Why did Plus-X die?

[Sirius Glass]

Not enough demand. I now use FP4+ instead.

 

[GRHazelton]

I shot a lot of 35mm Plus X back in the day. I would re-rate it to perhaps 200 and soup in Beutler. The negatives were a little thin, but printed beautifully on Luminos grade 3. Ah, the days of inexpensive fiber base paper! The film had nice tonality, and fine grain. As I recall the way we use Beutler gave a little compensating effect, so perceived sharpness was excellent. Sic transit gloria mundus......

 

[jim appleyard]

I'm glad I/we still have a few choices left.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Super XX (not "Double-x") was Kodak's primary film with a long straight line, suitable for a very wide range of contrast, which many pros learned with in sheet version; it also served as a color separation film back in dye transfer printing days. Tri-X was more middle of the road, with a medium toe. Plus-X had a very long toe designed for studio conditions where lighting ratios could be controlled; and it favored the midtones and highlights common to portrait and fashion photography in that era, at the expense of shadow values. T-Max films are somewhat closer curve shape to old Super-XX, though obviously much finer grained. Since application-wise, they are quite versatile, their introduction probably doomed some of the older products. But TMax films are certainly less forgiving in terms of exposure and development errors. Around the same time Ilford's line of film starting resembling what it is today, and that no doubt had an impact too.

 

[Athiril]

I barely heard a peep about Plus-X while it was still around. The rest of the Fuji, Ilford and Kodak B&W range I did. I don't think it was nearly as popular as every other B&W film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

To correct some misinformation in preceding threads - the closest Ilford film in curve shape to old Plus X is Delta 100, likewise having a long toe favoring highlight rather than shadow reproduction. FP4+ has a long straight line with moderate contrast. TMax films have an even steeper toe, with the ability to develop to even higher contrast levels, so in fact, just the opposite in curve characteristics from Plus X, though I have found TMX to make an excellent portrait film once you understand this. But the only film currently on the market which has virtually a true straight line like old Super-XX is Fomapan/Arista 200. Once we start talking about exact spectral sensitivity, recip characteristics, effective film speed, edge effect, etc., the discussion obviously gets more complicated.

 

[Roger Cole]

Fp4+ is a great substitute for plus-x actually they are so very alike. I think plusx died in part because of the general shift toward faster 400 speed films serving as general purpose and where the user had very good exposure width to push or pull easily by one stop. People prefer to keep things simple and want a single speed for a variety of lighting situations so it's easier to tell the masses hey just shoot trix at 200 if you want or buy tmax 100 if you really want a slower film(something they had more money invested in already). Popularity of these slower speed films has gone down, as well as for the very fast 3200 speed films, both disappearing from the market from kodak and fuji. Ilford still is awesome as they are keeping these slow and fast films alive in both traditional grain and tabular grain formats.

I like FP4+ a lot but I'm not sure it's THAT similar to Plus-X. Plus-X seemed to have way more shoulder, for one thing. (And that's not always bad, it depends in part on how level the shoulder is - a tapering but still slanting shoulder can allow you to maintain some highlight separation without extensive burning.)

But the other point I completely agree with. Modern 400 films became so good that there's little point in most people (I'd say those who regularly print 35mm larger than 8x10 are a minority, though clearly a substantial minority) using anything slower. At the same time, shutters became faster. I remember when 1/500th top speed was common and the best cameras only went to 1/1000th. Then another stop at 1/2000th became common, then some film cameras I think went to 1/4000th - maybe higher in the later model aufofocus ones, I'm not sure about that. So if you wanted to open up to blur the background or just isolate elements a bit with selective focus it became more and more possible with fast film even in bright light.

At the same time though another trend was slower lenses as zooms and in particular wide range wide-tele zooms came into more and more common usage. Many of these, the lower end consumer ones especially, had a maximum aperture of perhaps 3.5 at the wide end as slow as 5.6 or even worse at the tele end. That pushed a need for a faster film as standard too, and was partly made possible for common use by the 400 films becoming standard.

 

[Moopheus]

I feel I must disargue with the notion the Kodak was somewhat lacking in how they did business. Kodak was my main supplier of certain photographic goods -- film, paper, chemicals -- for about 50 years and their goods were first class.

And they still are. I have to say, despite all the grumbling about the management, even with all the problems and products coming and going, they've never sacrificed the quality of the film. I think they get some credit for that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not enough demand. I now use FP4+ instead.

To correct some misinformation in preceding threads - the closest Ilford film in curve shape to old Plus X is Delta 100, likewise having a long toe favoring highlight rather than shadow reproduction. FP4+ has a long straight line with moderate contrast. TMax films have an even steeper toe, with the ability to develop to even higher contrast levels, so in fact, just the opposite in curve characteristics from Plus X, though I have found TMX to make an excellent portrait film once you understand this. But the only film currently on the market which has virtually a true straight line like old Super-XX is Fomapan/Arista 200. Once we start talking about exact spectral sensitivity, recip characteristics, effective film speed, edge effect, etc., the discussion obviously gets more complicated.

I switched for FP4+ because I want the grain. I can deal with the difference in the curve.

 

[BetterSense]

Plus-X was even more pointless than Tri-X.

 

[MattKing]

I have a few rolls left, and I intend to enjoy them. But I've already purchased some T-Max 100 for when the Plus-X is gone.

Plus-X never died - it just isn't being made any more.

I'm a bit sad, but I intend to enjoy the T-Max 100 too.

 

[MattKing]

Plus-X was even more pointless than Tri-X.

Plus-X is and was great - for me, and many, many others. Just not everyone.

 

[NB23]

Plus-x was great. I kept my last 40 rolls for a special project. And the pics are special indeed.
However, one truly special film that has NO substitute is AGFA APX100.
The reponse to colors was unique. Pan-F is close enough.

Another film I miss is TMAX3200.

I digress.

 

[Roger Cole]

Plus-X was even more pointless than Tri-X.

Oh for...

There's a thread full of people here who disagree with you about Plus-X and even more WRT Tri-X.

 

[Roger Cole]

Plus-x was great. I kept my last 40 rolls for a special project. And the pics are special indeed.
However, one truly special film that has NO substitute is AGFA APX100.
The reponse to colors was unique. Pan-F is close enough.

Another film I miss is TMAX3200.

I digress.

Try Delta 3200 as a substitute for TMZ. I used to shoot TMZ in 35mm and D3200 in 120 so it was easy for me to move to D3200 in 35mm as well. It's not the same film but it is a great film. I love it, AND it's available in 120.

 

[NB23]

Try Delta 3200 as a substitute for TMZ. I used to shoot TMZ in 35mm and D3200 in 120 so it was easy for me to move to D3200 in 35mm as well. It's not the same film but it is a great film. I love it, AND it's available in 120.

I sometimes love it and sometimes hate it. This film seems to be very irregular from batch to batch. I can never get consistent results. TMZ, on the other hand, was extra consistent. I shot my last 20 rolls in Paris last month. Kept them for that very special occasion. I'm delighted with the results.

I'll keep on trying D3200.

 

[BetterSense]

APX100 was a special film and "deserved" to continue on. But Plus-X was just an undifferentiated, ok 100 speed film. FP4+ is better in every way, and with Acros, Pan-F, TMX, and Foma films out there, the whole spectrum is pretty well covered. If they were bringing Plus-X to market, even today with less competition, there would be no specific reason for anybody to buy it. Whether the customer values fine grain (TMX), high effective speed (Acros), "old-school look" (PanF), low price (Foma), or high latitude and versatility (FP4+), there are heavier hitters than Plus-X on the shelf.

 

[Roger Cole]

I sometimes love it and sometimes hate it. This film seems to be very irregular from batch to batch. I can never get consistent results. TMZ, on the other hand, was extra consistent. I shot my last 20 rolls in Paris last month. Kept them for that very special occasion. I'm delighted with the results.

I'll keep on trying D3200.

Humm, I have not found that, at least in 120, though I have found, not unusual in high speed film, not as good latent image stability as slower films. I often have a problem getting a chance to develop promptly.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Roger,

You have not found what NB23 asserts because we have no batch to batch variation, ever, or it would never leave the factory.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Richard Man]

I am beginning to think that the title on the other thread should be "why do (some) apug users so sure that they are infallible" Yea, yea, everyone does it on the Internet, but...

 

[Roger Cole]

Dear Roger,

You have not found what NB23 asserts because we have no batch to batch variation, ever, or it would never leave the factory.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

That's been my experience of all Ilford products.

And when I say latent images don't keep as well as slower films I mean film I shot, then refrigerated and developed a YEAR later seemed to show some loss, but the negatives were still quite usable just a bit thinner than I was used to at that speed/development combination.

Great film Simon - so was TMZ to be fair but I don't feel like I lost anything going to D3200, at least not up to EI 3200. I've not tried D3200 at 6400 yet, the highest I shot TMZ, but I plan to do so.

 

[RobC]

To correct some misinformation in preceding threads - the closest Ilford film in curve shape to old Plus X is Delta 100, likewise having a long toe favoring highlight rather than shadow reproduction. FP4+ has a long straight line with moderate contrast. TMax films have an even steeper toe, with the ability to develop to even higher contrast levels, so in fact, just the opposite in curve characteristics from Plus X, though I have found TMX to make an excellent portrait film once you understand this. But the only film currently on the market which has virtually a true straight line like old Super-XX is Fomapan/Arista 200. Once we start talking about exact spectral sensitivity, recip characteristics, effective film speed, edge effect, etc., the discussion obviously gets more complicated.

My experience is that this isn't strictly correct. T-Grain films all need a kick in the shadows otherwise you get a long toe which is why new developers were released specially for the t-grain films. If you use developers formulated for non T-Grain films with a T-Grain film then you get a long toe.

So if you want Delta 100 to have an upswept curve like Plus-X then try developing it in HC110 which puts a long toe in just about every film you use it with, epsecially T-Grain films.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I'm just glad to have used it and that my students had a chance to use it, especially when freestyle had it as their rebadged premium line medium speed film. We went through hundreds of rolls of it before it was gone. I also remember that plus x was spooled as motion picture film too but I never had a chance to buy a reel of it. Anyone here have experience with that variant? Ever rerolled it for stills? Was it the same?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Plus-X was even more pointless than Tri-X.

Oh for...

There's a thread full of people here who disagree with you about Plus-X and even more WRT Tri-X.

Roger consider the source.

One would like to think that he had better sense.

 

[Mark_S]

Sort of a historical question here. I was not shooting film when Plus-X was discontinued by Kodak and I'm wondering how this came to be. I always thought Plus-X was just as popular as Tri-X, and so would have been one of the last surviving films. That turned out to be very far from the truth so I guess I'm wondering exactly why wasn't Plus-X a popular enough film to last up until today. Anyone have any knowledge on this?

Thanks for the history lesson!

I will never understand what drives the decisions at Kodak. I used to shoot Plus-X in the winter time, and Tri-X in the summer. I shoot mostly LF, always on a tripod, so film speed doesn't make much difference to me (whats the difference between a 1s and a 4s exposure anyways?).

I liked tri-x in the summer time since it seemed to be almost impossible to lose details in shadows, and summer landscapes often has a lot of shadows with neat things in them. If I captured the scene with Tri-X I could probably get what I wanted on the Print. Plus-X was the inverse - it seemed to hold detail in the highlights better than anything else that I had used, and winter landscapes tended to be dominated by snow, and I like to hold the texture in the snow, hence my choice of Plus-X in the winter.

Kodak discontinued Plus-X in 4x5 quite early on, and it got me so frustrated that I started testing other materials as a replacement. I looked at T-MAX, but didn't like it, and ended up finding Ilford HP-5 - it didn't hold highlights as well as Plus-X, but it did pretty good, and it didn't hold shadow detail as well as Tri-X, but it also did pretty well there. I ended up switching to using HP5+ for everything. I have to pay a bit more attention to exposures, but I find that I can get most anything that I want from HP5+, attention to development, and printing in a wet darkroom.