Kodak 125 Plus X Best B&W Film All Time

[Andre Noble]

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

Yes and "size doesn't matter". "It's not how beautiful you are, it's your inner beauty that counts", and finally, "No, you don't look fat in that dress."

Admittedly, many of you have much more extensive B+W experience than me. I just notice trends.

 

[Roger Cole]

If you are talking about trying to use APX 25 instead of TMZ, yes, it's the film. If you are comparing Portra 400 with Velvia 50, yes it's the film. But between Plus-X and FP4+? I'm with Thomas on this - develop both to the same contrast and I'd defy anyone to tell the difference in the prints by eye.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

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.

YES!!! I don't know how many times I have heard people pan a film after only a single try.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is no "best". It all depends on what you are doing and what look you want. Plus X Pan was
appropriately marketed mainly as a studio portrait film. It had a very long sweeping toe designed to
give subtle midtones and highlight gradation. If you had a soft lighting ratio you would get gradation
in the shadows too. But with strong lighting you'd have to resort to compensating dev to dig deep,
and that would likely spoil the delicacy of the uppers. Not a very good film for direct sunlight conditions with deep shadows. The closest thing today in curve shape is Delta 100. FP4 has a much longer straight line, as does ACROS, though neither are true straight line films.

 

[Andre Noble]

(In regards to the curve of Kodak 125 Plus X... But with strong lighting you'd have to resort to compensating dev to dig deep,
and that would likely spoil the delicacy of the uppers. Not a very good film for direct sunlight conditions with deep shadows.

Enter Pyro developers. (I've used Wimberly WD2D+ and Pyrocat on 125 PXP uder such conditions with great success)

I live in desert like sunny S. California. Using pyro developers on Kodak 125 Plus X when shot under cloudless, sunny sky. Yet get all those highlight gradations AND the lower tones and blacks as well. Cake and eat it too.

dang! I am so procrastinating on these 8 B+W prints I need to print today. I'll stop.

 

[cliveh]

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

I would agree with this and go further to say that in the UK not only was FP4 was considered better than Plus-X, but Tri-X was considered better than HP5. However, we are talking semantics here.

 

[brofkand]

I love FP4 in all formats except 35mm. In 35mm I use Acros. I love FP4 in 4x5, simply because Acros is much more expensive in sheet sizes.

I did use Plus-X and liked it, but I am happy with FP4. It's likely to be around for a long time, so I use it and enjoy it. I also use Delta 100, but Acros and FP4 are my main films. I am trying to wean myself off of Acros because who knows how much longer Fuji will be committed to film? Ilford is only B&W film, so they have a lot of skin in the game.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Andre - if you think you can get shadow control using pyro and Plus X, it like bragging how fast you
can drive on the Bonneville salt flats in a Volkswagen. Yeah, you've picked up some extra momentum,
but it ain't nothin like a real racecar!

 

[wblynch]

Everyone can like what they want and I like Plus-X.

I get a velvety smoothness and creamy look with Plus-X that I haven't gotten with anything else.

I am lucky to have enough Plus-X to last me few years, so I will be able to enjoy it over time.

I don't expect to match it with anything else, but will make myself happy with alternatives when the time comes.

 

[MattKing]

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

And for the light and weather conditions experienced in the UK, I expect that could be the case.

How does FP4 do when the sun is out? :munch:

(Do we have a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon?)

 

[Andre Noble]

How does FP4 do when the sun is out?

Actually good question. Here in harsh S. Cali sun, I always had problems printing FP4+ highlights onto paper when film originally developed in conventional developers such as Kodak D 76 and Ilford ID11. Problem solved with pyro developer.

 

[Ian Grant]

And for the light and weather conditions experienced in the UK, I expect that could be the case.

How does FP4 do when the sun is out? :munch:

(Do we have a "tongue-in-cheek" emoticon?)

I've only shot a few rolls of FP4 since 1986 but with no issues before that (or after), even on the odd bright harshly lit days. I've returned to shooting HP5 and it's great in the harsh sunlight in Turkey/Greece etc - it allows me to shoot handheld with LF often at 1/125 or 1/250 @ f22.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

I completely disagree with Michael's assessment. Those films each have different personalities and
significantly different curve, recip, and even spectral sensitivity characteristics. Tomorrow I'll lug
my 8x10 up a hill out in the redwoods. For the first two hours I'll be in soft fog, where the several
films might indeed respond similarly, except for speed. Then the mist will either start breaking or I'll
be above it, and all hell will break loose if you don't understand the distinctions. All of a sudden a
steep toe film will render a completely different shadow response than a medium or long toe one,
and in direct sun, the redwood forest itself can easily exceed twelve stops of range. I want a film
which will differentiate between zone 0 and 1, not between 2 and 3, and still retain detail way way
up, even in pyro. Don't tell me simply to minus develop either - that just produces mush in the
midtones! You need the right tools for the job. Plus-X would be worthless in that situation, but
perhaps very elegant indeed in the early mistly hours.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Been there, done that, and still say you're full of BS.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I completely disagree with Michael's assessment. Those films each have different personalities and
significantly different curve, recip, and even spectral sensitivity characteristics. Tomorrow I'll lug
my 8x10 up a hill out in the redwoods. For the first two hours I'll be in soft fog, where the several
films might indeed respond similarly, except for speed. Then the mist will either start breaking or I'll
be above it, and all hell will break loose if you don't understand the distinctions. All of a sudden a
steep toe film will render a completely different shadow response than a medium or long toe one,
and in direct sun, the redwood forest itself can easily exceed twelve stops of range. I want a film
which will differentiate between zone 0 and 1, not between 2 and 3, and still retain detail way way
up, even in pyro. Don't tell me simply to minus develop either - that just produces mush in the
midtones! You need the right tools for the job. Plus-X would be worthless in that situation, but
perhaps very elegant indeed in the early mistly hours.

To avoid the mid-tone 'mush', can't you just give more exposure to avoid the toe and develop normally? Then benefit from normal mid-tone separation and just work with a neg that's a bit denser?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes and no, Tom. Depends on the subject. Toe characteristic can be very important. Since the curve is basically logarithmic, minor distinctions at the bottom can have a significant impact of how
crisply deep shadow values can be separated. Push things up the curve and you might affect the
opposite extreme. An old school straight line film like Super-XX or Bergger 200 would resolve a scene
very differently than something with a more gradual toe like HP5, Plus X, or Delta 100. That's why
contact printers and alt printers coveted these kinds of films. They have great usable range. Get up in the high mtns or desert with a deep red filter and see what happens to the shadows. Then try to hold specular glare in the same shot. Believe me, I've paid my dues to learn this. There are plenty of
wonderful films to choose from, but they differ in what they specifically better at - and you can't
just turn one into another - otherwise, the kind of selection we currently have wouldn't even be
necessary. Everyone screams when their favorite film is discontinued. Why? There's a reason.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes and no, Tom. Depends on the subject. Toe characteristic can be very important. Since the curve is basically logarithmic, minor distinctions at the bottom can have a significant impact of how
crisply deep shadow values can be separated. Push things up the curve and you might affect the
opposite extreme. An old school straight line film like Super-XX or Bergger 200 would resolve a scene
very differently than something with a more gradual toe like HP5, Plus X, or Delta 100. That's why
contact printers and alt printers coveted these kinds of films. They have great usable range. Get up in the high mtns or desert with a deep red filter and see what happens to the shadows. Then try to hold specular glare in the same shot. Believe me, I've paid my dues to learn this. There are plenty of
wonderful films to choose from, but they differ in what they specifically better at - and you can't
just turn one into another - otherwise, the kind of selection we currently have wouldn't even be
necessary. Everyone screams when their favorite film is discontinued. Why? There's a reason.

I've been happy with how TMY-2 accomplishes this. 14 stops.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

:munch:

 

[cliveh]

Yes and no, Tom. Depends on the subject. Toe characteristic can be very important. Since the curve is basically logarithmic, minor distinctions at the bottom can have a significant impact of how
crisply deep shadow values can be separated. Push things up the curve and you might affect the
opposite extreme. An old school straight line film like Super-XX or Bergger 200 would resolve a scene
very differently than something with a more gradual toe like HP5, Plus X, or Delta 100. That's why
contact printers and alt printers coveted these kinds of films. They have great usable range. Get up in the high mtns or desert with a deep red filter and see what happens to the shadows. Then try to hold specular glare in the same shot. Believe me, I've paid my dues to learn this. There are plenty of
wonderful films to choose from, but they differ in what they specifically better at - and you can't
just turn one into another - otherwise, the kind of selection we currently have wouldn't even be
necessary. Everyone screams when their favorite film is discontinued. Why? There's a reason.

The film and characteristic curves are merely semantics. Surely composition and timing are far more important?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

yes, but that's the one variablepeople don't like to change. so, it must be the material or the equipment!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, Tom ... TMY-2 is probably the closest thing we've got at the moment to a straight-line long
scale film, that is, unless Fomapan/Classic/Arista (various relabels) 200 is suitable - that stuff had
the steepest toe and best shadow separation of anything, but at the expense of mediocre quality
control and wretched recip characteristics. In fine-grained films suitable for small format, you've got
Ekfe 25 for long-scale work, but again, with a few quality issues. As per Michael - my evidence is the damn prints!!! The proof is in the pudding. But yes, I could make any of the mentioned films work - and certainly have - but optimization and minor differences are often what makes the difference between a decent print and a great one (given a suitable paper, of course). All those little
things add up, though there's nothing wrong with working with a single film and paper either.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Cliveh - don't know whether to take you seriously or not. Film curve defines what a film does. You
can be "creative" in any way you wish. Certain people get paid to play a tuba; but would you want
them to play at your wedding? Creativity needs to be matched to the instument appropriate for the occasion, or in this instance, how you want the subject ultimately rendered in the print. Understanding the sensitometry is integral to the outcome, whether one learns this by studying
graphs and adopting the official lingo, simply by gaining experience in the field intuitively, or both.

 

[Andre Noble]

Kodak Plus X 125 (Developed on Xtol 1+1) on Ilfor MGIV in Bromophen:

Underneath her dense, black shirt she is wearing a V neck T-Shirt. Somehow the very subtle tonal change due to underlying T-Shirt came through in print (not visible in this scan). Also note how well blacks of pants vs shirt vs deep dark red on bed cover are rendered.

If I can get FP4+ to do this and look like this then I'will be happy. I won't hold my breath.

 

[BrianShaw]

... Don't hold your breath at all because there really isn't a whole lot of choice anymore. Give it a try; it will either satisfy you ar not.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Cliveh - don't know whether to take you seriously or not. Film curve defines what a film does. You
can be "creative" in any way you wish. Certain people get paid to play a tuba; but would you want
them to play at your wedding? Creativity needs to be matched to the instument appropriate for the occasion, or in this instance, how you want the subject ultimately rendered in the print. Understanding the sensitometry is integral to the outcome, whether one learns this by studying
graphs and adopting the official lingo, simply by gaining experience in the field intuitively, or both.

With all due respect, people like Cartier Bresson, Gibson and Erwitt have made fine careers without being as technically oriented. Are their pictures no good because the film curve wasn't perfect?