Kodak 125 Plus X Best B&W Film All Time

Andre Noble · Jul 25, 2012

I was distracted with other things and missed the cancellation of Kodak 125 Plus X in 120 format. Serious Bummer.

What I liked best about Kodak 125 Plus X is the subtle gradations from the midtones to the blacks. It's a film with "meat" - a "colorful" black and white film, for those who know what I mean. Good prints from Pyro or regular developers.

So what film currently available in 120 is most similar to Kodak 125 Plus X in terms of midtones to the blacks tonal reproduction?

For those who might reply, "Ilford FP4+" - I agree FP4+ is a really good film, but no.

BrianShaw · Jul 25, 2012

Yes, FP4+.

munz6869 · Jul 25, 2012

I've moved (from Plus-X, which I LOVED) to Fuji's Neopan 100 (let's see how long that lasts), and I like the results, but I think it's a bit punchier, contrast-wise than Plus-X...

It's inexpensive too, but only if you order from the US - in Japan (I discovered last month), it's not much cheaper than any other 120 film!

Marc!

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 25, 2012

munz6869 said:
I've moved (from Plus-X, which I LOVED) to Fuji's Neopan 100 (let's see how long that lasts), and I like the results, but I think it's a bit punchier, contrast-wise than Plus-X...

It's inexpensive too, but only if you order from the US - in Japan (I discovered last month), it's not much cheaper than any other 120 film!

Marc!

I figure you mean Acros? Great film, I love it but absolutely nothing like Plus-X. Shanghai GP3 is rumored to be based on the Plus-X formula if actually not Plus-X itself from back when Kodak cooperated with film production in China. I use it a lot having securely a load of it in my travels to see my wife's family there. However I've heard it too might not be around much longer either. Otherwise while not quite the same FP-4 is a wonderful film.

Gerald C Koch · Jul 26, 2012

I never used Plus-X all that much. I used Pan-X outdoors or Tri-X in low light. When Kodak discontinued Pan-X I switched to Ilford Pan-F. Plus-X always seemed to be a "jack of all trades, master of none" film, either too fast or too slow for the subjects I was filming.

NB23 · Jul 26, 2012

Foma 100... Can't say why except that it has serious character and enough "meet". I loved Plus-X and I love Foma 100 probably for the same reasons.

Ian Grant · Jul 26, 2012

The general consesnsus here in the UK was always that FP4 was a much better film than Plus X, that was my own experience as well.

Ian

Bob Carnie · Jul 26, 2012

I agree, still shoot fp4 in all formats.

Ian Grant said:
The general consesnsus here in the UK was always that FP4 was a much better film than Plus X, that was my own experience as well.

Ian

wblynch · Jul 26, 2012

Nothing else is like Plus-X.

Substitutions, sure, but no replacements.

jm94 · Jul 26, 2012

Agreed with above, FP4+ is the way to go for your purposes. FP4 is pretty much a good all rounder. It is also very forgiving, much more so than other films of a similar type.

Keith Tapscott. · Jul 26, 2012

If you ever get to see an original John Blakemore print from a 5x4 inch FP4 negative made on the old Agfa Record-Rapid, you might change your mind.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 26, 2012

I've used Plus-X and FP4+ side by side, and I really don't think that the prints are much different at all. They can easily go side by side, and there will be very little distinction between the two. That's my experience anyway. They are more similar than they are different.

graywolf · Jul 26, 2012

Some would argue that Agfapan 100 was the real loss to the world.

To me almost anything was/is better than Plus-X. But I guess it is sort of like ice cream, there has to be a reason they make 97 different flavors, of which I only eat about 5.

Andre Noble · Jul 26, 2012

Yes, Ilford FP4+ is a very smooth film. But I don't think it has the subtle dark tone gradation of Plus X, nor the midtone presense.

Most B+W films "give up" or "surrender" in the shadows. Not Kodak Plus X.

No sense in crying over spilled milk though. I will probably go with FP4+ and Tri- X (even though at ASA 400, unexposed Kodak Tri X won't keep as long as Kodak 125 Plus X frozen).

I got some interesting portraits on Agfa APX 100 in soft lighting developed Rodinal. It was a "hard", unsophisticated film. I don't understand it's allure.

Oh, and I have two rolls of Agfa APX 25 in the freezer. (For some reason I marked on pkg. "Expose at ASA 6"??)

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 26, 2012

There was a time many years ago when I was not happy using HC-110. It just seemed the 2-3 films I tried just did not have the look I liked and I wondered why people loved it so much. In particular the Tri-X I developed in HC-110 was a real let down for me. So I started using other developers and films. One day I saw a portfolio of gorgeous B&W images. I mean they were almost perfect! The tonality just what I was after. Amazing. I then found out it was Tri-X film and that the photographer used HC-110 exclusively. Imagine that. The problem was with me.

PhotoJim · Jul 26, 2012

FP4 can do the job you want - you may just have to learn how to get it to do what you want. It might be that slightly different development (in terms of time or agitation, or in terms of development choice) might be required.

I do my traditional emulsions in PMK, and I always found that Plus-X had much too high general stain compared to FP4 - so I prefer FP4 . Still, I am going to miss Plus-X. It has its own charms. Thankfully I still have a few rolls left.

BrianShaw · Jul 26, 2012

PhotoJim said:
Still, I am going to miss Plus-X. It has its own charms. Thankfully I still have a few rolls left.

x2. I had the good fortune of buying a bunch of PX-120 unwittingly just prior to cancellation (and the sharp rise in price). I'll miss it when that stash is gone.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 26, 2012

BrianShaw said:
x2. I had the good fortune of buying a bunch of PX-120 unwittingly just prior to cancellation (and the sharp rise in price). I'll miss it when that stash is gone.

Me too. I won an auction of 88 rolls a couple years back from a pro clearing his freezer as he went digital. Paid only about $90! But I'm running out I use it! (of course!) Cannot decide which I treasure more: my remaining stash of 120 Neopan 400 or 120 Plus-X!

Ian Grant · Jul 26, 2012

Andre Noble said:
Yes, Ilford FP4+ is a very smooth film. But I don't think it has the subtle dark tone gradation of Plus X, nor the midtone presense.

Most B+W films "give up" or "surrender" in the shadows. Not Kodak Plus X.

None of the 100-125 ISO B&W films I've used over the years has "given up" or "surrenedered" the shadow detail, that's down to how we as photographers control our film's tonality by exposure and development. That includes FP4, Tmax and Delta 100, AP/APX100 and more recently Fomapan 100, lus a few rolls of Acros.

It's a case of learning how different films respond and making necessary adjustments to achieve the resul;ts you#re after. only the Foma films in my experience need significantly different development times.

Ian.

Richard S. (rich815) · Jul 26, 2012

PhotoJim said:
FP4 can do the job you want - you may just have to learn how to get it to do what you want.

My point exactly. I've learned since my first developed roll at age 11 or so back in 1973 is that chasing a magic bullet or giving up or forming an opinion on a film after only 1-2 rolls is senseless. I love trying different films and developers just to see what I get and I have an experimental nature. But through many, many films and many, many developers the one thing I've learned is almost ANY film is capable of terrific results.

Roger Cole · Jul 26, 2012

I agree with the people who say it isn't the film.

I liked Plux-X, but one of the things I liked about it was how well it worked in Diafine. I could shoot it at box speed in D76 (or whatever) or, if needed, at 400 and develop in Diafine, and carry one film. None of the other medium speed films I've tried have responded as well, and that includes FP4+ which does get an effective boost, just not as much. People who have tried Shanghai GP3 in Diafine say it is definitely not Plus-X, in this way at least.

But that's fairly minor. I have good 400 films I can use at box speed any time I want. I switched to FP4+ for medium speed (have a few rolls of Acros to try though) and like it a lot. The differences between the two, while probably not non-existent, are simply going to be drowned out in the noise compared to the differences in photographers.

Andre Noble · Jul 26, 2012

rich815 said:
giving up or forming an opinion on a film after only 1-2 rolls is senseless.

True Except for Ektar 100

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 26, 2012

Ian Grant said:
None of the 100-125 ISO B&W films I've used over the years has "given up" or "surrenedered" the shadow detail, that's down to how we as photographers control our film's tonality by exposure and development. That includes FP4, Tmax and Delta 100, AP/APX100 and more recently Fomapan 100, lus a few rolls of Acros.

It's a case of learning how different films respond and making necessary adjustments to achieve the resul;ts you#re after. only the Foma films in my experience need significantly different development times.

Ian.

A lot of times I hear exclamations that allude to not completely comprehending how two films should be compared: you can only compare their tonality AFTER they have been exposed and processed such that they have the same contrast. Then, and only then, can you tell the relative difference between them. Any other comparison simply doesn't justify the qualities of either film.

I have prints in the same series that are from FP4+ and Plus-X negatives. I dare anyone to tell them apart.

Ian Grant · Jul 26, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
A lot of times I hear exclamations that allude to not completely comprehending how two films should be compared: you can only compare their tonality AFTER they have been exposed and processed such that they have the same contrast. Then, and only then, can you tell the relative difference between them. Any other comparison simply doesn't justify the qualities of either film.

I have prints in the same series that are from FP4+ and Plus-X negatives. I dare anyone to tell them apart.

An example would be Tmax 100 and AP/APX100 both in Rodinal both superb films and final results are indistinguishable in 35mm through to LF, the only major difference was the Agfa films were rated at 100ISO and Tmax 100 @ 50 EI, dev times were identical.

Some of my series span longer periods typically 25 years+ and I have no issuse putting prints from Tmax100 and AP/APX100 alongside those shot more recently with Delta 100 and even HP5 (LF) although I have had to reprint on current papers but that's another issue.

Ian

Dave in Kansas · Jul 26, 2012

I've been using more FP 4 recently and sure like it. It will most likely become my replacement for Plus-X. I get excellent results out of either and can't say one is better than the other, at least at my stage in the game.

Dave

Kodak 125 Plus X Best B&W Film All Time

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency