I forgot how beautiful Plus X is

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

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

All opinions are OK in my book, but I must ask: did you expose and process the negatives to the same contrast index before comparing, i.e. did you make two prints that were of similar (preferably the same) subject matter and they both printed well on the same paper and paper contrast?
If you did, and you still see the same difference, then your eyes are better than mine, and that is certainly a possibility.

dehk · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
All opinions are OK in my book, but I must ask: did you expose and process the negatives to the same contrast index before comparing, i.e. did you make two prints that were of similar (preferably the same) subject matter and they both printed well on the same paper and paper contrast?
If you did, and you still see the same difference, then your eyes are better than mine, and that is certainly a possibility.

No sir I didn't perform a test, and just to remind everyone I am not trying to say FP4 is inferior at all. I just developed 2 rolls of PX last night and forgot how they shine. The FP4 do look different from my PX, but obviously, it wasn't a shot as a side by side comparison so yes It's more likely a mental thing FP4+ I do like, its just most 100 speed T grain film I try to stay away from, they are not my cup of tea.

NB23 · Feb 20, 2012

I'm still printing my Xpans from europe in 2010, all 16x20, shot on Hp5 and delta3200.
Who wants to see Havana anymore? Must be te most overphotographed, cliché place on the planet! i kinda bored myself wandering in Havana. I still got some great shots, though (IMO)

dehk · Feb 20, 2012

NB23 said:
I'm still printing my Xpans from europe in 2010, all 16x20, shot on Hp5 and delta3200.
Who wants to see Havana anymore? Must be te most overphotographed, cliché place on the planet! i kinda bored myself wandering in Havana. I still got some great shots, though (IMO)

Not necessary just want to see Havana, but I do like to see Xpan + PX + Havanna, that makes it a lot more interesting, at a different perspective haha.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

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

But you said you were arguing with me in a previous post...

I should probably shut up in these forums more though. I'm too opinionated! I seem to think that among the photographers whose work I admire, the magic and beauty comes from their talent, imagination, and skill. Some people are able to make work that stands out, and I just don't think the technical differences between FP4+ and TMax 100 has anything to do with it. That's at the heart of what I say.

One good example is an 8x10 contact print. Today, regardless of what film you use, you won't even be able to see any grain. It becomes entirely about the tonality you achieve when you expose the film, and subsequently process it. What part of the tone spectrum do you set your sights on, and how do you process your film to seal that tonality you desire?

I've already said too much... :

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

dehk said:
No sir I didn't perform a test, and just to remind everyone I am not trying to say FP4 is inferior at all. I just developed 2 rolls of PX last night and forgot how they shine. The FP4 do look different from my PX, but obviously, it wasn't a shot as a side by side comparison so yes It's more likely a mental thing FP4+ I do like, its just most 100 speed T grain film I try to stay away from, they are not my cup of tea.

Cool. I was just trying to offer an alternative, in case you can't find any more Plus-X. FP4+ just seems like such a logical place to go.

Helinophoto · Feb 20, 2012

By the way, fotoimpex still have some 35mm plus-x left:
http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/schwarzweissfilme/kleinbildfilme-135/kodak-plus-x-125-13536.html

Looks like they are running low and not expecting any more though, unusual to see them list the actual number of rolls left.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 20, 2012

I dug up the manufacturers curves for most of these films (trying for ones with the closest processing conditions). My casual observations:

Plus-X and FP4+ really do look different to me in the curves and those agree with my seat of pants impressions from my shooting. The PX shows a longer toe and more shoulder compared to FP4+). Interestingly (to me anyway), the aerial PX curves look near identical to the standard PX curves.

The closest curve I could find to PX was Fuji Neopan SS. I'd forgotten about that film, and it probably was my favorite 35mm 100'ish speed film. My impression agrees with the curve here too - probably just a bit shorter toe, and maybe a bit less shoulder than PX. I wonder if this film is still available. I've shot a lot of the newer Fuji Acros 100 and it is quite a different thing.

Verichrome Pan is surprisingly close to the Neopan SS curve. My impression was that the Verichrome Pan had a bit less tendency to shoulder. I liked them about equally.

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Okay I am about to do one of those annoying snippet-quoting things sorry!

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I should probably shut up in these forums more though. I'm too opinionated!

Likewise But your opinions are greatly appreciated, I assure you.

I seem to think that among the photographers whose work I admire, the magic and beauty comes from their talent, imagination, and skill. Some people are able to make work that stands out, and I just don't think the technical differences between FP4+ and TMax 100 has anything to do with it. That's at the heart of what I say.

I totally agree. That said, there are differences between the two kinds of grain. And it seems to me that a lot of time and research dollars went into killing grain... to what end, I wonder? Obviously, we like more resolution, but that's really only an issue for 35mm. Now we find people doing very nice work on unmentionable objects and then adding grain. One of many ironies about the way the market has transformed.

One good example is an 8x10 contact print. Today, regardless of what film you use, you won't even be able to see any grain.

The grain itself will not be visible per se, and arguably it wasn't all that obvious for many enlargements too. But the grain is part of an edge contrast effect that is definitely there, even in contacts. To me, the fp4+ contacts have gloriously smooth tonality, but the edge is still there. That could of course just be me and my own bias/prejudice, but I don't think so... for I am a recovering lp/mm wanker too; in fact, I am a bit embarrassed by some of my first forum posts on analogue photography a few years ago

Anyway, obviously, there was never any guarantee that the highest resolution, smoothest tone, sweetest smelling and most expensive film would produce the best photographs! That is for us to attempt.

Roger Cole · Feb 20, 2012

Plus-X is a great film (got a few remaining rolls of 24 exposure Arista and will pick up a few more if they have it next time I place an order) but I agree that the difference from FP4+ is pretty minimal in normal use. I do like Plus-X in Diafine, but that's more something for "I am out of Tri-X with me and need a 400 speed film" emergency thing than anything.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
But your opinions are greatly appreciated, I assure you.

Likewise, Keith. Your posts are long but balanced usually, and I enjoy reading them.

keithwms said:
I totally agree. That said, there are differences between the two kinds of grain. And it seems to me that a lot of time and research dollars went into killing grain... to what end, I wonder? Obviously, we like more resolution, but that's really only an issue for 35mm.

See, I don't even think in those terms. But I'm glad different people like different things. It would be boring if we all liked the same things. I guess since we are our own worst critics, it's up to each and every one of us to figure out what works, and what doesn't. But I still think there is way too much emphasis on film, and way too little emphasis on how to use it properly.

keithwms said:
The grain itself will not be visible per se, and arguably it wasn't all that obvious for many enlargements too. But the grain is part of an edge contrast effect that is definitely there, even in contacts. To me, the fp4+ contacts have gloriously smooth tonality, but the edge is still there. That could of course just be me and my own bias/prejudice, but I don't think so... for I am a recovering lp/mm wanker too; in fact, I am a bit embarrassed by some of my first forum posts on analogue photography a few years ago

It's up to each and every one of us to determine how important that is to us. To me it's a non-factor. I don't even think about it. How different people can be!

keithwms said:
Anyway, obviously, there was never any guarantee that the highest resolution, smoothest tone, sweetest smelling and most expensive film would produce the best photographs! That is for us to attempt.

I think you are 100% correct. Numbers don't make photographs, but passion, soul, history, knowledge, interest, curiosity, attitude, skill, practice, senses, and lots of other things that are infinitely more important.

I printed a lot of 35mm Plus-X negatives for a local artist a few years back. In fact, he mixed Tri-X and Plus-X. I printed everything on 11x14" Ilford Warmtone paper. Customer wanted a warm tone, but neutral color, so I selenium toned to neutralize the slightly green cast. The way he shot and processed the two films meant that their tonality were incredibly alike, and at that modest size I usually could only tell a difference between the two by sticking my nose right up to the print surface and examine the grain, which I got absolutely no pleasure from. Standing back at a proper viewing distance it wasn't like the prints were categorized automatically as Plus-X / Tri-X, but they looked beautifully cohesive and 'together' as a single group of prints. That should tell you something about the importance of film choice versus simply being damned good at using them.

Plus-X is gorgeous film, and so are many others. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Freestyle still has a bunch of it in 35mm, both as Kodak's own brand and Arista Premium 100.

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Your posts are long but balanced usually...

Balanced usually? Usually? What, so I am semi unbalanced? Are you saying I am a little bit off balance?!!! Moi?

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
Balanced usually? Usually? What, so I am semi unbalanced? Are you saying I am a little bit off balance?!!! Moi?

Hey. That was a compliment!

Just say thanks.

If your replies were balanced always, we'd think you were a robot or something. So, I made you human. Just say thanks.

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Thanks!

markbarendt · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
I am a bit embarrassed by some of my first forum posts on analogue photography a few years ago

I am embarrassed by some of mine too.

Ohhhh the things I thought I knew.

DWThomas · Feb 20, 2012

Heh, this thread is far more interesting than a certain one with "11" in it. I enjoy hearing what others do or do not consider important in their work. I have used Plus-X for about fifty years as I wandered in and out of B&W and in and out of film photography (or is that out and in). My most recent uses were my first in the 120 format and I found it much like coming back to an old friend, so I'm sorry to see it go. (Although I have a half dozen or so rolls left.) I've recently tried some FP-4 Plus which looked pretty nice, and since I went to medium format circa 2006, I've probably shot more Acros than anything else (partly due to price I'll admit), with 400TX in second place.

While I hate to see old favorites disappear, I'm confident I'll adapt. Everything has limitations, those are just another challenge to work with (or around).

DaveT

Rlibersky · Feb 20, 2012

I have to say I have never gotten FP4 to look like Plus-X developed in D23 for portraits. Although I am still trying. I don't care to try finding it for other uses at this time. The last 30 rolls of 120 I have will be dedicated to portraits. The tonality and grain are superior to anything else, IMO. Imagine my anguish 8 years ago when i accidentally exposed the last 30 sheets of 8x10 of Plus-X i had. Cried for a week.

keithwms · Feb 20, 2012

Mark Crabtree said:
The closest curve I could find to PX was Fuji Neopan SS. I'd forgotten about that film, and it probably was my favorite 35mm 100'ish speed film. My impression agrees with the curve here too - probably just a bit shorter toe, and maybe a bit less shoulder than PX. I wonder if this film is still available.

What's it worth to you? Neopan SS is still available at Japan Exposures at about $6.50 for a 36 exposure roll...

Mark Crabtree · Feb 20, 2012

keithwms said:
What's it worth to you? Neopan SS is still available at Japan Exposures at about $6.50 for a 36 exposure roll...

Nice to know, but I'm happy with Tri-X; the SS is a nice film though. I really don't even go through all that much film any more. It will probably take me a while to make a dent in what I already have on hand. But if it ever showed up cheap at Freestyle again (how I ran into it in the first place) I would certainly pick some up.

clayne · Feb 20, 2012

100SS is an old-school 100-speed emulsion. It's got an older Tri-X feel, but isn't 400 speed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/tags/ss100/

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2012

clayne said:
100SS is an old-school 100-speed emulsion. It's got an older Tri-X feel, but isn't 400 speed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/tags/ss100/

I was looking at some of my own efforts with Neopan 100 SS last week, and it has similar grain to Tri-X also. Lovely film, but I didn't have enough of it to really get used to printing it. Printed lovely, but I could never manage to scan it very well for some reason.

Mark Crabtree · Feb 20, 2012

clayne said:
100SS is an old-school 100-speed emulsion. It's got an older Tri-X feel, but isn't 400 speed.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/tags/ss100/

Sorry if I wasn't clear in that comment (I think I was in the earlier one that Keith was responding to). I just meant that Tri-X is available and suits me, so I'm not desperately searching for film. I did like the look of Neopan and thought it was finer grained than Tri-X, but never did a direct comparison. Actually I thought the grain of the Neopan SS was about like Plus-X, or maybe finer. I got a nice 16x20 (full frame on 16x20) from the Neopan SS, which is unusually large for me.

cmacd123 · Feb 20, 2012

I think that Neopan SS was the first Fuji film I ever used. back when they came in a green plastic can. that and Neopan sss (ASA200). Back then the Fuji logo actually had a mountain on it.

dehk · Feb 20, 2012

cmacd123 said:
I think that Neopan SS was the first Fuji film I ever used. back when they came in a green plastic can. that and Neopan sss (ASA200). Back then the Fuji logo actually had a mountain on it.

Haha, now i remember the Mountain too after you mentioned it. Didn't even think about that nowadays!

pschauss · Feb 21, 2012

I have started using Orwo UN54 as a substitute for Plus-X as it comes close to the contrasty look that Plus-X gave me. There have been a few other threads on it, in this forum and in rangefinderforum.

I forgot how beautiful Plus X is

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency