No love for Kodak Plus X?

Here's another example of Plus-X:

2599832825_b66bf6d159_z.jpg

regardless of film etc...this is a wonderful photo...beautiful subject
 
Chris--those last two examples of PX are gorgeous. The photo of your grandfather has a warmer tone than the cat photo; is this due to post-processing, or are the negs different?

Its just toned. None of my photos are neutral BW, which is ugly. Most of my darkroom prints back in the day were selenium toned, some sepia. I print my newer stuff digitally with the same tones.
 
What puts me off is the cost of it. Where I am it's more expensive than Tri-x and costs nearly twice as much as Acros 100.

John

It's like that here (in the U.S.) as well. It's almost $70/100 ft. roll at Freestyle ($15 more than the next most expensive 100 ft offering). I'd like to know why Kodak charges so much more. Maybe it's the extra silver content? 😛



/
 
It's like that here (in the U.S.) as well. It's almost $70/100 ft. roll at Freestyle ($15 more than the next most expensive 100 ft offering). I'd like to know why Kodak charges so much more. Maybe it's the extra silver content? 😛/

Why not just buy Arista Premium 100? it's one of the cheapest B&W films on the market.

Marty
 
I still have a 400ft can of 5231- kodak's movie version of +X. Of course, they stopped te production of this emulsion last year - so now I have to "ration" its use!
I rate it @ 100 iso and develop it in Beutler 1:10 for 7-8 min. Great mid-tones, very silky blacks. Not super fine grained - but certainly not "gritty" either.
I think I will thaw it out in May 2011 and shoot it.
There are sample shots with it on Flickr (tags "EK 5231") and also on the "Shooting XX" site here on Rff.
 
Why not just buy Arista Premium 100? it's one of the cheapest B&W films on the market.

Marty

Well, we're discussing Plus-X film, not the 'cheapest' film. I know I can get cheaper film. Cost (while important) is not the determining factor for me with regard to which films I like or shoot. I think I'm like a lot of photographers. We shoot certain films, because of the look and because we know the film. I know PX, and I like the look of it. While I might have to stop shooting it because of the cost (it is at a bit of a premium), this ISO range (as someone else stated) is crowded with some very good films (most reasonably priced)—for example, I'm very fond of Acros and I still have 200' of APX (which is magical stuff).

Having said that, the price of Arista 100 (which I've not used) makes it enticing to 'get to so know'. 🙂



/
 
Well, we're discussing Plus-X film, not the 'cheapest' film. I know I can get cheaper film. Cost (while important) is not the determining factor for me with regard to which films I like or shoot. I think I'm like a lot of photographers. We shoot certain films, because of the look and because we know the film. I know PX, and I like the look of it. While I might have to stop shooting it because of the cost (it is at a bit of a premium), this ISO range (as someone else stated) is crowded with some very good films (most reasonably priced)—for example, I'm very fond of Acros and I still have 200' of APX (which is magical stuff).

Having said that, the price of Arista 100 (which I've not used) makes it enticing to 'get to so know'. 🙂



Arista Premium IS plus-x. There's no question it is, the film is American Made, has the same dev times as Plus-X and there were even a couple of chemists on APUG who tested the emulsion scientifically and determined it was chemically identical to plus-x. Arista Premium 400 is Tri-X and was verified the same way. I've shot a ton of the 400 side by side with Tri-X and they're identical in every way except the Arista is less than half what kodak-branded Tri-X costs. Same goes for the Arista. You might as well save money, or use the savings to get more film. I buy the 400 60 rolls at a time. I couldn't afford that with Tri-X.
 
Arista Premium IS plus-x. There's no question it is, the film is American Made, has the same dev times as Plus-X and there were even a couple of chemists on APUG who tested the emulsion scientifically and determined it was chemically identical to plus-x. Arista Premium 400 is Tri-X and was verified the same way. I've shot a ton of the 400 side by side with Tri-X and they're identical in every way except the Arista is less than half what kodak-branded Tri-X costs. Same goes for the Arista. You might as well save money, or use the savings to get more film. I buy the 400 60 rolls at a time. I couldn't afford that with Tri-X.

I know about Arista 400. I've shot that and agree that I looks a lot like Tri-X, but I didn't know about the 100. I'll definitely try it to keep my PX fix going!

You should bulk load instead of buying rolls. I primarily buy in 100' rolls whenever I can. There's cost savings there, as well, greener and far less waste of materials.



/
 
Arista Premium IS plus-x. There's no question it is, the film is American Made, has the same dev times as Plus-X and there were even a couple of chemists on APUG who tested the emulsion scientifically and determined it was chemically identical to plus-x. Arista Premium 400 is Tri-X and was verified the same way. I've shot a ton of the 400 side by side with Tri-X and they're identical in every way except the Arista is less than half what kodak-branded Tri-X costs. Same goes for the Arista. You might as well save money, or use the savings to get more film. I buy the 400 60 rolls at a time. I couldn't afford that with Tri-X.


+1. I see no difference between Plus-X and Arista Premium 100 (except, that is, the price. 🙂).
 
It's all a matter of taste. I tried Plus-X in Xtol 1+1 and didn't like it at all. The higher dilutions might be better, but as long as I have some APX100 left, a new 100 film has to convince me on the first try (and that's always Xtol 1+1 with me) or that's that...
 
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry that I did showed that the emulsions of Plus-X and Arista Premium 100 are identical.

I have several hundred rolls and a few dozen 100' cans cold stored. A decent supply.

Marty
 
Plus-X in D-76 stock:

Untitled by Roberto V., on Flickr

Acros in D-76 1:1:

Contemplation part III by Roberto V., on Flickr

I like both films a lot, but I prefer the look of Acros. Seems a bit sharper, and has finer grain.

Edit: Another B&W 100 film I liked a lot is Ilford Pan 100, but I can't seem to find any, I think it's discontinued. I'll try to find some locally. I have a few pictures taken on Pan 100 in my Flickr and my RFF gallery.
 
Another B&W 100 film I liked a lot is Ilford Pan 100, but I can't seem to find any, I think it's discontinued. I'll try to find some locally. I have a few pictures taken on Pan 100 in my Flickr and my RFF gallery.

Ilford Pan 100 is still available, but Ilford seem to distribute it only in some markets.

Marty
 
I like the look of acros 100 but i use plus x because it is pushable to 1000 in Xtol and 640 in diafine. Of course the trade off with pushing is a loss of shadow details.

The attached image was shot yesterday, at ei 640. m2/j-8 lens. developed in diafine.
 

Attachments

  • yakoon.jpg
    yakoon.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 0
Wasn't it AA who shot most of his landscape in Plus -X ? I think he rated it from the optimum 64 to 125. But then again, he shot like 8x10
 
I still have a 400ft can of 5231- kodak's movie version of +X. Of course, they stopped te production of this emulsion last year - so now I have to "ration" its use!

Good heavens! I got the last 400ft from That's a Wrap in the UK - didn't know it was discontinued though.

I heard that Double-x is discontinued too, if true, that's two great emulsions gone 🙁
 
Interesting this debate about the costs of Kodak against Acros Films. You do know of course that if people dont buy the films from Kodak, they will either stop or go out of business - do you expect Acros to have the same commitment to film as K?
 
I understand kodak has stopped production of plus-x in 120 and bulk rolls.
Worth noting as OP states using medium format.
 
Back
Top Bottom