isn't a deal maker/breaker at all. Tonality shouts out at me from across a room. I can't even think of a time where I went into an art exhibit to study the grain of the prints.

Simply because I am so thrilled to be discussing something other than the unknown variables surrounding Kodak in chapter 11, I will argue with you a while

~~~
Actually, I beg to differ with what you said above (I added emphasis in my quote): what shouts at you from across the room is not tonality, it is acutance Closer up, tonality is what gets the oohs and aahs. From a distance, tonality is about as good from a newspaper as from a high end contact print.

Grain is of course at the absolute heart of the tonality. Obviously, fine grain promotes smooth gradations and continuous tone- it's easy to see why just by imagining the absurd limit of each grain being a white or black dot so that the more dots per area... etc.

But the overall tonality, how the image feels, is more than just smooth gradations: it is edge contrast as well. And those of us who've used the t-/epi- grained films and perceived a lack of sharpness or "bite" will say that we just can't seem to get that sense of acutance from the tmax or delta films.

Of course you don't go to an exhibit to look at grain. You also don't go to look at apo or tonality or lp/mm or micro contrast or anything else of the sort (I hope)...! But the character that many of us cherish in the traditional films is undeniable and we simply don't get it elsewhere. If we did, we'd happily jump into the "modern" films and get over our panatomic-x and our plus-x and all the other dearly departed (and dearly stored in our fridges).

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Simply because I am so thrilled to be discussing something other than the unknown variables surrounding Kodak in chapter 11, I will argue with you a while

~~~
Actually, I beg to differ with what you said above (I added emphasis in my quote): what shouts at you from across the room is not tonality, it is acutance Closer up, tonality is what gets the oohs and aahs. From a distance, tonality is about as good from a newspaper as from a high end contact print.

Grain is of course at the absolute heart of the tonality. Obviously, fine grain promotes smooth gradations and continuous tone- it's easy to see why just by imagining the absurd limit of each grain being a white or black dot so that the more dots per area... etc.

But the overall tonality, how the image feels, is more than just smooth gradations: it is edge contrast as well. And those of us who've used the t-/epi- grained films and perceived a lack of sharpness or "bite" will say that we just can't seem to get that sense of acutance from the tmax or delta films.

Of course you don't go to an exhibit to look at grain. You also don't go to look at apo or tonality or lp/mm or micro contrast or anything else of the sort (I hope)...! But the character that many of us cherish in the traditional films is undeniable and we simply don't get it elsewhere. If we did, we'd happily jump into the "modern" films and get over our panatomic-x and our plus-x and all the other dearly departed (and dearly stored in our fridges).

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Keith, and I will respect it. I was, after all, speaking from my viewpoint, while not arguing it as some sort of truth that has to apply to all. My own experience is that I will 'see' prints with the following criteria, in order of importance:
1. Emotional reaction to the subject matter and how it's presented.
2. How the shot is framed.
3. Tonality and printing. I admire a good printer, because I think they have the power of making the content even more powerful and full of reinforcing visual impact.

Everything else is completely irrelevant to me from a standpoint of appreciating art. I really couldn't care less about grain. It could be an 8x10 contact print, or a Minox Delta 3200 enlarged negative. I don't care.

I happen to use Tri-X myself, moving from TMax and Acros use for years, to something that I find is about the same difficulty in exposure, but easier to process. 35mm and 120 Tri-X, with a roll of HP5+ here and there, just to have a Plan B. I don't consider TMax or Tri-X inferior/superior to one another in any way.

But to get back to the topic on hand - Plus-X is obviously a fine film, and it's a shame it's discontinued. But I don't see that there is enough difference between it and FP4+ that would merit someone to feel robbed of creative freedom just because one of them disappeared. FP4+ I think is the film that Plus-X has kind of co-existed with over decades, and I argue they are a lot more similar than they are different, and urge those that think they see a big difference to shoot them side by side and compare prints. You obviously have to expose and process the negatives to show the same contrast index before you can compare.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 20, 2012

Most of my experience with PX has been with the aerial film like Keith mentioned. I mostly used it for Cirkut proofing and testing (processed in Dektol), but did also get some lovely results with it in PMK (how's that for a range of developers - 2 minute developing time to 14 minute developing time).

I bought a couple rolls in 35mm with the Arista Premium label to see what the fuss was about. I liked it fine, but not better than Tri-X (which is still gloriously available). I did get a couple hundred feet (I think) to experiment more with some day. Now that I think about it though, I can't recall any 100'ish speed film in 35mm I liked as well as the PX. I agree with Keith about the acutance thing with TMX; I loved the tones, and the actual resolution is quite high, but it just didn't look particularly crisp. TMY is a different beast entirely in that regard.

I always wished they made Verichrome Pan in 35. I can see no reason for it in the curves and specs, but VP always seemed like something special to me.

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I happen to use Tri-X myself, moving from TMax and Acros use for years

Aha!

I don't consider TMax or Tri-X inferior/superior to one another in any way.

Oh. :confused:

Plus-X is obviously a fine film, and it's a shame it's discontinued. But I don't see that there is enough difference between it and FP4+ ...

I totally agree. for me the difference between tmax and px and fp4+ is far larger than between px and fp4+.

Oh and I am not seeking to argue anything, I am just chatting

dehk · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
For what it's worth, I have used and printed Plus-X and FP4+ side by side, and I can't really tell a difference unless I look at the negative sleeve.
What differences do you see?

Likewise, except for the grain, the contrast or curve you'll call it look a little different on FP4 and PX too. To me at least but I could well be wrong.

By that I don't mean FP4+ is a inferior film at all! I shoot all kinds of film. But i really just forgot how PX shines.

NB23 · Feb 20, 2012

To me, plus-x is totally different then FP4. I can't use both side by side on a same project. Both are fine.

Yes, grain makes a difference. A huge one. To such an extent!
Take a fine image from any known master. Winogrand, for example: everything is there, from feeling to composition to grain. Now take that same image but imagine it as a digital capture: slick, no grain, unidimensional and very sharp. That same image becomes sickening. And downright lame.

dehk · Feb 20, 2012

NB23 said:
The beauty of Plus-X, as someone once pointed out, is that it's one of the rare films that will behave distinctively with a very distinct lok depending on the developer used.
In HC110 it's just ok. But in Rodinal it blows my socks off.

I dedicated my last 30 rolls to Havana, last month. All shot on XPan. I always loved Plus-X and my 16x20 prints of it always remind me why: the whole image structure, the grain (that's where the whole tonality thing starts, eh?) is just amazing. In Rodinal, it sings!

You got those shots uploaded somewhere? Link me up!

I forgot how beautiful Plus X is

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency