Plus-X alternatives in 2021?

Pál_K

Pál_K

Cameras. I has it.
Local time
10:06 PM
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
2,475
Looking at my old B&W photos, I want to find a long-term alternative to the sadly departed Plus-X which I used for decades. I think it’s going to be FP4+, as I really don’t like TMAX at all. I’ve tried Delta 100, but, oddly enough only as respooled 8x11 Minox film, so I welcome comments from experienced users of both FP4+ and Delta 100.

I know there is Fuji Acros II - but I don’t trust Fuji as a long-term supplier for any one particular film: it seems they are quicker than most to discontinue a film. Their discontinued FP-3000B was probably the best B&W film I’ve ever used, however. Stunning.

There’s Fomapan and a few others, but they are harder for me to get, plus I know FP4+ has a loyal following and somehow believe it’ll still be available 10 or more years from now.

I’m not looking for microfilm-level resolution: tonality similar to Plus-X is more important.

What say you?
 
I don't think you can go wrong with FP 4+ for medium speed B&W film as a substitute for Plus X.
 
When this came up not too long ago in another thread, it was being said that FP4+ didn't look that much like Plus-X. I'm encouraged that others think it is a good substitute for Plus-X, my supply of which is running low. I'll order some FP4+ and see for myself.
 
I never used Plus-X so i dont know to what extend the FP4 copares to it but i have used both FP4 and Foma 200 (rated at 125) and i like the Foma better, Much cheaper too.

Olympus OM-2n - Zuiko 50f/1.4
Fomapan 200 in HC110

Scan11994.JPG
 
I shot Plus-X that I bought in bulk rolls back in the 60s and 70s. I get good results with FP4+ and have probably shot 50 rolls with it so far.
I use it in 35mm and 120 but I do shoot more HP5+, even after I shot Tri-X for years too. (I use Kodak color films.)
 
Choice of developer will have a huge effect on what film looks like Plus-X. All of my old Plux-X negatives were developed with D76 and I don't particularly like them compared with either my old Panatomic-X or old Tri-X negatives, also developed with D76. I wish I had tried Rodinal on at least one roll of Plus-X. I greatly prefer my recent Foma 100 negatives developed in Rodinal.
 
Always mostly used PXP and also regularly used FP4+ on my M645 and never knew the difference, developed both in Ilford same exposures (always +1/3-2/3 stop) i think the experts above are correct and you will like FP4+ and if I recall, the FP4 was 'easier' to get the contrast right, + too many variables.
 
I've used many of the standards of Plus-X, D-76, Rodinal etc. I do wish I had done a few rolls of Plus-X in FG-7 with the 10% Sulfite trick.

That said; I do find as a reasonable facsimile to be a lightly filtered T-Max 400 in D-23, sometimes 1:0 but mostly 1:2 or 1:3. A lighter yellow for a brighter clearer day and a stronger one for a day with more atmosphere. The D-23 diluted rolls the highlights off a bit, helping curve out the usual Tmax linearity. The slight filtration gets the T-Grain to have a closer spectral response. YMMV, and from my own use of both.
 
Wenge said:
Always mostly used PXP and also regularly used FP4+ on my M645 and never knew the difference, developed both in Ilford same exposures (always +1/3-2/3 stop) i think the experts above are correct and you will like FP4+ and if I recall, the FP4 was 'easier' to get the contrast right, + too many variables.
Click to expand...

Same here. I once made exposures of the same scene in two cameras loaded with FP4 and Plus-X, developed in D-76 1+1. Fairly high contrast scene: forest, snow, sun, shadow. Even side by side, looking for differences, could not find any.
Certainly there are experts with a better trained eye than mine who can see the difference. Bet they never performed the same experiment (same scene).
 
I've never used plus-x but I really love FP4 in d76/id11 -

50182939802_7c2546d733_b.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: 50182939802_7c2546d733_b.jpg Views: 0 Size: 271.6 KB ID: 4757935


50182935367_58808c3f89_b.jpg - Click image for larger version Name: 50182935367_58808c3f89_b.jpg Views: 0 Size: 248.9 KB ID: 4757936

In my experience it's not as nice in smoother developers like x-tol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom