Why does Everyone Hate Plus-X?

[Rhoyle]

Plus-X is beautiful especially in 120.

 

[charjohncarter]

I always preferred Ilford FP4 over Plus-X, which seemed to me to have a harsh tonality. Maybe I just didn't find the "right" developer...

For my stuff, It is a little harsh. I like it on overcast days, and indoors. But with my processing the shadows fall off too much in sun.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Ok, is it me or am I the only one who likes Plus X in 35mm? Seems like in that speed range all the others get talked of but you know who ... Plus-X.

I want the retro kinda look more than smooth, slick graditions & perfect zone system exposure. But I don't want to shoot 6000 frames of dog food either.

Please give your honest (bashing) thoughts. I just got 1000' of the stuff and if there is something I'm missing - well you get it! I also have 300 sht of 4x5.

Steve

Where did you get the idea that people hated it? It's one of only a few films with a thick enough film base that it has a chance of working well in those vintage medium format folding cameras that have a reputation for problems with frame overlap. That thicker base makes it very easy to load on steel reels too, and then on top of that, it isn't a bad film at all from a quality viewpoint.. The only people I can think of that might hate it are those idiots that want to shoot absolutely everything on ISO 400 and ISO 800 film.

 

[mhv]

I prefer Plus-X in 120. It can give very sharp, biting results with a good lens and HC-110. In 35mm, I never really spent that much time on it. It has brilliant highlights, so they can be hard to print if you overdevelop. I always found it has a more contrasty look, better suited to the clarity of 120 than the more restricted tone palette of 35mm (for which I find Tri-X a better option).

 

[mark-b]

Personally, 35mm Plus-X lacks a certain indescribable quality that Tri-x has all over it. I seem to perceive a lot more vitality in Tri-X photographs than in Plus-X. Plus-X to me is a quiet film, for lack of a better descriptive. But it's better than that awful T-Max, which only rates at 50 ISO. I absolutely luv Legacy Pro 100; the Plus-X for the new millenium =)

 

[Tim Gray]

I like it a lot.

 

[Michael I.]

i love plus-x. I just haven't much to do with films under 400 iso.

 

[samoksner]

It's a good film, I just find it so boring. I find 100 speed film in general to be boring. The only one i've fallen for is fomapan 100 and 200 exposed at 125.

 

[Trius]

I don't hate it ... I just was never successful with it, so it was probably me. For whatever reason, I clicked with FP4, and later APX100.

I concur with Roger, FP4 in 4x5 is really nice.

I also like TMX, it's just different.

 

[Denis M.]

I ordered some Arista Premium 100 by accident once, I do not know if this is plus-x, but if it is when I shot it with the 50 Nokton, it had a certain bite to it.

My impression is that it's a "higher" contrast film. Maybe this would be good stuff for over-cast days, but I found it difficult to use for people shots. Maybe I don't "know" how to use it.

 

[Doug]

Plus-X used to be offered as ASA 160 speed film; given suggested development that could have resulted in some extra contrast.

I just checked my records, though, and found the last three rolls of Plus-X I shot were in 1967 and 68 (shot at EI 200 developed in Diafine), and finally 1972 (@EI 125 dev in Edwal FG7) so contrast was moderate.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Under the old ASA rating system film speeds had a "safety factor" and Plus-X was 80. When they eliminated the safety factor it jumped to 160, but there was no change in the film itself, just the way it was rated.

Now this gets confusing: ASA was figured from a midpoint on the straight line portion of the H&D curve, alias the characteristic curve. DIN was based on a specific point above base density. In theory all DIN 21 films should be ASA 100. When ISO came along they combined the numbers. Plus-X was 125/22 while Tri-X became 400/27. Eventually the
DIN part of the number was dropped. ISO = ASA.

Not every film rated by base density will give the same mid-tones. By the same token, zero in on optimum exposure with your developer for nice mid-tones and you can get a lot of difference in shadow density between two "same" speed films.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

What is it with dichotomies on the Intertoobes?

I love Plus-X. So that doesn't make it that "everyone" "hates" it.

 

[katgut@earthlink.net]

My favorite 35mm film. I use Arista Premium, which, as many say, really does seem to be the same thing.

Plus-X scans very well and gives sharp, grainless prints. Maybe not as grainless as t-max, but still great. And forgiving exposure.

 

[Rob-F]

I shot a lot of T-Max 100 when it first came out, and for some time after. Sometimes I got pictures I really liked. But it often looked flat to me, and I found myself increasing the development trying to get more contrast out of it. I wound up blocking the highlights that way. Finally I gave up on T-Max 100. T-Max 400 seemed better.

FP4? A good film in contrasty light, but it, too can look a little flat. Though using a more active developer helps. So lately I have started trying Plus-X again. I think it has a little more snap and pop than FP-4. I need to do more experimenting though.

 

[Vics]

I liked Plus-x fine until I tried FP-4. I think it's mostly a difference in speed. It seems creamier to me. Does that mean anything to anyone? But now I shoot Tri-x all the time. I've been thinking of switching to HP-5 so...
Vic