Why did Plus-X die?

[Ken Nadvornick]

Awkward silence is generally pregnant silence, and usually speaks volumes. Better to be good faith wrong (been there, done that, it doesn't really hurt), than to be inferred as being the other kind of wrong (that one really does hurt).

Certainly an enlightening discussion, if a bit one-sided. Everyone can, and will, draw their own conclusions.

I certainly have...

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ken - Sorry about the website thing; but it's temporarily down for a major overhaul, concurrent with a whole new copystand in the present
lab remodel. Anything web is a very low priority with me, since I don't like my own images even being viewed in that fashion, but in actual print. It makes a huge difference. Half this utter nonsense that goes on in web discussion would be instantly dissolved if people got out and
started at looking at the real deal. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've seen Drew's website. Whatever you think of his opinions here, what he does works for him. There was some really nice stuff on it.

I can understand why Ansel wouldn't have cared for Plus-X. The way the post I replied to was worded it wasn't completely clear if it referred to Plus-X or FP4, though. Seems to me FP4 would have suited Ansel fine.

I liked Plus-X a lot and did use it outside, but yeah, don't underexpose the shadows. Of course that's good advice for most films unless very black, empty shadows are what you want (typically effective IME only for available light shots that also tend to be very high contrast and the environment for much faster films anyway.)

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken - Sorry about the website thing...

It wasn't the web site I was concerned with, as you are well aware.

Ken

 

[DREW WILEY]

No... I have no idea of what you are implying, Ken. In general, you can take or leave anything I've said as you wish. Some people are perfectly happy with just a single film for all kinds of presumable conditions, but might encounter some new kind of scenario when they're not
so happy, and start asking questions. Anyone who has actually been on the road awhile will instantly recognize that every single thing I've said was common knowledge for quite a long time, and that pros made their living on at least the practical implications of it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - you clearly do not even understand the basics - in fact, you clearly deny their existence. Films are outright engineered in relation
to scene or setup conditions. I can tell a helluva lot about film, development, etc from just looking at a print. Please get to first base before
you keep denying the existence of second and third base. Adams tested all kinds of things. That's how one learns. But he couldn't have worked so proficiently as both a successful commercial photographer and in high altitude landscapes without forming distinct opinions about the suitability of one product versus another for a specific application. Yes.. I have even used Plus-X in snow scenes because I liked the way it responded to 2-bath development. That was for overcast scenes where I wanted a lot of highlight expansion, yet still a little boost
to the shadows. But it's the last film on earth I'd want for general shooting in the mountains or any brightly lit high-contrast scene. For the
same reason, I might carry Pan-F for a rollfilm back, but only use it in rain, mist, of falling snow, but not for high-contrast mtn light. It also
works nice for coastal fog. But when carrying 8x10, the fog might suddenly dissipate and our natural softbox condition in the redwoods can
suddenly involve twelve stops of range. That situation inherently requires a film with a very long straight line and short toe if you expect
to cleanly separate all the tones involved. Of course, you can "minus" develop any number of films for long-scale subjects, but then you
sacrifice midtone and highlight separation, and microtonality in general (which someone has already claimed doesn't even exist, so what's
the point of arguing with web smart alecs to begin with?). Again, basic black and white technique 101. Nothing new here.

 

[Roger Cole]

There is no proof of any of this in any pudding. You can tell virtually nothing about the sensitometric characteristics of any film by looking at a print, and that's normal.

As for Adams, he used every film at one time or another, and in many cases there is no relationship between the subject matter and the sensitometric characteristics of the film.

I totally agree. Whether any individual photographer achieves good or bad results because of or in spite of an obsession with or ignoring of sensitometery and "fine order finagling" is a matter of debate that really can't be proven. I've known "fine order finaglers" who got great results and bad results, and the same with the "sunny sixteen and be there, develop per manufacturer's instructions" sorts.

Which tells me there is, at least, a LOT of wiggle room. But I think sometimes this "fine order finagling" gives a certain kind of mind confidence, and then it's hard to argue with it. at least for their use of it. Placebo effect is still real.

 

[Roger Cole]

"Microtonality" clearly exists, else there would be no reason at all for unsharp masking. That's what it does - confine the general highlight and shadow areas to a narrower range allowing use of a harder paper (or other contrast increasing print methods) to provide greater separation, aka contrast, between closely spaced tones without having the range between the shadows and highlights exceed the range of the print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course I CANNOT determine every hypothetical film, paper, and developer combination from the look of a print. But I get a pretty good idea given the "fingerprint" of certain flavors, esp if it's a logically limited choice from a certain decade. Nor did someone like AA ever seriously experiment with anywhere near the range of films and methods available back then, let alone with the far bigger tool bag of tricks we've cumulatively inherited today. He had a wonderful feel for light and how to use his extant supplies to communicate it, but otherwise had a relatively primitive darkroom even for his own era - nice by personal standards, but outright backwards compared to how commercial labs were equipped. All kinds of graphics techniques for controlling the image were never even touched by him, like the masking protocols that were routinely used in high-end color printing. ...But it's the toe of the film that determines how the shadows are
rendered, and how deep you can realistically dig into them. And not all films are created equal is this respect. Now Tice, of course his
prints look exactly like conventional "thick neg" Tri-X technique. But he enlarged sometimes too, when he wanted a more portable camera.
Overexpose the Tri-X to get good separation well up the curve, then try to tame the highlight by printing on a long scale medium like Pt/Pd
or Azo etc. Otherwise you've got issues and will have to resort to something else to hold the range, though sometimes nowadays you can
do it split printing on VC papers... generally not. Same things with HP5. If you want your cake and eat it too in a very long scale scene, my
own approach would be not only a staining pyro developer, but a film unsharp mask too. It's a lot easier just to use a steep-toe film like
TMY to begin with, though at times I have opted for HP5 anyway just for its own special look. Bergger 200 was wonderful too. I have shot
and printed every film you listed under some difficult conditions, and no, they are not even remotely all the same. Things like ACROS and
FP4 are sorta middle-of-the-road in terms of curve, which makes them pretty versatile for something medium speed. But even those two
look very different in print.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... Oh and last nite I was looking at some of AA's classic images in a very well printed book and was amazed by how much tone didn't survive the highlights and shadows. Now those are prints I've seen numerous times in person as well. For someone who resisted pyro and primarily used graded papers, there were only so many things you could do, like a helluva lot of dodging/burning sometimes. "Frozen Lk" up there in Sequoia really belongs to an earlier phase of his career, when he really hadn't pegged down his technique at all. But it's historically important. Talk about grainy, with all the highlights blown out! The shadow separation might SEEM good; but that rock wall back there truly is distinctly striped. But I really admire his sensitivity to the light, since I grew up right where a number of famous shots were
taken. But I've had opportunity to view quite a bit of AA's work that isn't conventionally displayed. We can thank his teaching skills for some
of our available tricks, but hardly all of them. It's a LOT easier to make a good print nowadays.