Kodak 125PX/ Plus X Film

[derelict]

What can you tell me about it? I cannot turn up much in a general search. I am a teacher at a high school and they no longer shoot film so the photography teacher has just given me a package, unopened of this in 120. It is expired (2007) but no big deal really. I am thinking that I might be able to get more as they part with their stock that they are never going to use.

A search has turned up people saying they like it but not much else. Not nearly as much information as TMax or Tri X.

Anyone have any experience with it? Samples? What it likes and does not like, as far as exposure?

 

[MattKing]

Sigh .....
It is/was a wonderful film. Similar in many ways to older Tri-X, but with finer grain.
A more traditional film than T-Max 100.
I used it for everything I could for decades. I still have a few rolls which I use joyfully, and sadly, all at the same time.
I really liked it for portraits:

 

[bdial]

It was my favorite while it was still current.
What you have should work fine, some of my stash is a good bit older.
I've always exposed at box speed, it works well for that in Xtol

My sample;

 

[Rlibersky]

I also have a bunch of this film date from 2006 and have not had any issue with it. Always frozen though. Still my all time favorite film for portraits. Will be sad when I use up what I have.

Loren

• Rlibersky
• Apr 2, 2008
• 9

 

[chip j]

Best medium-speed film ever made.

 

[mike c]

I believe it was made for studio work, I never used it much .

 

[kreeger]

One of my favorites in 35mm in my youth when I was learning the craft.
No doubt It is a film with more inherent contrast than Tri-X has.
It's great on overcast days.

Photo below taken with PX125.

 

[zanxion72]

A wonderful film! It needs careful development though to get the tonal range you wish. I love it developed with microdol and Xtol. Many claim that it works well with Rodinal too, but a couple of rolls I have tried with it came out with more than I like bright highlights.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

is it Plus-X or 125PX? Kodak changed the emulsions for PluX-X and Tri-X when they went to a new, single coating facility. I

I never used it much. To me it suffered from being neither fish nor fowl. That is it didn't have the acutance of a slow film nor the speed of a fast one. Still it was a good compromise for someone wishing only to carry one film.

 

[mike c]

Seems like when a film is discontinued we speak about how great it was but when it was being made it was just a regular film like the rest of them. If I wanted fine grain it was Panatomic-X and for anything else it was Tri-X. Plus X's grain was kind of mussy to me, portrait studios used it for its reproduction of tonal quality like Rlibersky beautiful portrait . I should have used it more but Trix was more sexy.

 

[chip j]

I shot it on bright, sunny days @250 w/yellow& orange filters & developed it in FG7 w/sodium sulfite.

 

[MattKing]

Here is another example:

 

[MattKing]

And another:

 

[Neal]

Dear derelict,

The last two Kodak Technical Data Sheets can be found here.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[derelict]

Here is what I was given. The TMax, which I have a bunch of experience with, is 2009. The Plus- X is 2007.

Dear derelict,

The last two Kodak Technical Data Sheets can be found here.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

Thanks for the link but Kodaks internal links are down to the discontinued films it seems. At least, for this spec it is.

 

[mike c]

I think you should go to town and have fun exploring this new film, 20 rolls is enough to get a feel for the film.

 

[Bill Burk]

Haaa a package... You were given a brick! I was worried you got one roll and wouldn't get a chance to get to know it.

I like the 'neither fish nor fowl' comment haa. Likewise, I always shot slow 32 or fast 400 film but not 100 speed. I just didn't want to mess with something in the middle. But over the years I have shot a few rolls. And even though I was critical of my results and swore not to use that film again, (because compared to Panatomic-X it had more grain and I was used to a certain look)... I did get a print that I keep by my front door, that I was surprised to find (while hunting through my old negatives) was taken on 35mm Plus-X

Still, I rarely shoot Plus-X but...

One summer road trip I stopped by a camera store in Fort Bragg, CA and picked up a handful of rolls to shoot in my folder because it was what they had.

I had to use the tripod a little more than I did when I was shooting TMAX 400 but the pictures I got of creeks and woods were very satisfying.

The water looked wet and the shattered wood spires of a storm-felled tree looked sharp enough to hurt you.

I think you would be very happy with 120 Plus-X. There is a good chance there is little fog to worry about.
.

 

[derelict]

Oh, yeah I will have plenty of time to get to know it. I just was given this, same dated batch, this morning (along with a few rolls of VPS Vericolor III 160).

 

[TSSPro]

I enjoyed Plus-X and have shot it a lot. I bought up about 100rolls a few years ago and am just now scraping the bottom of that barrel. I shoot a lot more triX and HP5 just b/c of the film speed, but the plusx has never let me down either. It is neither fish-nor-fowl for me, as well. I liked it when the conditions were right, but never took a strong shine to it. All of my medium speed stuff has been with the Birts and FP4+ for the last several years.
Tangentially relevant: Inherited a bulk loader with the better part of 15 rolls of film left on the reel. The loader was last notated on July of 85'. Shot a majority of the film at a bluegrass festival in July 16'. I developed the film in Sept and had to flatten the negs a bit, but the images were very usable, little fogged from age, with reasonable contrast and not too difficult to print. SO +1 for expired film viability for KPX (xtol +15% @ 68degF dev time)

 

[BrianShaw]

Derelict... you lucky person! My remaining stash is about half that, and maybe less than that. I'm sad that one day it all will be either used or too valuable to use.

 

[derelict]

Derelict... you lucky person! My remaining stash is about half that, and maybe less than that. I'm sad that one day it all will be either used or too valuable to use.

Yeah, I have probably about 3 to 3.5 bricks worth of it.

 

[MattKing]

Dear derelict,

The last two Kodak Technical Data Sheets can be found here.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

Sadly, all those links are now gone.

 

[GRHazelton]

Back in the late 50s and early 60s my Father and I mixed up Beutler and shot Plus X rated at about ASA 250 or 300 and got excellent results. The Beutler is compensating and we could pull excellent 8 x 10s from 35mm stock, 11 x 14 was obtainable, with care and some good luck. I'd love to find an equivalent stock, since I now have gear I could only dream of way back then.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

My favorite film for a long time. I started on photography around 1988 and that was my favorite film from then till it was discontinued.

Loved its tonal quality.

 

[Cholentpot]

I started with this film and I still look around for it.

I like the contrast that it gives and the smooth tones. It's one of my favorite films.