Why was Plus-X so fast?

Tmax or tmax rs if dev times are too long for you. I find that stuff hot sometimes, forcing sub 5 min dev times on tri x

ORWO just ran some kind of a promotion so that's likely why it is sold out. On the other hand, the good news is that it is sold out. As long as people keep buying it they hopefully will keep making it! I have plenty of UN-54 right now so I didn't get in on the deal.

Can't say I've used Plus-X recently, if ever, but I have also heard many comment that UN-54 is a good replacement for Plus-X. You can sign up on ORWOs website for promotional emails. If you are concerned about spam, it isn't a problem because they don't send very many.

MattKrull,

I don't know the answer to your original question, why developing times are shorter for some films (and why fixing times are shorter for some films). I understand the pleasure of getting used to processing times and procedures, and the reluctance to change for external reasons.

And I hope this discussion thread continues and gives us some answers as to "why" some films need less developing time, because I am curious to know.

But you've got a dilemma to solve, finding a replacement for a favorite film. I wish you luck, and would suggest you look for RESULTS. You'll get accustomed to any new process routine that is required for the replacement.

The journey I took involved quite a few trials and landed me at TMY-2 4x5 to replace 35mm Panatomic-X. So don't be surprised to find your road ahead is disruptive and leads you to an unexpected combination.

I appreciate the "difference" between a tabular grain film and a traditional grain structure, and at 100 speed there are some options for you. I'd recommend choosing between tabular and traditional grain FIRST. Then let other decisions follow.

Hopefully, your stash of Plus-X will last long enough for you to confirm your decision. Keep enough on-hand so you can occasionally check your options against your benchmark. I've found that occasionally revisiting Panatomic-X reassures me of my decision - and it shows me how minor the difference really is.

p.s. I work for Kodak (where What's Next Starts Now) but opinions and positions I take are not necessarily those of EKC.

If it's just looking for an alternative to Plux-X, FP4+, maybe give Acros a try. I assume traditional grain since you are looking for a replacement for Plus-X so I don't include TMX or Delta 100. Acros is somewhat in between IMO, at least in look. Neither of these are Plux-X and will look slightly different, but a shot isn't going to succeed or fail based on being made on Plus-X or FP4+. If one would get the shot nicely, the other will too. Acros is a bit different due to the more significant difference in spectral response and reciprocity failure, the former making the look "more different" and the latter affecting low light.

This doesn't address development time, but just develop for as long as it takes.

Roger Cole said:

I assume traditional grain since you are looking for a replacement for Plus-X so I don't include TMX or Delta 100.

Click to expand...

Hi Roger,

I agree the decision for-or-against tabular grain is one of the first decisions to make, because the sharpness difference is noticeable. You can easily identify your feelings about it. I won't try to sway the decision one way or the other because it is a personal choice.

While I appreciate the recommendations for various replacement films, that never was the intention of this post. As it is, I enjoy both traditional and T-grain films. On my medium format (where I'm usually going for sharpness) I'm using Delta and like it. As mentioned, I'm looking to try some retro emulsions later, but not yet.

In 35mm so far I've found myself more drawn to the traditional films (Plus-X for slow, HP5+ for fast), but that's only been scanned. As it is, while I stick to a single developer, I'm very "free loving" with film, and am happy to play with many films and select each roll based on the current project. The large supply of Plus-X gives me a nice 'baseline' film for when I just want to shoot and don't have a specific look going in. I could probably be happy with any one of a half dozen film stocks as my baseline.

I like the recommendation of finding a baseline replacement before the current roll runs out. I may put in an order for 100' of ORWO over the winter. I'll also probably pick up a brick or roll of FP4 around the same time, since those seem the most similar.

Back to the Chemistry-for-camera-nerds: I didn't realize different emulsions had different perm abilities. I only knew the silver content was a determining factor of development speed. So what advantages do less permeable emulsions have (since the industry seems to have moved that way)? Or rather, is there some negative side effect (such as shorter shelf life) that comes with more permeable emulsions?

Tmax100 is Lovely in 35mm!!

NB23 said:

Tmax100 is Lovely in 35mm!!

Click to expand...

I believe "lovely" was one of the characteristics that Kodak was after when T-max 100 was first designed.

Sort of on topic ....

I've always wondered if Kodak or Ilford or ??? could devise different film formulations that would require exactly the same development time in a commonly used, standard developer.

For example, change Tri-X, T-Max 100, and T-Max 400 so that they would require exactly the same development time in 20C X-Tol.

I would think that this would be great for commercial labs.

Back in the 1940's, Kodak B&W films were processed pretty uniformly in D-76 at 68F for 17 minutes. (Yeah, that's a long time.)

MattKrull said:

I have a few hundred feet of Plus-X 125 left. When that's done, I'll need to find a new 100/125 speed film. Thing is, I'm cheap and lazy, so I like developing in D-76 at 1:1. And Plus-X is fast (7 minutes at 1:1, 4.5 minutes at stock).

When I look at my options, they take a lot longer to develop.

Across 100, 10.5 minutes
Delta 100, 11 minutes
Fomapan 100, 10 minutes
FP4 125, 9.5 minutes
Kentmere 100, 11.5 minutes
Rollei RPX100, 8 minutes
Tmax 100, 9.5 miuntes

Only the Rollei is in the same league as the Plus-X - and it is not cheap (almost twice the cost of HP5+)
Okay, I'm not going to moan too much about adding 4 minutes to a process that, all told, takes me almost an hour (from loading the reels to hanging the negatives).

But it raises the question, why do all the still-produced films take longer to develop than Plus-X? Was Plus-X simply a higher silver content? (I recall someone saying the reason Kentmere takes so long to develop was due to the lower silver content)

Click to expand...

FP4+ in HC-110(B) is 7 minutes... Closest in traditional emulsion to plus-x in speed (but I love FP4+ and personally dislike plus-x so depends if you like it. BUT point is, does that work for you? Fast times and cheap!


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk