• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Plus-X - What the...?

Photo Engineer said:
Thomas;

Pressure marks are generally dark on the negative and therefore light on the positive image. These appear dark. It therefore was something that reduced development in the developer. Can't say otherwise.

PE
Click to expand...

Maybe I AM getting old after all. Could have been a coating error, but I have never seen one that got away from Kodak. Maybe this is THE one. Was the patern generally across or along the length of the roll?
 
I'm inclined to agree with PE. Was the Plus X reeled same time as the other two rolls or was it put on the reel while the two rolls were developing ?
 
Just to ask the obvious dumb question...you had enough chemistry for all three rolls ?
 
Let's see.

- Clean socks.
- No wiping done, although I might weap...
- I wonder if I may have fumbled when I loaded the film and gotten my hands onto the film surface. The Plus-X behaves differently as I reeled up the film, and if I got my fingers onto the film surface, perhaps that 'contaminated' the emulsion? Hmmm, interesting Ron. I'll have to try with more thoroughly washed hands this time.
- Pattern is sort of not the same in all the rolls, but seem to go along the length of the roll.
- Reeled at the same time.
- Tank filled to the brim. Actually, it takes 1.6 liters, I always mix 2 liters and fill it until no more can fit, and pour the last bit off again so agitation is effective.

Thanks for chiming in, folks. It's most helpful. It's amazing how many factors can play into a situation when doing something this simple!

- Thomas
 
gainer said:
Maybe I AM getting old after all. Could have been a coating error, but I have never seen one that got away from Kodak. Maybe this is THE one. Was the patern generally across or along the length of the roll?
Click to expand...

Patrick;

It might be a coating defect, but it is an unusual one and large. That large, and I would think the equipment for scanning for defects would find it. It looks like it was smeared with something before procssing. A wet sweaty hand? Did you lick the film Thomas?

PE
 
I would suggest trying the next roll on its own in the tank, or just with other rolls of plus-x. I've seen weird things when different film types are processed together in the same tank. Can't say I've seen it with films of the same family, but I try to avoid it as much as possible.
 
How about condensation?
Since that hasn't been mentioned so far, though I do like the cosmic rays explaination.

I shoot a lot of Plus-X and often wear black socks, so speaking from my experience, that's probably not it.

Barry
 
Another batch of information to learn from...

- I normally don't lick the film, but the Plus-X looked about as good as a Bell's Oberon Ale on a warm summer evening and I just couldn't help myself. Ron, I'm glad you caught my deviation before it becomes a habit.
- I will try a roll of Plus-X only. Haven't had time yet.
- Condensation? Dunno, perhaps, but that ought to have affected the other rolls too.
- I'll bet if I wear thick Icelandic wool socks when I shoot AND develop film, all problems will go away. It's obvious to me now. Don't lick the film and wear woolen socks. I think I'm set. Ha!
Report tomorrow, promise.
- Thomas
 
This leaves us to figure out which of these two is the culprit...
 

Attachments

  • Gremlin_eating_cookie.JPG
    41.2 KB · Views: 146
  • 800px-1978_AMC_Gremlin_b-fl.jpg
    105.4 KB · Views: 136
I would put a sock on my tongue and both hands as well if I were you Thomas. You know, JIC!

PE
 
Could it be static electricity from pulling the paper backing tape of the end of the film? I get some but not as much as is it would take to do this.

(as an old "grunt" I find wool, olive drab green socks work well with pluss -x)
 
I've got three rolls successfully developed in Xtol. What changed?
1. Changed from Pyrocat to Xtol (1+3).
2. Developed only Plus-X film in the same bath.
3. Agitated presoak very vigorously.
4. All three rolls are from a pinhole camera, not the Mamiya I used for previous roll.
5. I wore no socks during development.

Who knows what happened after all these factors were changed! I'll try a roll through the Mamiya one of these days, and run it singally in Pyrocat, see what comes of it.

With that said, the negs from the pinhole camera look great. A bit low contrast, but that can be dealt with at the printing stage.

Thanks everyone for chiming in! I think I'll continue using Plus-X on occasion. I was curious, and probably shouldn't have dabbled with it. It's nice to know how to process it successfully if I can't get Tri-X or FP4, which are my normal films of use.

- Thomas
 
Thomas;

The phase of the moon also changed as did the tilt of the earth in its orbit around the sun.

Please don't forget these important forces in nature.

PE
 
Photo Engineer said:
Thomas;

The phase of the moon also changed as did the tilt of the earth in its orbit around the sun.

Please don't forget these important forces in nature.

PE
Click to expand...

And don't forget the Canadian-US dollar exchange rate.
 
Finally!

Here's a neg scan from the Xtol negatives. I think I will use Plus-X when I can, it looks absolutely fantastic! Love it.

- Thomas
 

Attachments

  • Mackinaw Island Pinhole 11b.jpg
    66.4 KB · Views: 197
I don't think there is anything to connect between the good results and the bad.

PreSoak, no. PyroCat, no. Socks...mmm,no.

Welcome to the Plus X League. It's GREAT for chasing the light.
 
Ron,
for what it's worth, I have used very little other film than Kodak Tri-X. It's fantastic stuff, and I've never had a quality problem with it. Not even once. Granted, it's probably only been 300 rolls for me in those four years, but still, that's really great. The other staple product, Ilford FP4, has also been very painless to work with. I've probably gone through about 60 rolls of that, and not a single defect. Now Foma 400, which I bought to try, was crap by comparison. Beautiful tonality and grain, but quality was right out the window and it's crap to print because of the exceedingly curly and blue colored film base. It's to the point that it's ridiculous.
So Yay for Kodak. I liked their TMY-2 as well and have used TMX in the past with pleasure. I'm still bummed that they didn't make some sort of 'specialty niche product' development where they could maintain paper and exotic products on a smaller scale. A company within the company. That would have been really cool. But I'll gladly take what I can, and Kodak has been very good to my photo experience.
- Thomas
 
Thomas;

Thanks, but I was saying it tongue in cheek based on the Kodabashing over the years here on APUG. No offence or anything ulterior intended other than that wry comment.

PE
 
I know where you were coming from, Ron. I wanted to make a funny comment, but Kodak has taken a lot of crap here, so I thought I'd better be nice
Perhaps 100 free rolls of Plus-X 120 magically would appear some day if I'm nice like that.
- Thomas
 
Photo Engineer said:
I am so glad that there is a Kodak product that an APUG member likes.

PE
Click to expand...

Yeah, well. Even in these hard days,
there is only ONE choice
if your life depends upon your pictures.
 

Attachments

  • kodak tower 074.jpg
    74.3 KB · Views: 166
Except that Kodak still makes Ektachrome, I sometimes think I'm the only tranny shooter on the planet that despises velvia.

Plus-x has been my standard B&W film for ages, though this year I've been experimenting... with TMY-2, tri-x, Tmax 100...
 
df cardwell said:
Yeah, well. Even in these hard days,
there is only ONE choice
if your life depends upon your pictures.
Click to expand...

By any chance were you trying to get a shot of the falcons that live in the top of the building? They have a live camera up there that shows the nest.

PE
 
were you trying to get a shot of the falcons ?

no, it was last fall, and just a drive by shooting

cool, though, about the falcons !
 
sometimes think I'm the only tranny shooter on the planet that despises velvia

i hate velvia !

but i don't shoot 'chromes no more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register