Why did Plus-X die?

[Ken Nadvornick]

I will never understand what drives the decisions at Kodak.

The expectations of shareholders in a publicly traded market. I've often lamented that the biggest enemy of sustained product excellence are the capital markets.

Ken

 

[premo]

I must have done something different from the rest of you. I found Plus-X to be superb from zone 5 on down. It, along with Ansco Supreme were my two favorite panchromatic films. They were my favorite tripod films for pan work. But I shot a lot more Plenchrome film. Much easier to develop.

 

[RattyMouse]

The expectations of shareholders in a publicly traded market. I've often lamented that the biggest enemy of sustained product excellence are the capital markets.

Ken

Was Kodak private during the 50's, 60's, and 70's?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Was Kodak private during the 50's, 60's, and 70's?

No. But back then film was the only game in town and thus a captive market. There was no zero-sum existential competition for capital. Today it is not captive. There are other newer competitive choices. And investors have selected those newer choices because they hold the potential for higher early-stage growth and thus higher immediate returns.

So the established higher-quality product thus falls victim to the newer lower-quality product simply because the newer product is earlier on its development and marketing curve climb. The perception is one of greater upside potential, rather than greater current achievement and stability.

The capital markets have always been perversely contrarian. A bird in the bush is worth two in the hand...

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rob - curve shape has nothing to do with T-grain versus ordinary grain. It's just one factor in a suite of engineering options. For example, T Max films will have a bit more sag to the overall curve with 76 than with TMRS developer, esp at lower contrast development. But the toe is still much steeper than films like Tri-X, HP-5, Delta, etc even in the same developers. Bu tone advantages to T grain is that it increased surface area to the silver, so less silver was needed to capture the same amount of light, while grain size became reduced. From a marketing and cost-effectiveness standpoint, this meant Kodak could replace quite a few films with only two speeds of TMax. But neither had the very long toe of Plus-X. Their expectation is that studio and portrait photographers would just have to adapt to the new products,
which they largely did. Lots of traditional Kodak film dropped off the vine in that general era, or at least when their own inventories began
running out. Evolution. But then, some of the application gaps have been covered well by other brands, like Ilford. So if you are a manufacturer, you have to reassess your market niche from time to time.

 

[NB23]

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 :

So the different expiration dates must explain that it's all a scam, then?

What do you mean by "what NB23 asserts"? Are you trying to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about?
And how do you know that all your batches are completely exactly the same? It is certainly not my experience. Especially not with this particular film. If it's a latent image problem, then say it is so LOUD AND CLEAR.

 

[Xmas]

...

But back then film was the only game in town and thus a captive market.
...

Initially in your interval Kodak had a monopoly in our pharmacies, there were only yellow boxes.

They did not market like Fuji and Fuji sneaked into most retail shops selling film, by 1980.

Retail film has always had more profit margin % than selling cine to the big studios. It is like jam on the bread and butter...

Back in '81 I was shooting a friends (brides) wedding M3 135 Elmarit /2.8 Kchrome 25, head and shoulder informals, when a voice behind me said.

'What film are you using.'

He was the Dad of the Groom a Kodak Senior manager at Hemel Hempstead then a Kodak town and still where Alaris are based.

His posture was that they had made a high level of profit selling retail film till then but that was fast disappearing with Fiji competing in every pharmacy and Polaroid suing...

Kodak had been inept compared to Fuji.

Today my local pharmacy has HP5+ and Xp2 but no Trix or BW400CN i.e. they are just not competing, they are also now not competing in the market with Ilford, a minnow?

But 30.5 m of Tx400 is 200USD from cheapest photo brick shop.

So I'm going to buy the cheaper Tx cassettes and hand load them in to IXMOO or buy HP5+ in 30.5m packing at rather less than half Kodak's 30.5m price, or Kentmere 400 about a 1/3 Kodak's price .

Risible?

And Fiji are still making money from instant?

To be a Kodak manager you need to be inept?

 

[RobC]

Rob - curve shape has nothing to do with T-grain versus ordinary grain.

I never said it was. I said it was and is significantly affected by the developer you use with it.

Suggest you try some Delta 100 with DDX and then tell us how long the toe is by showing us a graph. i.e. Develop it in the developer which was designed to be used with it and not some other stuff and then claim the FILM has a log toe. Make your claim by all means but make it by saying it has long toe when developed in such and such a developer so that what you say has some meaning and can be interpreted accurately.

You might also try Delta 100 in Tetenal Ultrafin Plus and tell us how long the toe is.

 

[railwayman3]

So the different expiration dates must explain that it's all a scam, then?

What do you mean by "what NB23 asserts"? Are you trying to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about?
And how do you know that all your batches are completely exactly the same? It is certainly not my experience. Especially not with this particular film. If it's a latent image problem, then say it is so LOUD AND CLEAR.

Having visited the Ilford factory and seen the manufacture, testing and QC, I'm sure that the batches of materials leaving the factory are, for all practical purposes, exactly the same at the point of despatch. After that, obviously the passage of time, storage conditions, processing procedures and control are all out of Ilford's hands and will vary, and I'd stake money that any perceived batch-to-batch variations are much more likely to be down to one of those causes. If I buy a branded chocolate bar, I expect it to have left the factory in perfect and consistent condition, but I can't blame the manufacturer for "batch variations" if it tastes bad having been in a hot car or in my pocket for a day.

I try to be meticulous with my own darkroom work, but I'm sure that Ilford's QC and consistency is much better than mine !

 

[wblynch]

Plus-X. The whites are white, the blacks are black and the mid tones are deliciously creamy.

These days people want to push film to 3200 and get extreme contrast. Not a pretty look to me. But Plus-X is slow - so not 'sexy'.

Plus-X may not be sexy but it is gorgeous.

 

[flavio81]

Having visited the Ilford factory and seen the manufacture, testing and QC, I'm sure that the batches of materials leaving the factory are, for all practical purposes, exactly the same at the point of despatch.

Of course they are! Don't worry about NB23's comments, he is a known "Ilford basher" in this forum.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Of course they are! Don't worry about NB23's comments, he is a known "Ilford basher" in this forum.

Of course it's all semantics when defining "exactly the same" and agree with the "for all practical purposes" part. Even back in film's heyday (say the 1970's, 80's, 90's) the time anyone really and truly cared about shooting the same batch numbers was for products shoots of textiles and the like and when using chrome films in which absolute color consistency was paramount.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Rob and Michael - I've done hundreds of densitomers plots with some of these films. Have you ever done any? My process bath was controlled to 1/10 degree F. Have you ever even seen a darkroom system capable of those kinds of tolerances? I seriously doubt it. I'm not guessing. What might seem like a very small difference to a casual observer comparing two published curves might actually appear significant
to an experienced reader of such things. These plots are logarithmic. Do such distinctions sometimes make a real difference when choosing
one film versus another? You betcha.

 

[flavio81]

- deleted -

 

[DREW WILEY]

The difference is... I do ! But no, I don't routinely need this kind of process control. I generally use a precise thermoregulator only for diagnostic testing (like densitometer plots) or for very fussy application like color separation negatives. An ordinary water bath is sufficient
for ordinary shooting film. And no - I do not indeed have a fantastic darkroom. I have four of them - none "fantastic", but each with a dedicated purpose. And on the internet you always also get a lot of smart alecs who don't know enough about the medium yet to differentiate
quality information. Everyone has the right to learn things the hard way. But some people never learn.

 

[NB23]

Of course they are! Don't worry about NB23's comments, he is a known "Ilford basher" in this forum.

I'm not paid by Ilford, that's for sure, so I don't know why I have to act as their salesman. What would I get out if it? I'm well past the age of "protecting" my purchases as if I was the one who made the products. How pathetic.

I've been open and honest about Ilford and Kodak and fuji and...

Now, if you'd open my fridge you'd find 85 rolls of hp5, 10 100' rolls of Pan-F and in my darkroom I have 24 stacked boxes of 50 sh. 11x14 mgiv fb. 13 100' Tmax 100, 9 boxes of 20x24 forte fb...


And no, unless Ilford pays me good money, I won't act like their cheerleader. Maybe it's too much for you to grasp?

 

[RobC]

Drew, you seem to be willfully refusing to acknowledge that different developers can change a films curve such that one developer may give a short toe and another a long toe. That is all that is in dispute here. No film has any curve until you develop it so the developer is a fundamental determinate of curve shape and to a certain extent effective film speed too which is also linked to curve shape in any developer.

I don't think anyone is questioning your tests and what they show you but they will only show you what you test a film with and not every other developer you haven't tested. The statement that Delta 100 has a long toe is meaningless if you don't say which developer it has a long toe with, and you are not telling us that and are only stating that you know how to do tests. You can not infer from a test using one developer that all other developers will give the same result.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Duuhhhh..... I've had over twenty different developers in my lab at one time (not that I ever need that many - but I have tested a helluva lot over time). Yes, the curve of Delta can be tweaked some just like any other film. But it will never ever achieve a curve steep in the
toe like TMax, much less a true long straight-line film like Super-XX or Bergger 200 or Fomapan 200 (which of course required certain developers to do this themselves, but they sure could do it, way down into the toe). Plus-X was what people classified as an "all toe" film.
That was a bit of hyperbole. But it did has an enormously long sweeping toe, considerably more than Delta 100. So I can't think of any direct modern equivalent to Plus-X, and only suggested Delta as the most similar product if one is seeking that same luscious separation of upper midtones and highlights, and isn't too worried about deep shadow gradation.

 

[wblynch]

Even an idiot like me can get happy results from Plus-X. I guess that's why I like it so much.


Shoot, Develop, Print, Repeat

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - some of the most published people in the photographic circles know me on a first name basis. I don't have to prove a damn thing to anyone on the web. I have much better things to do - like making prints as good as any in the world in terms of technical quality. Play your little high school lunchroom games if you must. Believe whatever you want. I don't care. I post these things for people who do care and can potentially benefit from it. Once I leave the office I leave the web. Nobody alive has even tested 5% of the developers out there per broad spectrum applications. I have tested a few combinations very thoroughly - not to prove anything to anyone - but for the sake of the very high degree of print control I have attempted to achieve, particularly in color work. "Call out" someone? Ridiculous. If you want evidence, come up with the money and buy a print! That's my evidence!

 

[pdeeh]

I don't have to prove a damn thing to anyone

Well, you do ... if you (or anyone) wish repeatedly to make claims about things that are objective - rather than matters of opinion - you (or anyone) do need to be in a position to offer objective evidence to support the claims.

If your only evidence is to repeat the phrase "Because I say so", then you must expect to be called out.

PE, for instance, when asked why he makes a claim about something, will offer formulae or patent references or links to original research as evidential support. He doesn't simply say "Because I say so", or suggest that if you want an answer that you have to give him money.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bingo! Want hard data? Michael has, as he just noted, already posted a curve of Delta on this very thread. And it has a conspicuous long toe.
He just doesn't know how it recognize it. Please get a damn sensitometry textbook a read it before contesting these things.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So the different expiration dates must explain that it's all a scam, then?

What do you mean by "what NB23 asserts"? Are you trying to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about?
And how do you know that all your batches are completely exactly the same? It is certainly not my experience. Especially not with this particular film. If it's a latent image problem, then say it is so LOUD AND CLEAR.

In the past we has Kodak bashers. Now we have an Ilflord basher. Please do not feed the troll.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I understand you are sincere, Michael; but what look like trivial difference to you on curves are kinda like power steering which make a significant difference in tracking the road. And I assume you already know how to plot without flare? I haven't said a single thing here that
cannot be easily verified in manufacturer literature itself, if you know where to look. These particular film characteristics were once common knowledge among pro photographers. Do yourself a favor. Go to a used bookstore and find one of those wonderful old Kodak b&w film data books, ideally from the 70's, when there was an overlap of a large selection of their classic films along with the advent of TMax versions. Traditional plotting paper was transluscent, so you could overlay the sheets on a light box and make spontaneous comparisons. Let's take two classic extremes: Super-XX has an very abrupt toe and then launches like a rocket clear out into space, while Plus-X gains
its angle ever so incrementally, seemingly taking forever. Ilford doesn't have a film really matching either extreme, though FP4 gains a
straight line sooner than HP5 or Delta, for example; and Pan F has a pronounced S-curve. The old data books not only showed these respective curves, but gave a succinct explanation why the films differed from one another, or gave a recommended application for that
kind of product (along with film speed differences etc). I got the same flack when I told people that what appeared to them as an inconsequential difference in the spectral sensitivity chart of ACROS would give significantly different results from TMax. They just didn't
realize that a 50 or 75nm distinction in red sensitivity lends a very different look to the final print. But it's all there in a chart if you know
how to read it. I'm not trying to belittle your own homework; but there is no need to argue with me - argue with Kodak or Ilford! It's all
there. I am genuinely not guessing about any of this. I can't afford to. Lose a few 8x10 shots here and there due to wrong film choice and
that quickly adds up dollar-wise, given the fact that none of us hits a home run every time. I'm not saying that the image is unprintable; but why print it unless it is ideally exposed? Paper and matboard are damn expensive too. No... I don't get as nitpicky with 35mm, but then
I do have the benefit of understanding films where the learning curve was costly to begin with, so apt to be remembered even in casual work. Is this kind of information necessary for everyone shooting b&w film? Of course not. But once people get serious about printing they
sometimes run into a cul de sac at what their film can do in a certain lighting situation, and it helps to know the relevant options. Some
people get used to the personality of Delta 100 and are perfectly happy with it. But I often note how these individuals don't do much shooting in high altitude or desert contrasts like I often do. So this is take it or leave it information. If the shoe fits, wear it. But I didn't
design the shoes. Kodak did!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Start seriously looking at masterpiece prints made with film A versus B versus C, and why one photographer might have chosen one film or
developer versus another, Bill, and it starts making a lot of sense. It made a helluva lot of sense to those studio fashion photographers that Plus-X was specifically marketed for. The last thing they needed was for the parameters to change (though it finally did!). For the same reason, why I lug an 8x10 camera to the top of a 12000 peak at my age, I'm going to be pretty damn disappointed if the film doesn't render the scene exactly the manner I wish, because that specific opportunity might never present itself again. So no, it's not a pissing match for me, but my bread and butter. And I personally learned most of this thru the school of hard knocks - in other words, actually returned from
a "death march" in the mountains with an 85 lb pack, and then wondering why certain negs printed so wonderfully while others were so-so.