Plus-X pushable?

ericdan · Sep 25, 2015

Xmas said:
Hi Ericdan

If you are going to scan maybe,
If you might need to wet print nooooooooooh.
Noel

I scan 100% and wet print the keepers every 6 months.
I understand I only have three rolls and not much chance to experiment.
That's why I asked here. It sounds a lot like I should stick to box speed.

ericdan · Sep 25, 2015

RobC said:
I suppose the question ought to be why do you want to push it anyway?

Because I like the way Tri-X looks at 1600.
I develop pushed Tri-X in Microphen and box speed Tri-X in HC-110.

I guess I would run these rolls through HC-110 then.

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2015

I realize the OP only has three rolls and is Japan where he probably cannot easily get Diafine so these comments are just in general...

Rudeofus said:
Plus-X is no longer in production, and had some dedicated followers who still mourn its demise and would probably pay extra to get their hands on these three rolls. Pushing it to EI400 sounds like a profoundly broken plan to me, unless you are absolutely unable to afford or get one of the available ISO400 alternatives (Tri-X, HP-5+, TMY, Delta 400, ...).

MattKrull said:
I am working my way through a 400' roll from the 90s. It's my experimentation / goof-around film. Using D-76 stock I routinely push it to ISO500. At 500 it is pretty high contrast and the grain is no worse than HP5+. It's a little thin, so enlarging takes a bit more effort, but scans are just fine.

Am I the only one here who has actually used it in Diafine? Throw out what you know about "pushing" - the results won't look right at box speed anyway. It's a really great combo.

I recall someone on the LFPF shooting it in medium format in Diafine that agreed with me when I mentioned it.

I changed to FP4+ which I like, but it doesn't have that versatility to carry one film for 100 and 400 with choice of developer.

APUGuser19 said:
Back in the 70's there was a developer called Acu-1, and at that time, rated Plus-X at 320 (in 35mm, which was the rage at that time). That film and developer combo was nothing less than magic. It kept the film latitude, and the grain was like Microdol. The contrast was perfect. I'd use them today if they were still being made like they were then.

Made by the same people who made Diafine, wasn't it? Probably a similar formula PQ developer but in a single solution for one shot. I think Acufine is similar, and still available.

Plus-X was/is also known for keeping extremely well in cold storage. I've heard of rolls from the 70s and even 60s working well with minimal fog but that is, admittedly, just hear say. I do have that Arista stuff in my fridge but I haven't tried any of it since it expired as I all but quit shooting black and white in 35mm once I got medium format cameras, the exception being for very low light and that was TMZ and now D3200.

But I'll get around to trying it, I'm sure.

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2015

I used Diafine as a teen largely for the cost savings. A single quart - I forget what it cost then but the price seems to have way outstripped inflation - would (and will) develop 50-60 rolls of film!

Now I use it for special cases, with 35mm or 120 Tri-X when I want EI 1000-1250 but don't want to go to D3200, or to tame highilights and give a small but useful speed bump to Pan F+. But it was sure cheap on a per-roll basis back then. For that matter, it still is in spite of the cost because it lasts so long, but I grant that it's expensive to try it out.

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2015

A quick check shows Acu-1 still exists, but Freestyle doesn't have it and B&H won't ship it. (B&H shipping restrictions honk me off so badly I often, but not always, avoid buying even what they WILL ship from them. I'd rather pay Freestyle more.)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1047-REG/Acufine_ACD32_Acu_1_Developer.html

But it says what I thought I remembered, that it's similar to Acufine, which Freestyle DOES have and will ship.

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2015

But Adorama will ship a lot of stuff that B&H won't.

I really think it's just that B&H is so huge, and things like darkroom chemicals comprise such a small part of their business, and they can't afford to split off a separate shipping department for those items nor to train everyone for something many of them will very rarely deal with. I get that, but it still annoys me.

Sorry so far off topic, back to Plus-X. It was a lovely film. Sigh.

zanxion72 · Sep 25, 2015

Plus-X is an awesome film. It had an exposure latitude so wide that you just could not get wrong with. Pushing it to EI 400 make me think that one is not actually pushing it, but rather taking advantage of its wide exposure latitude. I would not waste such a beautiful film by pushing it. I would rather use the right film for the right conditions. Else, you will feel very sorry once you consume the last roll of it and as soon as you 'll have to use something else.

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2015

Nonsense. I'll have to see if I can find some images from it in Diafine. With that developer anyway you won't like it if you expose it at box speed. (Of course I find the same thing with Tri-X - at 400 in Diafine it's very dense and grainy, basically overexposed.)

OTOH with only three rolls of a film I had no experience of, I too would shoot it at box speed and develop normally in something like D76 1+1.

Gerald C Koch · Sep 25, 2015

There is a substitute for Diafine if one can mix their own. Nothing magical in the formula, basically a PQ developer. I can post the formulas if anyone is interested.

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 25, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
There is a substitute for Diafine if one can mix their own. Nothing magical in the formula, basically a PQ developer. I can post the formulas if anyone is interested.

Please do.

Roger Cole · Sep 25, 2015

It's an ok compensating developer with most modern films. Handy, but nothing that special in my experience. But with some older films it did work remarkably well.

wblynch · Sep 30, 2015

But why waste three rolls of magical Plus-X with a $30 developer to save $15 on three rolls of Tri-X?

Better to use the Plus-X as intended and enjoy its milky smooth tonality.

You can buy ISO 400 films all day long.

Mainecoonmaniac · Sep 30, 2015

Take a look at this. Wolfgang Moersch is a genius.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...set=a.1096156293945.2014511.1527733040&type=3

flavio81 · Sep 30, 2015

wblynch said:
But why waste three rolls of magical Plus-X with a $30 developer to save $15 on three rolls of Tri-X?

Better to use the Plus-X as intended and enjoy its milky smooth tonality.

You can buy ISO 400 films all day long.

True!!

Plus-X is an endangered species and should be used with good judgement!

wblynch · Sep 30, 2015

Looks worse than total crap to me.

Eye of the beholder I guess...

Mainecoonmaniac said:
Take a look at this. Wolfgang Moersch is a genius.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...set=a.1096156293945.2014511.1527733040&type=3

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 30, 2015

wblynch said:
But why waste three rolls of magical Plus-X with a $30 developer to save $15 on three rolls of Tri-X?

Better to use the Plus-X as intended and enjoy its milky smooth tonality.

You can buy ISO 400 films all day long.

+1000

Richard S. (rich815) · Sep 30, 2015

wblynch said:
Looks worse than total crap to me.

Eye of the beholder I guess...

Not sure if go that far but certainly did not need Plus-X pushed to gain that look. Heck, Walgreen's Color 200 printed on B&W paper might have indeed worked.

markbarendt · Sep 30, 2015

flavio81 said:
True!!

Plus-X is an endangered species and should be used with good judgement!

I'd say use it anywhere that it's sensitivity range works to get the photographer what they want.

IMO saving discontinued film for some glorious perfect shooting situation is silly unless one has that situation on their calendar in ink.

Richard S. (rich815) said:
Not sure if go that far but certainly did not need Plus-X pushed to gain that look. Heck, Walgreen's Color 200 printed on B&W paper might have indeed worked.

It's not likely that he will mail any of us his old Plus X stock to shoot with, so what difference does it make?

markbarendt · Sep 30, 2015

wblynch said:
Looks worse than total crap to me.

Eye of the beholder I guess...

Yes, Eye of the beholder. I think it's a fun shot.

mrred · Sep 30, 2015

It may be a fun shot....but it's not a PlusX look. That could have been done with any number of films.

But I say that as I am still sitting on a pile of it. I will be shooting it until it is gone. Happy until then....

Sirius Glass · Sep 30, 2015

wblynch said:
But why waste three rolls of magical Plus-X with a $30 developer to save $15 on three rolls of Tri-X?

Better to use the Plus-X as intended and enjoy its milky smooth tonality.

You can buy ISO 400 films all day long.

flavio81 said:
True!!

Plus-X is an endangered species and should be used with good judgement!

+100,000!

markbarendt · Sep 30, 2015

mrred said:
It may be a fun shot....but it's not a PlusX look.

It was shot with Plus X, right?

That kinda makes it "a Plus X look". Who are we to judge how others use their film?

wblynch · Sep 30, 2015

markbarendt said:
It was shot with Plus X, right?

That kinda makes it "a Plus X look". Who are we to judge how others use their film?

Not really. If I cross process Velvia and scan it and print it with color crossover it is not representative of Velvia. It won't have the "Velvia Look".

Anything can be manipulated to look like something quite foreign to its designed intention.

I am just expressing an opinion in contrast to the fellow that called the photographer a genius.

The work is unattractive in all ways to me and not representative of Plus-X.

markbarendt · Sep 30, 2015

Bill, my underlying point is that film should be used. The way any film can show it's stuff is to be shot and developed then made into a positive. It can't do that sitting on a shelf.

The OP's question was basically, can I be successful shooting Plus X at 400? The risk was, not getting workable shots because of underexposure, it was not a matter of wasting Plus X specifically; it would have been just as big a waste of FP4 if that had been the subject film.

Sirius Glass · Sep 30, 2015

markbarendt said:
Bill, my underlying point is that film should be used. The way any film can show it's stuff is to be shot and developed then made into a positive. It can't do that sitting on a shelf.

The OP's question was basically, can I be successful shooting Plus X at 400? The risk was, not getting workable shots because of underexposure, it was not a matter of wasting Plus X specifically; it would have been just as big a waste of FP4 if that had been the subject film.

I disagree. FP4 is still available; Plus X is no longer available.

Plus-X pushable?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency