Plus-X is Dead; Help me with FP4!

[Tim Gray]

Plus-X is cheaper at B&H. haha.

I still shoot the other Kodak films that I like. The writing may be on the wall for you guys, but I enjoy certain Kodak films and I'll use them until I can't use them anymore.

 

[Eric Rose]

I like the look of FP4 over Plus X so it's demise is of no concern to me. I soup it in PyroCat-HD, semi stand development. Absolutely wonderful stuff.

 

[kreeger]

Jeff, FP4 isn't the contrast monster that Plus-X is. The biggest thing I have noticed about FP4 is that it's lots more blue sensitive than Plus-X. That means that skies are going to be lighter when compared to other films of the same speed.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Plus-X is cheaper at B&H. haha.

I still shoot the other Kodak films that I like. The writing may be on the wall for you guys, but I enjoy certain Kodak films and I'll use them until I can't use them anymore.

I agree. Those who ditch Kodak film are just ensuring that Kodak quits making film, and frankly I prefer Tmax 100 to FP-4 and while I could use it if I had to, Kodak is also cheaper by a mile here in the USA.

 

[MaximusM3]

I agree. Those who ditch Kodak film are just ensuring that Kodak quits making film, and frankly I prefer Tmax 100 to FP-4 and while I could use it if I had to, Kodak is also cheaper by a mile here in the USA.

Yes, Chris, the gloom and doom threads certainly don't help Kodak...then again, this just made me place an order at B&H for 100 rolls of Tri X 120!

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have tried fp4 in the past and kinda like it!

Jeff

 

[23mjm]

FWIW I have always prefers FP4+ to Plus-X, yea FP4+ is more expensive but I will gladly pay more if that means we get to keep it around. Ilford seems to try to be in it for the long haul where as Kodak wants to shift their focus to go knows what.

 

[Ian Grant]

FWIW I have always prefers FP4+ to Plus-X, yea FP4+ is more expensive but I will gladly pay more if that means we get to keep it around. Ilford seems to try to be in it for the long haul where as Kodak wants to shift their focus to go knows what.

Plus-X is actually more expensive in some parts of the world like the UK. Even with the Ilford price rise (20% in the UK) FP4 works out a £15.80 for 5 rolls of 120 while Plus-X is £21.83.

Looking at B&H's film prices 120 FP4 is currently cheaper than Plus-X at the moment as well.

Kodak's prices are also set to rise in April so FP4 will be considerably cheaper.

Ian

 

[Jayd]

Kodal ambivlence

Well you can hope to fall on a bunch some one has stored a way, that is a great thing about film it last forever frozen.

Jay

Just fyi, I'll be using D-76 or Xtol for my developing (since Kodak can't kill those because they don't manufacture them . . .and there are equivalents out there).

Hell-on-a-stick: I'm screaming too. Just not on this thread. I can't decide whether to go make a big purchase of Plus-x or just switch now.

 

[pgomena]

I've been slowly moving toward FP4+ as my film of choice for some time. I use it for all my whole plate, 5x7 and half of my 4x5 work. (The other half is Tri-X, of which I have a 50-sheet box on the shelf that needs to be used!). I also am slowly converting to it for 120. (Lots of other stuff in the freezer to use up first.) I don't make big enlargements from roll film, and my film cameras almost always are on a tripod, so film speed is not a concern for me. I like the way it looks and the way it "behaves" in various shooting situations. I find plenty to like about it.

Peter Gomena

 

[Ian Grant]

Peter, you might try HP5 in sheet film sizes - I began using it 3 years ago because I needed a faster film for hand-held 5x4 work and it's a superb film, I've been extremely pleased with the prints from it.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you take a couple of rolls of Plus-X and FP4+ each, and expose and process them to have similar densities, I bet it will be very difficult to tell them apart in a print, unless you know what film is used up front. Just go do it. FP4+ is just as nice as Plus-X, but as with anything, your development times might be slightly different from Plus-X, and exposure might be too.
But they are more alike than they are dissimilar, so I really don't think you'll hit a single bump in the road.
And, the 120 film base is a fair bit thicker, which makes it easier to handle in the darkroom.

Don't think too much about it, just buy some film and go do it.

- Thomas

 

[greybeard]

The only developer where I see a significant difference is PMK. I get better staining (but also more base stain) with Plus-X than I do with FP-4 Plus. Both print gorgeously, though.

I can't address the behavior of Plus-X in PMK, since I switched to FP4+ at the same time I went over to PMK, but as others have apparently noted and I found out the hard way, the FP4+/PMK combination is one of the few where a presoak with wetting agent is a really good idea. The air bell problem appeared with sheet film, and I found the solution before I started using FP4+ in 120, so I have never taken the trouble to see if the roll stock behaves the same way. I'm sure that factors like water quality, agitation style, and tank design all factor into this, but do be aware that it is a possibility and there is a countermeasure.

The combination, by the way, is lovely, unless you really need good shadow speed.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

I think we all see the Kodak trend line. I expect Tri-X will be the last to go. I'm pray there is enough of us to keep Ilford in the game. Each of us need to get introduce someone to take up the hobby.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

my film use chronology:

I started off with Tmax 100 in 120 rollfilm, in the 1990s. I stuck with it pretty much until I got into doing large format contact printing. I was souping it (Tmax 100) for a long time in Edwal TG-7, but that went away. So I switched to Rodinal. That lasted for a good four or five years. Then I tried the Bergger BPF200 in 120, and PMK Pyro. Nice combination, but it had its issues. I dropped the BPF for Ilford FP4+, and switched to Pyrocat HD thanks to some very wise folks here on APUG. I started doing more large format work, and moved into FP4+ as my primary film. I love it as a general purpose film.
I was also very fond of Arista.EDU Ultra 200 (aka Fomapan 200) despite its heavy blue-sensitivity, but alas that's no more. I still have a stash of it in 5x7 in my basement (aka the deep freeze), waiting for an appropriate project. My current film arsenal is FP4+, Tmax 400 for low-light work and/or Ultra-Large Format shooting, and some leftover Arista.EDU Ultra 200 I cut down to whole plate from 8x10.

 

[dynachrome]

Plus-X is Dead

I always thought Plus-X looked especially good in bright contrasty light and had more sparkle than FP4+. In flat light I don't really like Plus-x as much and FP4+ works very well. It's easier for me to get good results with FP4+ in bright contrasty light than to get good results with Plus-X in flat light. Each film has its own personality so it's not good to hear that one more choice is disappearing. If you haven't tried TMY2 in 120 you should. Its grain is so fine that if you can get a developer you like with it, you might make that your main 120 b&w film.

 

[hpulley]

Have you tried PanF+ in contrasty light? I find it works very well.

 

[cmo]

I guess 5 rolls a month isn't enough to keep Kodak alive ...

Plus-X 120 is still easily available. So, why don't you simply buy a hundred rolls or whatever amount you need and put them in the freezer?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I agree with Suzanne

Frankly... just switch. Support a company that is hiring people to manufacture the film you want. Fp4 will be around for a lot longer, and is readily available. I still buy plenty of Kodak products, but when something is discontinued, then I discontinue its use, and find something to replace it with. This has been an ongoing issue since time immemorial, and not unique to Kodak or any other manufacture. You can bend just about any film to your will. Get the Fp4, and start testing it.

I've shot FP4 for over a decade and it's an good film. I switched over to Arista EDU Ultra because it's a cheaper alternative. I like how FP4 looks with HC-110 rated at ASA 100.

 

[2F/2F]

Have you tried PanF+ in contrasty light? I find it works very well.

A very contrasty film in contrasty light does work well for making extremely contrasty pix, if that is what you want. This is one of my favorites for high contrast and low grain.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I always thought Plus-X looked especially good in bright contrasty light and had more sparkle than FP4+. In flat light I don't really like Plus-x as much and FP4+ works very well. It's easier for me to get good results with FP4+ in bright contrasty light than to get good results with Plus-X in flat light. Each film has its own personality so it's not good to hear that one more choice is disappearing.

I don't have the same experience as you do, and I claim FP4+ has plenty of 'sparkle' and it will look an awful lot like Plus-X if you print from negatives with similar densities (which you adjust through exposure and development).

Attached picture is from REALLY high contrast with parts of the scene in full shadow and other parts in full blazing sun, in the middle of the day. FP4 or Plus-X? I have used both extensively and still have to look up what film I used to be able to tell in my prints. I have no idea which this one is, and would have to find the roll of film to be able to tell.

- Thomas

(This is a work print from 2009 on selenium toned Ilford warmtone / Ethol LPD).

 

[jglass]

That's real perty, Thomas, as we say in Texas. Thanks for the example. I'm always a bit skeptical of the broader statements about one film's differences from another, esp when they are of the same class of emulsion.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Thomas,

That's very, very well rendered technically. My first impression? That if I reached out and touched my monitor, I risked smudging the finish on the car. And I certainly wouldn't want to take my monitor out in the rain for the same reason...

jglass,

I see you mentioned my name. While it's always dangerous to tell someone else how you manipulated your process to help them get the results they desire, I can probably safely add the following generalities.

Like an earlier poster, I found FP4+ to be a bit less contrasty than Plus-X. Consequently I increased my agitation cycles protocol from a single inversion every 60 seconds to dual inversions in the same period. I chose not to lengthen my already longish overall development time since any additional wet time, I felt, would only degrade the negative.

My developer is D-76d (the buffered version, home-brewed), diluted 1+1 at a tightly controlled 68F/20C. I use a minimum of 250ml stock solution per 8x10 equivalent to insure sufficient reduction activity. The dilution cuts the sulfite concentration in half. Along with my less than normal agitation frequency this seems to help with apparent sharpness.

Although I own a nice densitometer, I chose not to perform rigorous tests when I switched. I preferred to simply eyeball the results and retweak things until they looked similar. As Thomas said earlier, it only took a few rolls.

Most of the time I only use density measurements for process control. If I'm out somewhere and spy a whitish wall, I might take a reading, open up three stops ("place" the value on Zone VIII), and grab an exposure. After development I can make a quick measurement and see if my dev time and overall processing steps are still keeping me in the ballpark. If I have time and darker walls (helps compensate for meter non-linearity), I sometimes also add a Zone I and Zone V frame as well. It's a quick and easy sanity check.

As others have said, if you can adjust your development to give you the same overall contrast, in my experience the resulting curves will be so close that you'll be hard-pressed to tell them apart in the actual prints.

Spectral sensitivity, however, is another matter. I never checked that with a color chart, so I can't speak to any filtration changes that might be required.

In any case, I think the biggest difference you might notice between Plus-X and FP4+ is the new-found lack of anxiety over future availability. I realize there are no guarantees. But using a film from a company that is trying mightily to stay in the film business and keep that film in production is a huge plus in my book.

Good luck,
Ken

 

[Tim Gray]

I chose not to lengthen my already longish overall development time since any additional wet time, I felt, would only degrade the negative.

Mind explaining this bit?

 

[Steve Smith]

Mind explaining this bit?

Mythology!


Steve.