Plus-X Push abilities

[Ektagraphic]

Hi Guys-
I actually just found that I have a love for Plus-X. I had always developed for the time that was on the D-76 wrapper so my timing based on that is really off and gave pretty bad results so I put Plus-X down. I decided to try it again with a more accurate time and I really, really am liking the results. I was wondering, how well does Plus-X hold up to push processing? I know that Tri-X does well up to atleast 1600. Does Plus-X hold up to 800 maybe?

Thanks,

Patrick

 

[brianmquinn]

It's nice @ 400 in Diafine as long as the light is not too flat.

EDIT:
Well now that I think about it I have had some nice shots under VERY overcast conditions that worked nicely. They gave flat dull prints but that fit the mood of the subject. With most subjects it would not work.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I'm sure at some point, I'll have it with me and need a faster film. But that's good to know.

 

[Andrew Horodysky]

I've shot Plus-X (35mm), in the past, with ISO speeds from 64 to 125, in D-76, XTOL, and Rodinal -- all successfully. It's a fine film. I've never "pushed" it; not that it can't be done. Others on the forum are more experienced and versed in this. Why not just go to an ISO 400 film, instead?

 

[nworth]

It can be done. As noted above, you can get EI 400 from it with push processing. In general, the results will be inferior to those obtained from one of the excellent ISO 400 films available now. There is always a marked increase in grain and contrast with push processing. Sometimes you may want this look, in which case PXP may be a convenient way to get it. In general, go with TX, HP-5+, TMY or Delta 400 if you need the speed. If you need the look, pushed TX will show more grain.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Tri X pulled to 200 is superior to PLus X at normal speed let alone pushed.

Pushed film is full of grain and lasks shadow detail because you did not expose it in and there is where shadow detail comes from, not developing.

Either film pulled to 1/2 box speed works if you cut developing time 20% from box speed. Some will say don`t bother, but then you just have an over exposed neg which is not the same.

 

[removed account4]

i have had OK results pusihing plus x as well as pulling it.
i used sprint chemistry to do this, as well as ansco 130, caffenol C and a mix of caffenol C and ansco 130.
some will probably look at my negatives and prints and say " what are you talking about OK results ... this is junk " ..
but it does what i expect it to do, and i am fine with that ...

too bad it isn't made bigger anymore ..

 

[Ektagraphic]

I'll try it soon. But to add to this, Plus-X does very well with night shooting conditions. I'd also love to have it in sheets or 220 . It's a great film.

 

[removed account4]

one think that is best to remember patrick,
is that one person's trash is another person's treasure ...

different developers and developing techniques yield different results ..

john

 

[photoncatcher]

I've been a big fan of PXP for mre years than I can remember. I first fell in love with it while in the USAF as a photo spec. We shot almost exclusively with The ugly, but indestructable Graphlex XL 120 camera. PXP was (and is) one of the most forgiving films I have ever used. I've not tried pushing it, but this thread has given me something new to try.

 

[fschifano]

I have tried to push Plus-X and honestly, it sucks. Even with Diafine, it sucks. No shadows and completely burned out highlights no matter what. It's beautiful in hard light when rated at At 64 with a corresponding cut in development time. When the light is a bit softer, box speed at the recommended development time works about as well as you can expect. Simply drop dead gorgeous.