Is it safe to say plus x and plus x pan aren't the same?

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

So I've got a 1946 expired 120 roll of plus x, and I just got a previously exposed 828 roll of plus x off ebay. While I'm debating whether I should shoot the 120 roll, I'm just wondering if plus x would have a different developing time from plus x pan. I don't exactly want to have to pay film rescue's premium prices for the 828 roll, but the fact that the massive dev chart now has plus x listed on the discontinued page, and there isn't even a d76 time listed, I'm skeptical this is something I should do myself.
So, if anyone's got any development time suggestions for sprint standard, I'd welcome them (also note I'm not going to have access to a darkroom until mid to late January.

 

[chip j]

I believe Plus X Pan was made for retouching, and wasn't made in 35mm. A studio film.

 

[MattKing]

My 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook lists a development time of 18 minutes with intermittent agitation for Plus-X in 18C D-76.
Of course, film that old won't behave the same now as it did 70 years ago.

 

[BMbikerider]

I believe Plus X Pan was made for retouching, and wasn't made in 35mm. A studio film.

If it is the same Plus X as we used to buy in UK it was made in 35mm and as it was cheaper than FP3/FP4 it was my film of choice in my impoverished days of youth

 

[MattKing]

I believe Plus X Pan was made for retouching, and wasn't made in 35mm. A studio film.

Plus-X Pan Professional was the roll and sheet film.
Plus-X Pan was the 135 film.
I don't know which one was used for 828.
I wasn't alive before it changed from (non-pan) Plus-X.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Plus-X was never anything other than panchromatic. It was however a bit of a catch-all term for a variety of films with different tone curves, though all rated at ASA 125, post 1960 speed revision. The final version from 2002-withdrawal was PX in 135 & 120 which both used the same emulsions, but before that there used to be a PX (135), PXP (120) and PXT (sheets), all with different tone curves, dev times etc. Back in the time period you are talking about, it seems it was just as confusing. 828 was usually from the same raw stock as the 135 offering, so it is likely whatever that era's PX was.

 

[mshchem]

Plus-X was never anything other than panchromatic. It was however a bit of a catch-all term for a variety of films with different tone curves, though all rated at ASA 125, post 1960 speed revision. The final version from 2002-withdrawal was PX in 135 & 120 which both used the same emulsions, but before that there used to be a PX (135), PXP (120) and PXT (sheets), all with different tone curves, dev times etc. Back in the time period you are talking about, it seems it was just as confusing. 828 was usually from the same raw stock as the 135 offering, so it is likely whatever that era's PX was.

This sounds right to me. Wasn't 828 35mm without the perfs.? Verichrome was, as everyone knows , available as ortho and later pan.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This sounds right to me. Wasn't 828 35mm without the perfs.? Verichrome was, as everyone knows , available as ortho and later pan.

As I understand it, that's what 828 was - everything I have found about it seems to indicate it was coated on the same base thickness etc as 135. Interesting to note that VP never made it to 135 - presumably as 135 was seen as somewhat of a 'professional' format from the start with little need for a film designed to handle the questionable shutters of 'box' cameras. Which is ironic as its specs suggest it would have done just fine in 135.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Back in the time period you are talking about, it seems it was just as confusing. 828 was usually from the same raw stock as the 135 offering, so it is likely whatever that era's PX was.

No idea how old it is though- though I'd assume the 40s to early 50s.

A Interesting to note that VP never made it to 135 - presumably as 135 was seen as somewhat of a 'professional' format from the start with little need for a film designed to handle the questionable shutters of 'box' cameras. Which is ironic as its specs suggest it would have done just fine in 135.

Here's the weird thing though- I think Verichrome pan may have supplanted plus x and super x as the only black and white 828 film until whenever it was discontinued.

 

[MattKing]

My 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook has a "Miniature Film" table showing 828 in Panatomic X, Plus X, Super XX Pan, Infra-Red and Kodachrome Regular and Type A.
Verichrome isn't shown in that table, but a nearby paragraph describes it as being available in all the "popular roll film and pack film sizes".

 

[Ian Grant]

My 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook has a "Miniature Film" table showing 828 in Panatomic X, Plus X, Super XX Pan, Infra-Red and Kodachrome Regular and Type A.
Verichrome isn't shown in that table, but a nearby paragraph describes it as being available in all the "popular roll film and pack film sizes".

My 1940 Kodak (Ltd) Professional Catalogue lists Panatomic X, Plus X, Super XX and of course Tri X, all as Panchromatic films. Tri X was only available as sheet film.

The only film I know that changed was Verichrome which was Orthochromatic and replaced by Verichrome Pan.

Ian

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

My 1940 Kodak Reference Handbook has a "Miniature Film" table showing 828 in Panatomic X, Plus X, Super XX Pan, Infra-Red and Kodachrome Regular and Type A.
Verichrome isn't shown in that table, but a nearby paragraph describes it as being available in all the "popular roll film and pack film sizes".

There's plenty of 828 Verichrome pan available on ebay, so I'm assuming it was introduced after 1940, because I've also seen Kodacolor x and II, and Ektachrome e2 for sale in the format as well.

 

[removed account4]

hi TGGMM
not sure if you saw this on the sprint website its the chart for determining development times
https://sprintsystems.com/time-charts/
it suggests if it was FRESH plus x you would develop it for 8:30 .. but to add time if it is expired so "+1" to 10 mins
i have gotten great results with sprint chemistry but i don't use it for old film that is found that might be 40 or 60 years old ( maybe i should? )
me? i'd get some dektol or ansco 130 ( yes i know they are print developers but they work great with flm )
and i'd dilute it 1:6 and develop your film for between 7 and 8:30 mins. if you are using a130 glycin likes it about 70-72F
it doesn't matter if it is plus x pan or plus x tri x or p3200, .. these 2 developers treat all films the same... ( YMMV ! )

828 format ( according to google ) was from 1935-85 ..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/828_film
have fun !
john

 

[Rick A]

This is from my 1946 Kodak reference handbook. Kodak 828 film is referred to as "Bantam" film. Plus X and Plus X pan are one and the same, no difference.

 

[darkroommike]

Plus-X Pan Professional was only available in 120/220 and sheet film sizes. The biggest difference was that this film had a retouching "tooth" on both sides of the film for pencil retouching. (Anyone want to buy an Adams retouching machine--LOL?)

 

[Bill Burk]

If I had one roll I would certainly test develop a sliver of it off the tail end before developing the roll. I’d give it one or two stops exposure more than it’s rated speed.

The age might increase development time (PE explained to me a possibility is gelatin hardening with age).

Developing old already exposed film is different than making new exposures on old film. The former you have to be more delicate with, you may want a developer formula that minimizes fog. The latter you may simply “blast through the fog” with increased exposure and then develop a bulletproof negative where you can print through the fog.

 

[MattKing]

There's plenty of 828 Verichrome pan available on ebay, so I'm assuming it was introduced after 1940, because I've also seen Kodacolor x and II, and Ektachrome e2 for sale in the format as well.

This tells me that Verichrome was not available in 828, but its replacement, Verichrome Pan, was available in 828.
My Dad shot Kodachrome in his Bantam RF.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Here's where I'm at now.
I'm probably going to contact film rescue about the 828 roll to see what they have to say, but if I do do it myself, I'd probably give it a 10 minute develop in sprint.
I'll probably try and shoot the 120 roll this spring break at an iso of 12 and give it a normal development time in sprint.

 

[removed account4]

you might email or contact sprint and talk to them,
they are good ... really good at helping people who use their chemicals.

good luck !
john

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

For anyone interested in the history of 828 film, I have been working through a timeline of film availability in the format based on observations over the past few years. I have some revisions still to adjust, such as the ending of Verichrome Pan in 1974, and the break out of K828 as "Kodachrome" of K-12 development type, but it's a fairly good snapshot.

As has been referenced above, Plus-X (which I should denote as "PAN") was the mid-speed BW emulsion rather than Verichrome, until 1956, when VP was released, and PX became a 35mm only film for quite some time.

While some of the technical details of 35mm and 828 are quite similar, what is interesting is that the product lines between the two formats had enough distinction to where calling 828 "35mm with a single perforation per frame" is over-simplifying to a good degree, some distinctions of which are detailed below.

Kodachrome appears to have debuted in 828 up to year earlier than 35mm, debuting in 1937.
Verichrome Pan was the 828 mid-speed film after 1956 whereas Plus-X Pan was the 35mm equivalent.
The original Kodacolor film appears to have debuted in 1950 in 828, about 8 years before it finally entered the market in 35mm.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I just got my email from film rescue- Caffenol was suggested as the best result (and I do personally know someone who MAY be able to do it, so I'll see what he has to say).

For anyone interested in the history of 828 film, I have been working through a timeline of film availability in the format based on observations over the past few years. I have some revisions still to adjust, such as the ending of Verichrome Pan in 1974, and the break out of K828 as "Kodachrome" of K-12 development type, but it's a fairly good snapshot.

As has been referenced above, Plus-X (which I should denote as "PAN") was the mid-speed BW emulsion rather than Verichrome, until 1956, when VP was released, and PX became a 35mm only film for quite some time.

While some of the technical details of 35mm and 828 are quite similar, what is interesting is that the product lines between the two formats had enough distinction to where calling 828 "35mm with a single perforation per frame" is over-simplifying to a good degree, some distinctions of which are detailed below.

Kodachrome appears to have debuted in 828 up to year earlier than 35mm, debuting in 1937.
Verichrome Pan was the 828 mid-speed film after 1956 whereas Plus-X Pan was the 35mm equivalent.
The original Kodacolor film appears to have debuted in 1950 in 828, about 8 years before it finally entered the market in 35mm.


View attachment 209496

Though I now realize this roll could be older than I think it is (the seller I got the roll from said it came out of a 40s bantam camera).

 

[removed account4]

caffenol, that is crazy
who would ever use that developer !!

go figure

good luck with your film !
john

 

[Arklatexian]

Plus-X Pan Professional was the roll and sheet film.
Plus-X Pan was the 135 film.
I don't know which one was used for 828.
I wasn't alive before it changed from (non-pan) Plus-X.

My memory is that Plus-X was a panchromatic film from the beginning. Both 120 and 35mm. When Plus-X came out, Kodak had, for a long time, been making Verichrome in 620, 120 which was an orthochromatic film. I would imagine that 828 would be the same as 35mm. Super XX was a pan film also.......Regards!