Why did Plus-X die?

[RattyMouse]

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!

 

[wildbill]

It wasn't as popular as tri-x

 

[Jesper]

I got the impression that Kodak planned to substitute Tri-x and Plus-x with TMax 100 and 400 when they appeared. A lot of people moved from Plus-x to TMax 100 but not enough moved from Tri-x to TMax 400 so they had to keep that one.
I'm not sure that this was the reason but that was the explanation I got from some dealers way back.

 

[Xmas]

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!

Lower volume than Trix or Tmax - so resellers and retail reduced their purchases so Kodak stopped it.

There were wails from dedicated users...

But it was killed by people switching to Tmax

You should be able to get it from people selling Plus-x off.

You can still get 5222 in 400 and 1000 foot lengths of 35mm (in Bell and Howell perforations), and spool to a 100 foot reel in cbag for daylight loader, If you have cine contacts you can get short ends cheaper. The reels came free with some Fuji and Agfa bulk films and are available on ebay. It is more difficult without a reel.

 

[removed account4]

kody always got rid of products that didn't make a certain amount of sales.
(and they always have )
like most businesses they don't want to make things and loose money
or at least break even... their goal is to make a profit

 

[Patrick Robert James]

As someone who has been around the photo world long enough I wonder at many of the things that Kodak did and didn't do. It is probably one of the worst managed large companies ever.

 

[Roger Cole]

I got the impression that Kodak planned to substitute Tri-x and Plus-x with TMax 100 and 400 when they appeared. A lot of people moved from Plus-x to TMax 100 but not enough moved from Tri-x to TMax 400 so they had to keep that one.
I'm not sure that this was the reason but that was the explanation I got from some dealers way back.

This.

I miss it because it was as magical, in its own way, in Diafine as Tri-X is. The box said shoot it at 500 but I found 400 worked better. Anything lower than that and I'd too very dense negatives (depending on how much lower of course, and naturally 500 being only 1/3 stop faster was still usable, but getting a little thin in the shadows) so the "you can't really push film crowd" can go ahead and say, but I know what I got. In fact I preferred Plus-X in Diafine at 400 to Tri-X in D76 1+1 at box speed, at least with 80s vintage films; I'm not sure I made a direct comparison later. By carrying Plus-X I had a 100/125 film or a 400 film as the light needed, as long as I devoted an entire roll to one speed or the other.

I switched to FP4+ and it's a fine film but it isn't as magical in Diafine as Plus-X was. (Nor for that matter is modern Tri-X but it's still a nice other option to have.)

Lovely film. I still have some of the Arista branded 35mm in my fridge. Fortunately Plus-X is also known for lasting a very long time after expiration when cold stored.

 

[Ian Grant]

As mentioned earlier they planned to replace Plus-X and Tri-X with the new Tmax films but the press photographers didn't like Tmax 400 and so Kodak retained Tri-X. They'd already dropped Pan-X.

Ian

 

[John Bragg]

I regret not trying Plus-X, as it looked to be the perfect slower brother to Tri-X. It is a shame that it was discontinued as I would not consider trying it now, in case I really like it, and that would be frustrating in the extreme !

 

[Xmas]

I regret not trying Plus-X, as it looked to be the perfect slower brother to Tri-X. It is a shame that it was discontinued as I would not consider trying it now, in case I really like it, and that would be frustrating in the extreme !

Double-x is still available, faster then Plus-x and it is finer grained than Tx, otherwise similar 'Kodak' signature.

 

[John Bragg]

Double-x is still available, faster then Plus-x and it is finer grained than Tx, otherwise similar 'Kodak' signature.

Thanks for the heads up Xmas. I am currently using HP5+ and like it very much, but it is nice to have options.

 

[MDR]

The king of creaminess also known as Plus-X loved it in Microdol-X @ E.I. 50. Plus-X was mostly used by Studio photographers of the portrait and fashion breed who along with press photographers were the first (who had) to make the move to digital. There simply was no remaining market for Plus-X after the move to digital. T-Max 100 @ E.I. 50 is a good substitute though it does not quiet have the creaminess of Plus-X but it is very very close.

I have to admit that I would miss Tri-X pan 320 more than it's 400 ASA cousin the former being one of the last films designed for Studio use just like Plus-X was.

 

[wy2l]

Plus-X died for our sins.

 

[flavio81]

Plus-X died for our sins.

Perfectly put. It died for our sins of convenience over substance; digital over film. And for the sin of stupidity commited by the management at Kodak.

 

[removedacct1]

I regret not trying Plus-X, as it looked to be the perfect slower brother to Tri-X. It is a shame that it was discontinued as I would not consider trying it now, in case I really like it, and that would be frustrating in the extreme !

Try FP4

 

[John Bragg]

Try FP4

Thanks Paul. I use it occasionally, but I am more a 400 speed user.... Ilford all the way for me these days.

 

[BrianShaw]

Plus-X died for our sins.

Amen.

 

[DWThomas]

It was my fault, I switched to C41 films in the 1970s ...

It was indeed nice stuff, I think I have one roll of 120 left, but I can live with FP4 and also find I shoot a lot of ACROS 100.

"The only thing constant is change."

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Demand

 

[snapguy]

No

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. When I toiled in a darkroom for a large international photo wire service in the 1950s, the manager switched from Kodak printing paper to something else. I told him the new stuff was okay but about 20 percent of the paper was wrinkled coming right out of the box and could not be used. I never saw a single sheet of Kodak paper with that problem. We switched back to Kodak. Plus-X. Tri-X, Super Double-X, Panatomic-X were all great films. Any great big company is going to offer or not offer goods based on if they can make a buck or not. When I was a kid everybody shopped at Mom and Pop grocery stores but in the 1950s the "big, bad" grocery chains took over. Everyone bemoaned the fact you couldn't just nod to the clerk and he would put the items on your bill and you would pay it at the end of the month and all kinds of little boutique services. Big companies are not boutiques but it seems a lot of folks want them to offer personal serrvices of stuff of interest only to them and hang the cost. It don't work that way.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Plus-X is a beautiful film (I say "is" because I still got some). FP4 every bit as good. If you feel it's not as good you just do not have it dialed in yet. I'll use my final stash of PXP with pleasure but will switch to mostly FP4 when it's gone.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

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.

 

[flavio81]

Plus-X is a beautiful film (I say "is" because I still got some). FP4 every bit as good.

Fp4+ is a great substitute for plus-x actually they are so very alike. .

I disagree.

There is an online comparison in the "le pirate photo" french forum and, with equal developers, Plus-X is noticeably finer grained than FP4+, while keeping same sharpness and equally good tonal quality.

I sometimes think FP4 is due for an update. All in all i prefer Ilford Delta 100 for the 100/125-speed, which I consider superior in every sense.

Plus-X was an excellent film.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I did not mean exact. I meant close enough to where in all seriousness/real world comparisons you can get to where you'd be hard-pressed at normal viewing distances to tell the two apart.

 

[MDR]

I agree with flavio they are not that close, especially the greytones although I use FP4 and consider it a better film for general purpose photography (it is my go to medium speed film). Plus-X was just better suited to studio photography with a better and smoother tonal transition (especially skin tones) than FP4. The best substitute is T-Max 100 Delta 100 just has a bit too much inherent contrast still a great film though.