Kodak Plus X- How I Miss This Film

Marcelo Paniagua said:

Not completely sure, but I think that is different beast than regular Plus-X, based on the examples I've seen, although that could be to storage/being expired. Any thoughts or experiences?

Marcelo

Click to expand...

5 inch 2402 PlusX Aerographic 5x7 Norma 500mm TeleXenar HC110 H by Nokton48, on Flickr

• Second set of 5x7 2402 Kodak Plus-X Aerographic, loaded into Lisco film holders. Exposed in 5x7 Sinar Norma with Schneider 500mm Tele-Xenar in Compound 5 shutter, freshly overhauled by Mac at Camtronics. Tim Kelly style Broncolor Portrait lighting, exposure at F16 and F22, Developed in Unicolor 8x10 Unidrum, HC-110 "H" dilution 9 1/2 mins at 68F. Unicolor Uniroller spins the Unidrum. I think F16 came out quite well. Need to load some more of this up for additional testing. I like the tonality and the way the Aerographic sees through the Yellow Filter. Will contact print these up as I have time. A sheet of this film costs 35 cents.

Nokton48 said:

Second set of 5x7 2402 Kodak Plus-X Aerographic, loaded into Lisco film holders. Exposed in 5x7 Sinar Norma with Schneider 500mm Tele-Xenar in Compound 5 shutter, freshly overhauled by Mac at Camtronics. Tim Kelly style Broncolor Portrait lighting, exposure at F16 and F22, Developed in Unicolor 8x10 Unidrum, HC-110 "H" dilution 9 1/2 mins at 68F. Unicolor Uniroller spins the Unidrum. I think F16 came out quite well. Need to load some more of this up for additional testing. I like the tonality and the way the Aerographic sees through the Yellow Filter. Will contact print these up as I have time. A sheet of this film costs 35 cents.

Click to expand...

What are these negatives suppose to show other than one received one stop more exposure?

Plus-X Xerographic film 2402 has nothing to do with the Plus-X Pan or Plus-X Pan Professional that Kodak used to make for normal still camera use. Just an example of EK re-using one of their product names. (See "Polymax" for a plethora of other examples.)

"What are these negatives suppose to show other than one received one stop more exposure?"

Well, Garsh, Jim Galli has been usin' 2402 just like regular Plus-X for decades.

Shootin' cheapo 5x7 extremely similar to regular Plus-X is the goal. I like the rendering in D23 with a YG filter.

These are excellent negs worth showin'. What's the beeg deal? SHEESH

I don't have an answer for the OP, only a few ruminations...

Some years ago I froze Plus-X in all formats relevant to me; 35mm 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, 120, and 4x5. But, I do not find it strikingly different than Agfapan APX 100 (which I also have squirreled away in 120 and 4x5),

I find Fuji Acros Acros II, and FP4+ to have just a touch more of apparent overall contrast than Plus-X, but that's only by casual inspection not rigorous testing or measurement.

As I recall (someone correct me if I have this wrong) - Plus-X started out life as a sheet film for portraiture. It was intentionally a bit less contrasty than other films of its era, particularly in developers like D-23. So, depending on what you shoot, it may- or may not be the right stuff.

Of the currently available emulsions, for all around shooting, you cannot beat Neopan II or FP4+. Honorable mention should also go to Fomapan 200, but avoid it in 120 - they have been having quality issues with it last I tried that format.

Of late, I've been playing with Double XX in 120 and it's really, really nice ... and rated ASA 250 to boot . I also have some of that in 35mm but have not yet tried it.

The truth is that we have many good choices left. With the right tuning of exposure and developer, it should be possible to get just as good a look as the old Plus-X.

The one and only emulsion that I've never found a decent modern equivalent for is Efke KB 100/PL100M. That stuff is razor sharp, takes semistand processing beautifully and has a look like no other film I've tried. I rue the day when that part of the freezer goes empty. Adox CHS II is a worthy attempt but doesn't quite replicate the old Efke.

Marcelo Paniagua said:

Not completely sure, but I think that is different beast than regular Plus-X, based on the examples I've seen, although that could be to storage/being expired. Any thoughts or experiences?

Marcelo

Click to expand...

I shoot this stuff. It's different than regular Plus-X. It has more red sensitivity and is quite thin, like many aero films. Mine is in a similar container to Nokton's, but expired in the late 90's. It's fairly grainy, probably due to age, but still gives pleasing results. I use it as cheap 8x10 sometimes. It can be a challenge to keep it flat in the holder.

I have some Plus-X but have no idea when it is from. If anyone recognizes the box and can tell roughly what period it is from - I would appreciate .
I also have some Tri-X Pan that expired in 1982 - I plan to do a head to head comparison. I could also add Double-X 5222 to the test, but it wouldn't be very fair since it's fresh...

lamerko said:

I have some Plus-X but have no idea when it is from. If anyone recognizes the box and can tell roughly what period it is from - I would appreciate .
I also have some Tri-X Pan that expired in 1982 - I plan to do a head to head comparison. I could also add Double-X 5222 to the test, but it wouldn't be very fair since it's fresh...

Click to expand...

I have several 400 foot cans of Plus-X 5231. It is motion picture film, like 5222. I shoot it at EI 80 (same as the original formula of Plus-X!) 64 EI in tungsten light. It's great film stock!

The motion picture Plus-X is different from still film Plus-X. Whether the difference is meaningful to the OP, depends on what the OP needs from the film.

MattKing said:

The motion picture Plus-X is different from still film Plus-X. Whether the difference is meaningful to the OP, depends on what the OP needs from the film.

Click to expand...

Yes, although that difference can be less or more now, depending on the storage condition of the film.

I remember my father had the Aero film in our fridge when the stuff was not expired (more than 30 years ago) and remember seeing images from both the still 120 Plus X and Aero Plus X. Contrast was different. He was a photography teacher then and kinda famous local photographer


He cut the film and exposed on some camera, probably a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 as a kind of teaching exercise then.

Way back in the day - the late '50s and early '60s - my Father and I souped Plus X with Beutler's formula, which we mixed ourselves. Having a Father with a PhD in Chem Eng and a balance accurate enough was handy! I forget what ASA we shot at, but the negatives were excellent; they had fine grain, and wonderful acutance. Slightly low in contrast they printed wonderfully on Luminous fiber base grade 3 paper, glossy surface but air-dried. 8 x 10s were easy; our basically crappy enlarger made 11 x 14s a challenge, matters of alignment, etc.

I would love to see the original Plus-X brought back, although from what I've read in this thread Ilford's FP-4 seems to be a reasonable substitute.

GRHazelton said:

Way back in the day - the late '50s and early '60s - my Father and I souped Plus X with Beutler's formula, which we mixed ourselves. Having a Father with a PhD in Chem Eng and a balance accurate enough was handy! I forget what ASA we shot at, but the negatives were excellent; they had fine grain, and wonderful acutance. Slightly low in contrast they printed wonderfully on Luminous fiber base grade 3 paper, glossy surface but air-dried. 8 x 10s were easy; our basically crappy enlarger made 11 x 14s a challenge, matters of alignment, etc.

I would love to see the original Plus-X brought back, although from what I've read in this thread Ilford's FP-4 seems to be a reasonable substitute.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, I have a lot of Plus-X in cold storage in multiple formats. I just processed a roll of the 35mm which was respooled from movie stock by Ultrafine. It was about what I recall "real" Plus-X looked like - a bit less contrasty than, other similar speed films (including FP4+) but the difference was slight to the point of being not too important. Certainly, with different development or printing, I'm sure that film could be made to match original Plus-X pretty closely. Alas, even that movie bulk is no longer available.

As I write this, I am now developing Double X 5222 in highly dilute (1:9) D-23 juiced with 0.5g/l Sodium Hydroxide (lye).

I have had good results with this film in 120 using semistand and Pyrocat-HD , so was anxious to try it out in 35mm.

This is really an experiment of how the film in this small format will respond to D-23 diluted down for acutance. Will it have too much visible grain? I dunno, I figured it was worth a shot.

I doubt it's an exact replacement for Plus-X because 5222 is a movie film as best I recall and has twice the ASA. But my results in 120 have been very good, so I wanted to give the smaller format a shot.

Jens Hallfeldt said:

FP4+ in Pyrocat is really great

Click to expand...

That's a big +1.

A very, very nice combination.