Plus-X is Dead; Help me with FP4!

[jglass]

Kodak has apparently discontinued Plus-X in 120, despite the fact that I've been buying it like crazy for a project I've started! Hmmm . . . I guess 5 rolls a month isn't enough to keep Kodak alive ...

There's a thread over on Product Availability to bemoan the fact and argue about whether Kodak is killing its own products out of self-loathing or just an inability to scale down production. I'D LIKE TO KEEP THAT STUFF OUT OF THIS THREAD please and lets talk about using FP4 in 120, which I've never done.

Thomas Bertilsson and Ken Nadvornick both commented on the other thread that it's easy to make FP4 look like Plus - X. Please tell me what you mean by this guys, how you perceive the films to be different and what you do to FP4 to help it look more like Plus-X. I love the look of PX and it fits my project very well and I want to finish the project on FP4 because Ilford deserves my business!

 

[Tim Gray]

I can't add specific advice, but I can say this. I normally shoot Tri-X and have used HP5+ on a couple occasions (some free rolls that came with some paper). I really couldn't tell much of a difference. Maybe if you are using it at the more extreme ends of usage, there might be a more noticeable difference, but in XTOL 1:1 and shot at 400, they were much more similar than different in my mind.

I like Plus-X a lot and have never used FP4, mainly do to the price differential here. But I suspect if you get your developing time down, they are probably very similar.

 

[hpulley]

I like and use FP4+ so I can't tell you how to make it look like Plus-X but I will tell you that B&H at least seems to have some pro packs of Plus-X 120 in stock so you could perhaps try to finish your project on Plus-X.

Otherwise a test roll or two and you should be in business with FP4+. Wonderful film! I usually develop it in DD-X 1+4 a little longer than recommended, 11:00. Nice grain (not much but enough to focus on), very sharp, great tonality. These days I'm mainly trying to decide if I want Delta style grain vs. FP4+/HP5+ traditional grain though in DD-X the grain of both is small unless I push the 400 films to 1600.

 

[Hell-on-a-stick]

I've not used Fp4...I've had very good results with pan f +, Delta 100 and even hp5+ (though the hp5 doesnt seem to do anything special. I shot it at box speed...oh well.) The plusx...even my wife is screaming about this and she doesn't shoot film. In fact not 2 months ago, she forbade me to use any other 120 film. I guess i'll be making a rather large purchase to keep some in stock...never bothered to shoot it in 135 though. Any information on the ilford films will be welcome. I'll purchase some this coming friday, shoot it up and post my results to this thread. I'll be using acufine and tmax developers, and kodak products for all else. Might try some caffenol-c-l for fun, too.

 

[jglass]

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.

 

[SuzanneR]

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.

 

[2F/2F]

Step one would be to identify any differences between the two films. Shoot a roll of each one after the other in an identical situation. It should be a situation that is representative of what you normally shoot. For instance, if you shoot it largely outdoors in sunny weather, do that. If you shoot it indoors under tungsten illumination, do that. If you use flash, do that. Etc. Rate the films the same, and develop them with the same methods, at the recommended times. Make normal proofsheets and look for differences. Try to shoot a Macbeth chart if you can. It will help you see if any colored filters might be required to make FP4 closely match the spectral sensitivity of Plus-X. They gray scale on the chart will also help you see if the contrast is significantly different between the two. In the end, filtration and contrast will be the things you can easily adjust.

My guess is that once comparing the two initially, you will just take FP4 for what it is.

 

[PhotoJim]

Don't try to make FP-4 be Plus-X - it isn't. But, for many purposes, it's a cousin of it. I doubt you'll notice too much of a difference.

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.

FP-4 Plus is my standard ISO 100-ish B&W film but I like Plus-X enough that I play with it fairly frequently. I think I even have 15 or 20 rolls of it in 120 in the freezer. I'll have to come up with a project for it.

 

[jglass]

Suzanne, I know what you mean . . . really . . . I'm just hooked on Tri-X and Plus-X and trying to overcome my addiction as painlessly as possible!

By the way, do you shoot FP4? I heard your interview on Inside Analog and really enjoyed it . . . and your work. I thought you said you shot Tri-X but was wondering if that's true and if you've had experience with FP4.

I will definitely be buying some FP4, but probably will buy a bunch of PLus-X to finish this project.

Thanks for your replies.

 

[BrianShaw]

The differences are not very significant in my experience.

 

[Tim Gray]

Buy a couple bricks of it to help you make it through the transition and for old times sake, and then start using a different film. I don't stockpile and hoard, but if Plus-X goes in 35mm, I'll likely pick up 40 rolls or so.

 

[Ian Grant]

FP4 isn't that different to Plus-X, it's just a case of nailing down your development time and effective EI (film speed) to give you the tonality you require.

We are all being forced to change whether it's because of products being dropped or local (national in my case) availability.

Tmax 100 was my preferred choice but I've happily switched to Delta 100 & 400, and HP5 as well in LF, but I could equally have switched to Foma films, in fact they are my fall back supplier.

Ian

 

[MaximusM3]

I doubt anyone could tell a difference between PlusX and FP4 in print. The writing is on the wall with Kodak at this point so, like others have said, either stock up on what's left or move on to Ilford. Now, if they discontinue Tri-X, i'd probably set myself on fire in front of the headquarters, since Tri-X is is Tri-X and it certainly isn't HP5 or Delta 400.

 

[Chazzy]

If you are going to stock up on Plus-X, my advice is to do it as soon as possible. Once it became known that TXP was discontinued in 120 and 220, people bought up what was left and the supply was exhausted fairly quickly.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Jeff,

I've had great results developing PF-4 Plus in Rodinal 1+50, and it works great in D76 1+1 too.

Shot as the sun was setting


All these are 120 size FP-4 Plus in Rodinal 1+50. EI-100, 13 minutes, 68 degrees

 

[BetterSense]

As the photographer and printer, you might notice a difference between the two. If you do your job though, your audience will never notice a difference.

 

[lns]

I develop both Plus-X and FP4+ in X-Tol 1:1. I expose at 100. I get similar negatives; I couldn't tell them apart without looking. I use the times on the Massive Development Chart, agitating normally. This is for the 120 film.

I'd run a few test rolls of FP4+ to confirm your process before shooting for the project. But I don't think you're going to find this a problem.

-Laura

 

[markbarendt]

FP4 is just plain beautiful.

Just switch and enjoy.

 

[David Brown]

As the photographer and printer, you might notice a difference between the two. If you do your job though, your audience will never notice a difference.

Agreed.

 

[brian steinberger]

FP4 is just plain beautiful.

Just switch and enjoy.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[SuzanneR]

Suzanne, I know what you mean . . . really . . . I'm just hooked on Tri-X and Plus-X and trying to overcome my addiction as painlessly as possible!

By the way, do you shoot FP4? I heard your interview on Inside Analog and really enjoyed it . . . and your work. I thought you said you shot Tri-X but was wondering if that's true and if you've had experience with FP4.

I will definitely be buying some FP4, but probably will buy a bunch of PLus-X to finish this project.

Thanks for your replies.

Yes, I shoot mostly Tri-x, and soup it in x-tol. I've been going through a lot of my negs lately, and have revisited some I made on Hp5, and really... it's just lovely film. I just like skin tones a little better with Tri-x, so that's why I've used it more than Hp5. I recently bought some Fp4 to give a go, but haven't had a chance to use it just yet. There are times when I want something a little slower, and I've seen some magnificent examples of it. Nice skin tones... quite similar, oddly enough, to the Tri-x 320. Go figure?

If tri-x is discontinued, I'd have a giant temper tantrum, then move back to Hp5, I think, and likely start working with Fp4.

 

[jsouther]

Chris those are some excellent photos you posted. I'm going to try FP-4 with Rodinal.

 

[wotalegend]

I was going to say that Ilford prices are consistently higher than Kodak prices and that maybe Ilford's prices are a reflection of the true cost of film manufacture, and that maybe Kodak is selling at a loss. But then maybe it's a reflection of Kodak having a more efficient supply chain. Here in Australia where all film prices are astronomical anyway all Ilford films are more expensive than their direct Kodak competitors. A quick online check at Vanbar here in Melbourne finds FP4+ 120 at $9.90 per roll and Plus-X at $37.40 for a 5-pack = $7.48 per roll. On the other hand, Freestyle are quoting FP4+ at $4.29 and Plus-X at $24.99 per 5-pack = $5.00 - the comparison is the other way around. Personally I don't use either of those films. I like the look of Acros and it's better value at the moment.

 

[Tim Gray]

Plus-X's price in 35mm and long rolls has fluctuated quite a bit in the last couple years. It's actually a good deal cheaper now than it was a year ago in 36 exp rolls, while the long roll has gone up from $45 to close to $70.

 

[jglass]

Thanks for the advice: it sounds like switching is going to be no problem. I need to wean myself from a bunch of Kodak films because, well, the writing is on the wall.

As for pricing, in the US, at Freestyle anyway, FP4 by the roll ($4.29) is actually cheaper than 5 packs of PlusX at 24.99 (= 4.99/roll). So . . . there you go.