Kodak Plus X- How I Miss This Film

[Andrew O'Neill]

Have you tried comparing it to Delta 400 instead? The characteristic curves line up nicely, although the speed and grain are different of course.

Delta 400 reaches out to 700nm, which means lighter rendition of reds. So, tonally, I'm wondering if they would look different, especially if there are reds in the scene... a few videos ago, I shot Delta 400 through a 720 filter and got decent IR effects. I couldn't do that with a film that ends at about 660nm.
FP4 might be a closer match...

 

[warden]

Delta 400 reaches out to 700nm, which means lighter rendition of reds. So, tonally, I'm wondering if they would look different, especially if there are reds in the scene... a few videos ago, I shot Delta 400 through a 720 filter and got decent IR effects. I couldn't do that with a film that ends at about 660nm.
FP4 might be a closer match...

All of the above sounds like the beginnings of a new comparison video. You’re welcome! ;-)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

All of the above sounds like the beginnings of a new comparison video. You’re welcome! ;-)

Thank you!

 

[bernard_L]

Subject: the unique properties of Plus-X, and a number of digressions.
As far as I'm concerned, Andrew O'Neill gave a sensible answer in post... #2

FP4 isn't a perfect match, but it's pretty darn close.

But... 100+ posts and counting.
Time for some (gasp!) real data.
Back in April 2009, shortly before Plus-X was discontinued, I made a test during a hike. Last picture of a 125PX roll, and first picture of a FP4-Plus roll. Same scene, camera, exposure. Developed in both cases in, D-76/ID11 1+1, respective datasheet time minus 10% (contrasty scene). Straight scan with LS-2000, same parameters for both frames, histo cutoff at 1% for shadows, 0.2% for highlights.

Now, quick, which is which? The unique rendering of 125PX should make that question trivial.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm going out on a limb... I think the FP4 is the top one... better rendering of shadow

 

[Cholentpot]

Bottom is Plus-X but really they're about the same.

 

[Bill Burk]

Delta 400 reaches out to 700nm, which means lighter rendition of reds. So, tonally, I'm wondering if they would look different, especially if there are reds in the scene... a few videos ago, I shot Delta 400 through a 720 filter and got decent IR effects. I couldn't do that with a film that ends at about 660nm.
FP4 might be a closer match...

I wonder... I know TMY2 is not going a good option (based on testing an hour with an IR emitter aimed right at a sheet of it)... what film is going to give me the Woods effect ... on a tripod ... at long enough exposures to record a good image ... even if I have to rate it at the lowest speed the camera has to offer?

So perhaps I will try Double-X 5222 and a 90B filter.

 

[Thomas71]

Very good point Bernard!!
Plus-X is discontinued; if it were still produced, it would be probably be sold at an unreasonable price...
With FP4+ is possible to get results almost indistinguishable from Plus-X as you showed

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wonder... I know TMY2 is not going a good option (based on testing an hour with an IR emitter aimed right at a sheet of it)... what film is going to give me the Woods effect ... on a tripod ... at long enough exposures to record a good image ... even if I have to rate it at the lowest speed the camera has to offer?

So perhaps I will try Double-X 5222 and a 90B filter.

TMY2 only reaches 650nm, and Double-X 5222 out to about 675nm so I don't think you'll be successful with this film if your goal is Wood Effect. I would say, anything that reaches out to 700nm is your best bet. Even with Delta 400, my exposures with a 720 filter were loooooooong. Not very practical for my purposes.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've got a load of Agfa Aviphot 200 a few Orwo emulsions and some Rollei. I know the Agfa is IR sensitive I just don't have an IR filter or I'd try it out.

 

[abruzzi]

the Aviphot is what's used for Rollei IR, I believe. I shoot it at EI 12.

 

[Craig]

I'm not seeing much difference. Certainly not enough to convince me that FP4 is a poor substitute.

 

[alanrockwood]

Subject: the unique properties of Plus-X, and a number of digressions.
As far as I'm concerned, Andrew O'Neill gave a sensible answer in post... #2

But... 100+ posts and counting.
Time for some (gasp!) real data.
Back in April 2009, shortly before Plus-X was discontinued, I made a test during a hike. Last picture of a 125PX roll, and first picture of a FP4-Plus roll. Same scene, camera, exposure. Developed in both cases in, D-76/ID11 1+1, respective datasheet time minus 10% (contrasty scene). Straight scan with LS-2000, same parameters for both frames, histo cutoff at 1% for shadows, 0.2% for highlights.

Now, quick, which is which? The unique rendering of 125PX should make that question trivial.

View attachment 337700

View attachment 337701

I'm going to take a wild guess that plus X is the lower photo. It has more contrast. There is less shadow detail, and the highlights are almost blown, which suggests to me that the curve might be upswept. However, I am prepared to be wrong.

I like the second photo best, although the first one probably has more information content.

 

[mshchem]

As long as Ilford and Kodak keep making what's available now, I will be happy.

 

[Radost]

I think Kodak strongly believes that TMAX 100 has replaced Plus-X, and there is no need for it. I mainly shoot non-tabular grain films, so I would shoot Plus-X if it came back. The last roll of Plus-X I shot was some expired Arista Premium 100 two years ago. Before that it was for sure the 1970s and maybe 80s/90s (need to finish going through my old negs). I will check out your video. Cheers to Plus-X!


Wine Glass by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

Looks like XX

 

[bernard_L]

I'm going out on a limb... I think the FP4 is the top one... better rendering of shadow

Bottom is Plus-X but really they're about the same.

I'm going to take a wild guess that plus X is the lower photo. It has more contrast. There is less shadow detail, and the highlights are almost blown, which suggests to me that the curve might be upswept.

Congratulations! Correct guess. I have to admit that you fault my prejudice that "golden eyes" were self-delusion.

Nevertheless:

With FP4+ is possible to get results almost indistinguishable from Plus-X as you showed

I'm not seeing much difference. Certainly not enough to convince me that FP4 is a poor substitute.

These confirm my impression that they are very similar.

 

[Cholentpot]

Congratulations! Correct guess. I have to admit that you fault my prejudice that "golden eyes" were self-delusion.

Nevertheless:


These confirm my impression that they are very similar.

The Plus-X is noticeably 'Crunchier' but again, I'm sure with the right developer you can get the FP4 to look like that. Or even a slight bit of post processing.

 

[markjwyatt]

Looks like XX

Maybe, but this was definitely Plus-X (in the mid 1970s).

 

[markjwyatt]

The Plus-X is noticeably 'Crunchier' but again, I'm sure with the right developer you can get the FP4 to look like that. Or even a slight bit of post processing.

Would you say FP4+ has a coarser grain structure? Maybe the right developer could remedy that.

 

[Cholentpot]

Would you say FP4+ has a coarser grain structure? Maybe the right developer could remedy that.

Plus-X looks sharper.

 

[GregY]

Very good point Bernard!!
Plus-X is discontinued; if it were still produced, it would be probably be sold at an unreasonable price...
With FP4+ is possible to get results almost indistinguishable from Plus-X as you showed

Agreed. I thought the lower photo had more punch (on screen).. but we're crying over spilled milk....PlusX is no more. I could certainly duplicate the difference between the two images by paper, & developer choice. PlusX is dead. Long live FP4+ !

 

[eli griggs]

I used to like Plus-X. TMax, not so much. I agree with Rick above. If they brought back Panatomic-X, now that would be sweet.

Ditto!

 

[Nokton48]

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

A Guy over in the LFF classifieds was selling this 9 1/2" Plus-X Aerographic. I bought a roll

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

A Guy over in the LFF classifieds was selling this 9 1/2" Plus-X Aerographic. I bought a roll

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

 

[Cholentpot]

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

A Guy over in the LFF classifieds was selling this 9 1/2" Plus-X Aerographic. I bought a roll

Sweet NVGs.