No love for Kodak Plus X?

[DNG]

I have used PX in Xtol 1:3, I did like it very much, I have tried Delta 100 also in the same, The PX has that vintage look and grain.. Delta 100 is a finer grain, but the tones in PX are just richer.

 

[kxl]

The "Ghost Town" gallery on my website was shot entirely with AP 100, developed in Microdol-X 1+3 -- a tried and true classic combination.

 

[Fawley]

Neopan SS is a very versatile film -- you can shoot at EI 200 if you develop in TMax --I haven't shot FP4 for years but was never very fond of it because it was tonally rather boring and grainy for a 125 ASA film .

Thanks for the comment on Neopan, lawerence. Not sure what you mean about the FP4 though. When you say tonally boring, do you mean you want more contrast? For that, Ilford offers Delta 100. As for grain, I've never found it grainy. In fact, I recently tried CHS Art 25 and the grain was no finer than FP4.
I have never been a huge PlusX user, but after seeing the shot posted by Freakscene, I am going to have to try some

 

[ymc226]

Plus-X, Xtol 1+3. Great film.

Marty

Marty,

The tone is quite beautiful. Great work! 2 questions:

How different would one expect Rodinal 1:50 to look compared to Xtol 1:3.

Doesn't Kodak advise 1+1 Xtol as the most dilute one should use?

 

[Tim Gray]

Doesn't Kodak advise 1+1 Xtol as the most dilute one should use?

You can use 1+3, you just need to make sure you have enough undiluted developer per roll. I think the volume is 100 ml per roll. If you use standard stainless steel tanks which only hold about 8 oz per roll, you need to use a two reel tank with only one roll loaded to fit the 400 ml of diluted developer.

 

[Vics]

I shoot medium format, mostly Neopan 400 (waiting for Adox pan 400) but want to start using slower speed film. I've read prior threads and see that Acros gets alot of attention.

How come there is less interest in Plus X? BTW, B&H prices Plus X at $4.75 while Acros comes in at $2.69.

I just did a long trip to France with FP4+ and just found ISO 125 too confining. I prefer TRI-X, ESPECIALLY in 120.

 

[Bingley]

I started using Plus X (and Arista Premium 100) earlier this year. I like the rich blacks and dark grays with this film. At first, I shot it at iso 80 and developed in Rodinal (my go-to developer for Tri-X and TMax). But I then followed a tip from one of the mods, Rover: shoot it at iso 320 and develop in Diafine. Bingo! I love that combination. I find I have to do little, if any, post-processing.

iso 80, in Rodinal:

Plus X at iso 320 in Diafine:

Arista Premium 100 at iso 320 in Diafine:

Arista Premium 100 at iso 320 in Diafine:

 

[Freakscene]

The tone is quite beautiful. Great work! 2 questions:
How different would one expect Rodinal 1:50 to look compared to Xtol 1:3.
Doesn't Kodak advise 1+1 Xtol as the most dilute one should use?

Thanks. Rodinal will lower the midtones, make the grain larger and give less speed. It's a really lovely, classic, dark look.

The story of high Xtol dilutions is a bit silly. When Kodak introduced Xtol the data sheet had times for 1+1, 1+2 and 1+3. Then the 1L packets had QA problems, numerous "failures" were reported (probably mostly related to packages, bad water or bad storage) and Kodak realised that some emulsions were very close to their exhaustion points when developed in dilute Xtol. So Kodak stopped recommending the 1+2 and 1+3 dilutions. If you pm me your email address can send you a .pdf of the original data sheet with the start times for 1+2 and 1+3 if you're interested. All along Kodak recommended using a minimum of 100mL of stock per roll, so in a 1L tank at 1+3 they recommended you only develop 2 rolls. Almost all the stuff here:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/freakscene
was developed 4 rolls at a time in 1L of Xtol 1+3, from Plus-X, Tri-X and Neopan 400. I have had no problems with consistency and cannot detect any difference from processing 2 rolls at a time except that they need longer if developed 4 rolls at a time. But you are working very close to the exhaustion point of the developer and need a consistent agitation protocol and good water (I always use very pure demineralised water when using Xtol, both for mixing the stock and diluting).

One other point is that some emulsions need more developer than others. I use Xtol 1+1 for Delta 3200, TMZ, TMX and some other films. I can't get enough density in Acros in Xtol at 1+3 even if I develop 2 rolls in 1 litre of working solution. But Tri-X, Plus-X and Neopan 400 work fine even up to 1+5 if you use enough solution. So experiment and don't develop anything vital unless you've tested your system nd you know it works.

Marty

 

[healyzh]

Thanks Morry,

I'd like to keep to one developer, Rodinal and develop semi-stand so I don't think the "new tech" films will respond optimally.

Is Acros really new technology?

I like Acros, and only develop it in 1:100 Rodinal with stand develop for 60 minutes (10 seconds agitation at 30 minutes). I've done this with both 35mm and 120. I'm considering seeing how this might work with 4x5 sheet film. I love the look it gives. Everything else I develop in Ilford DD-X.

 

[Tim Gray]

Just for reference, I have the 1998 XTOL pdf here and the German XTOL pdf here, both of which have the 1:2 and 1:3 times.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

(Not an exact test at all but my one single experience with going below the 100ml minimum)

Out of curiosity I went down to 75ml of stock solution per roll and saw uneven development. Density wasn't so much a problem as wavy blotches in very even areas such as skies. It also didn't not present itself very well under a scan but was noticeable just looking at it on a light box.

 

[lawrence]

Thanks for the comment on Neopan, lawerence. Not sure what you mean about the FP4 though. When you say tonally boring, do you mean you want more contrast? For that, Ilford offers Delta 100. As for grain, I've never found it grainy. In fact, I recently tried CHS Art 25 and the grain was no finer than FP4.
I have never been a huge PlusX user, but after seeing the shot posted by Freakscene, I am going to have to try some

I agree that Delta 100 is they way to go if you want an Ilford film with more contrast. The reason I said I should try FP4 again is that maybe the grain is finer than it used to be. Here's another example of Plus-X:

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

T-Max 100 is absolutely beautiful in Rodinal.

Agreed. Tmax 100 is a gorgeous film in Rodinal 1+50

Here's a couple of Rodinal-Tmax 100 shots:

Both 120 size film, the first in a Hasselblad, the second in a Mamiya 645.

By the way, Acros 100 is gorgeous in Rodinal too:

These are both 120 film too, the first in the 645, the second in the Hasselblad.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I do like Plus-X in Rodinal but have not shot it in 15 years. I like Tmax 100 better. Here's some Plus-X in Rodinal, both with Mamiya 645 camera.

My grandpa and his evil cat. He lived to be 84, and she outlived him by a year and four months, dying at age 19.

 

[RayPA]

I really like PX's fat mid-tones. I *just* ran out on a 100 ft roll yesterday. But honestly, it took almost a year to do it. I shoot mostly TX, but I've been gradually moving toward PX, fun to process and push around too. It's good stuff, even at ~$70/roll.


/

 

[jja]

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?

 

[John Lawrence]

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

 

[john neal]

I recently (re)discovered Plus-X, and took it to India in my Laeica II - great results around 80 to 100 asa in Neofin Blau, so Rodinal should be good too. I love the long scale that it gives. I guess contrast could be boosted with a touch of overexposure and a more aggressive developer.

I actually bought 400ft from a movie film supplier at slightly more than 100ft of Acros (as Legacy Pro 100) would have cost. I'm well pleased 😀

A couple of different exposures, the first through a 1930's uncoated Summar:

And from the CV 25mm f4:

 

[sevo]

Plus X Pro was my main film for many years, in later years about half/half with TMX. When they pulled it in sheet size I used the opportunity to standardize, and switched all my 100 ASA B&W to Acros (which IMHO combines the best of PXP and TMX).

 

[funkpilz]

I like Plus-X, but there are lots of other great films in that range that are available much cheaper to me. APX100, Acros and Shanghai GP3 spring to mind. The latter is actually a Plus-X clone if I'm not misinformed.
The price of Plus-X might be the reason for the low demand, not vice versa.