Why did Plus-X die?

[Sirius Glass]

An interesting exchange of opinions with occasional injections of facts. How about getting back on topic? Like why Plus X did not sell well enough.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Not meaningless drivel...

I, for one, am following closely and with great interest. I have the utmost respect for Michael, and the issues of credibility he raises are valid.

In the real world when one makes claims of truth, one must accompany those claims with two additional pieces.

First, the claim itself must be published publicly, in its entirety, without withholding any crucial, or even non-crucial, facts, figures, or other related knowledge. This includes processes, procedures, tests, results, charts, notes, successes, failures, and any related documentation. All of it. If the work derives from the earlier efforts of others, those efforts must be cited and acknowledged.

Second, the claim must be presented in such fashion that others skilled in the practice can repeat the process so as to be in a position to verify, or question, the claim. Independent challenge and cross-checking is crucial. It's how truth is established and credibility is accrued. It should be embraced, not avoided.

One can't just say something is so, without demonstrating how that conclusion was arrived at. Doing so adversely impacts one's credibility. If one is not prepared to so demonstrate, it may have been better to keep the original claim unpublished.

I'm anxious to see which way this goes, and commend the involved parties for remaining civil in discourse.

(I also note the attempts to displace the issue by turning the discussion from one of quantitative credibility into one of qualitative description.)

Ken

 

[removed account4]

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.

years ago i bought about 300 rolls of 120 plus x from a forum member, all short date /expired or close to it ..
then ... soon after it arrived at my doorstep they discontinued plus x. i felt blessed that i had a dufflebag full of it !
i have always had a sweet spot for plus x. it is / was a beautiful rendering. tight sweet grain beautiful tonality . exactly as you describe.

thanks for the memories !

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Plus-X was the only Kodak film I ever liked so I wasn't surprised by it's discontinuance.

As for the rest of this thread, I have some hot popcorn and a cold beer so let the pugilism commence!

 

[1920]

do any of you guys have room for a dumb question from the sidelines?

is there some place I could read up on all this? "long toe", "s-curve" ….I'm not sure I understand what this all means, and how it would effect my film choice/photography?

Drew mentions a Kodak book that explains all this for older materials, it there a similar comparison someplace for the current choices?

It this too much of a noob question?

 

[Sirius Glass]

do any of you guys have room for a dumb question from the sidelines?

is there some place I could read up on all this? "long toe", "s-curve" ….I'm not sure I understand what this all means, and how it would effect my film choice/photography?

Drew mentions a Kodak book that explains all this for older materials, it there a similar comparison someplace for the current choices?

It this too much of a noob question?

Yes, yes and yes.

Great questions! None of us was born with this knowledge and we had to learn it somewhere. Follow the previous post's links. I will look for other references.

Enjoy.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

It was the MOST BEAUTIFUL film ever. I used it for 5 decades.

Still have my paper sample books from 1960 and Kodak made beautiful paper too.

All sad

 

[K-G]

Below are some links to some simple introductory material.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...etters_filmEss_06_Characteristics_of_Film.pdf

Thank you for sharing.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[chip j]

Back in the Day, Kodak brochure stated that Plus-X had great "interior sharpness".

 

[Xmas]

Back in the Day, Kodak brochure stated that Plus-X had great "interior sharpness".

Madison Avenue?
They now say sales declining and hike the price.
Doublex is similar if you use 35mm ie long scale soft toe (or Tx or HP5+)

 

[alanrockwood]

Back in the Day, Kodak brochure stated that Plus-X had great "interior sharpness".

I wonder what interior sharpness is.

 

[chip j]

So do I!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I haven't a clue. Not even an interior clue. Do you?

 

[NB23]

So do I!

Same Bullshit as "micro contrast"?

 

[Curt]

About the time I heard that Ansel Adams didn't like it I had just switched to FP4. I didn't like it either.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ansel didn't like which, Plus-X or FP4?

I can see why Ansel wouldn't have probably liked Plus-X.

 

[1920]

Below are some links to some simple introductory material.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...en_motion_education_sensitometry_workbook.pdf

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...etters_filmEss_06_Characteristics_of_Film.pdf

Thanks!

 

[flavio81]

I aim to be as meticulous and critical as it gets when I make pictures and prints, and still I don't think the small, yet measurable differences in curve shapes among most current medium/high speed films are material enough to bother too much with (barring the use of extreme and/or special purpose developers/development techniques) (...)

This all runs counter to the kinds of things Drew has said on many occasions in many threads when it comes to films. He believes even the smallest differences are not only obvious, but critical. I simply cannot buy this and find nothing in either the art or science to support that view. There just isn't enough precision in the process.

I agree with this. Perfectly put.

 

[dwross]

I agree with this. Perfectly put.

+1

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Interior sharpness" just tied into the whole studio application of Plus-X. In other words, it was designed for controlled interior lighting situations, involving reflectors, fill flash, etc. It was never particularly good for high contrast scenes involving deep shadows due to that
long toe. But again, argue with Kodak, not with me; or argue with thousands of pro photographers of past decades who understood this.
But another aspect of "interior sharpness" with be the distinction from two other very popular pro films, namely Super-XX and Tri-X, which
were both quite grainy by comparison, but more versatile outdoors.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And the previously stated concerns not related to qualitative descriptions?

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Roger - Ansel was primarily an outdoor photographer, so would have had a hard time with Plus X. And even his interior work tended to be a
bit boldly lighted. A very different scenario from someone like Irving Penn who did very high key fashion shots (I don't know his exact film,
but Plus X would have been the logical choice). If you used a long-toe film like that outdoors, the shadows would tend to be pretty muddy and poorly distinguished (not the signature AA look!). Tri-X, on the other hand was often overexposed a bit to push the shadows up the toe for good effect; but then the trick was to try to hold the highlights from blowing out - easier done back then with contact printing or pyro. Super-XX had an extremely long straight line like the late great Bergger 200 and the current no-so-great (quality-control-wise) Fomapan 200. These kinds of things were well known by fine printmakers, and even routinely taught in pro photo schools. But I'm getting rather
exasperated with this thread by now. It seems a few web types know more than all photographic history.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But I'm getting rather exasperated with this thread by now. It seems a few web types know more than all photographic history.

Actually no, I don't know. That's why I'm asking. And sometimes... a non-answer says more than an answer. It can tell, in a strongly inferential manner, whether one can believe what one is reading, and thus whether one can trust and make use of the offered information.

Do you have a web site? I looked over the weekend and found nothing. But then I may have missed it, as I am not much of a web type.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

"Interior sharpness" just tied into the whole studio application of Plus-X. In other words, it was designed for controlled interior lighting situations, involving reflectors, fill flash, etc. It was never particularly good for high contrast scenes involving deep shadows due to that
long toe. But again, argue with Kodak, not with me; or argue with thousands of pro photographers of past decades who understood this.
But another aspect of "interior sharpness" with be the distinction from two other very popular pro films, namely Super-XX and Tri-X, which
were both quite grainy by comparison, but more versatile outdoors.

you are right drew
plus x was used by wedding and portrait photographers who
werent using sheet film. it was one of the "go to" portrait films ...
and they loved to develop the negatives in DK50 ..

 

[DREW WILEY]

It was also a different era in terms of what a commercial "portrait" typically meant in this country. I switched to TMax when it first came out because this particular area has always been extremely ethnically diverse.