Plus X and R09

[Ronald Moravec]

Fed my m6 a roll of Plus X yesterday, first time it ate in a year. I wanted to try my Leicas again after learning digital.

I was a great experience, but they were mostly just tests as I did not know development times. In 1960`s I used to use Rodinal 1:75 for around 12 min on plus X and it was perfect. R09 is more concentrated. Still used 1:75 and tried 11 min and EI 100. 10 sec agitation at each minute.

The R09 has to be 10 years old. They company, J&C I think, that imported it and other european products is long out of business. It came with 100 feet of Efke 25.

No prints yet, but there is not a hint of deep shadow detail that I normally get with the eave shadowed portion my neighbors black shutters in full sun.
The rest of it looked fine. The new 50 2.8 Elmar made very sharp negs. Highlights look good and have detail. Sky has nasty grain.

It scans like Plus X, crappy blocked highlights. This is the only film I can`t scan. I have done film development brackets and what prints perfectly will not scan. No other film behaves like this. The prints from D76 1:1, which is my standard, are superb. This is the best looking film out there for prints.

All other films I use will scan if they print on #2 paper with a condenser enlarger. This is the only one that will not.

 

[fschifano]

I really like Plus-X and think it makes beautiful prints, but you're right. It doesn't work well when scanned, and I think it is particularly bad when put to that use too. Since I don't do much negative scanning, and I love the look of prints made from the stuff, I continue to use it - though not with Rodinal or R09. D-76 is the soup for me with this film. It's not sexy or exotic, but it sure does get the job done.

 

[Tim Gray]

I know we aren't allowed to talk about it, but Plus-X scans fine for me. I do it in XTOL 1:1.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Understand it scans, just not as well as anything else.

D76 is my normal, but this was experimental and my liter was out of date. 24 hours to mix a new batch and let it settle. Digi has me spoiled.

 

[clayne]

Understand it scans, just not as well as anything else.

D76 is my normal, but this was experimental and my liter was out of date. 24 hours to mix a new batch and let it settle. Digi has me spoiled.

What's the rush? Are these photos for a press release?

 

[naugastyle]

Plus-X in D76 is probably my most-used combination. I didn't realize it was widely considered to scan badly. Does it depend on the scanner?? Quite surprised by this. My prints look different than my scans, but I wouldn't have described the scans as having crappy blocked highlights in comparison...they're just different.

I plan to try it in R09 at some point, just haven't shot any recently. Your description makes me think I should run a test roll rather than use it on anything even remotely important.

 

[Tim Gray]

Oh, well it scans pretty much as easy as Tri-X or TMZ for me. Or any other B&W film I run through the scanner.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm surprised too. Some of the best scans I have made are from Plus-X in Rodinal. I saw nothing worse about it than any other film. Like Tim Gray, I scan it as I would Tri-X, and from 120 negs I get nice scans to about 12" square at 300ppi, which is about the limit of the scanner I'm using. But even more so, it prints wonderfully as already noted, which would be my primary reason for using it.
If I were you I'd try it in your standard chemistry and see if things improve.

 

[Lee L]

On first reading of the instructions, I too thought that R09 was more concentrated than Rodinal. Input from others and a little testing convinced me that it was the other way around, possibly explaining your thin shadows. There's some of this discussion here on APUG.

Try using R09 with 1:20 as Rodinal 1:25 and R09 1:40 as Rodinal 1:50. I've also seen comments around that R09 doesn't have the shelf life of Rodinal, perhaps because of packaging, but have no evidence of my own to offer a valid opinion.

You might try lowering your EI to about 64, then making dilution adjustments proportional to the differences mentioned above. If your highlights are too dense to print properly, then I'd suggest reduced agitation, starting with once every third minute.

The thread discussing Rodinal vs. R09 on APUG that I mentioned is here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Lee

 

[JonPorter]

Guys, when you talk about scanning results, good or bad, you really need to state what scanner and software was used. Otherwise we have no frame of reference for your comments. It would be like discussing Plus-X without mentioning what developer was used.

 

[Tim Gray]

We're not allowed to talk about that here

Nikon Coolscan V with Vuescan. I have several 125PX negs up here. I will admit I tend to use slightly different curves for Plus-X than I do Tri-X, but nothing major.

125PX on a partly cloudy day - we went through a couple hundred feet of 16mm that day:

 

[Dave in Kansas]

What 16mm film were you shooting and who processed it?

 

[Tim Gray]

Tri-X reversal. I don't know who processed it - my brother (the guy in the picture) sent it off to the lab.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

It is a Konica Minolta 5400 first version scanner. It scans tri x, Delta 100, Tmax 100, New Tmax 400 and any color neg film or slide I have ever tried. All the B&W is D76 developed to print on a condenser enlarger with #2 paper.
I have a full tone scale test target with a grey scale, and detailed whites and blacks illuminated with studio strobes so conditions are always reproduceable. My goal is to make a print that shows everything without burning or dodging with white whites and black blacks. Focomac 1C with Focotar 2 lens.

Plus X is the only film I can not make pass this test.
I need # 3 paper to print if it scans right. If it prints on #2, the highlights block. There is NO CORRECT time like there is with every other film. I tried a million times.

I still like the prints though. Nothing better.