Anybody still uses Kodak Plus-X these days?

[RayPA]

PlusX is great film, with big fat midtones. I love the stuff. I love APX 100, as well. On the scale between creamy and gritty, PlusX is definitely way toward creamy.

🙂

 

[BILLC]

Vincent, Sounds to me like you should try a 4x ND filter and keep shooting tri x in the bright light.
Bill

 

[vincentbenoit]

If you want gritty why not good old TriX in D76 or even Rodinal. Does it get any grittier?

Well, I very much like the look of Tri-X in D76 or Rodinal, but if you read my original post you'll see that the idea behind using Plus-X was to get more dynamic range than with Tri-X.

Vincent

 

[vincentbenoit]

Vincent, Sounds to me like you should try a 4x ND filter and keep shooting tri x in the bright light.

Bill, that's exactly the conclusion I reached at this point. Never mind dynamic range.

Vincent

 

[wlewisiii]

And Plus-X will definately give you that. Given your earlier comments, I'd say shoot it in the summer at box EI and dunk it in straight D-76. That might, based on my experiances, give you what you are looking for. Both Plus-X & Tri-X are sweet films. I just wish that, commercially, Super XX was still around to give a halfway point between these films. Best of both worlds, as it were...

William

 

[Honus]

Vincent - I suggest you either rate your Tri-X at 200 or 250 or screw the ND filter on. You have a very good relationship with Tri-X. You make Tri-X come alive. I'm not sure that Plus-X is going to give you the same electricity. Just my humble opinion.

Robert

 

[Toby]

I use Plus X but mainly for portraiture with studio flash. I like it but would advise you test it yourself rather than than try to shortcut the process here. Different films react different to different treatment and there are so many different variables (exposure accuracy, developer, agitation, lens contrast etc. etc.) that other people's experience is of limited use. Certainly slower films generally have a longer tonal range than faster ones, and picking two films from the same family might make them easier to match up if you make a series of photos to display together. The only real drawback with Plus X is it is harder to get hold of than FP4+ or Tri X

 

[jrong]

There was another very nice example of Plus X dunked in Diafine on my thread "Dos and Don'ts of Diafine" in the Darkroom forum. Of course, that may not be the look you're going for, but based on the strength of that photo (and the need to use up some Diafine) I am going to buy a few rolls of Plus X to try this summer.

And I'd even vowed not to buy Kodak if I can help it. 😉

 

[boilerdoc2]

Plus X is an old technology film, like Tri x. Lot of latitude and tonality. If you like gritty stay with Tri x. Rodinal would give you the most grittiness, but is it even available anymore? For real cool grit try Tmax 3200 or Neopan 1600.

 

[vincentbenoit]

Thanks guys for all the replies. Lots of conflicting advice, but hey what did I expect... 😉

Toby, you have a point when you write that "picking two films from the same family might make them easier to match up if you make a series of photos to display together". Actually, my interest in Plus-X was triggered by a body of work Raymond Depardon (of Magnum Photos) made in Africa over a period of several years using both Tri-X and Plus-X. The whole series struck me as quite uniform in tones with all the photos having a very nice, rustic look to them, including those taken in very contrasty light.

Robert, I do rate Tri-X at 200 when shooting in bright sunlight, however I would have hoped to get more dynamic range by using Plus-X instead. But you're right, assuming there's something to be gained in this respect it is probably not significant enough to justify having to "learn" a new film. Still, I'm tempted to follow William's advice and give a try to Plus-X rated at iso 125 and developed in D76. We'll see...

Thanks again.

Vincent