Plus-X - first trial

[alexz]

After getting acquinted a bit with Tri-X, I was willing to try out a slow BYW film, started out with Plus-X. Shot a roll at ISO 100, developed in HC-110 according to DevChart recommendations: dill. H at 20 deg. C for 10 minutes. Agitation remained to be the one I used to with Tri-X: continuous during first 30 seconds, 3 inversions per each subsequent minute.
The results appear to be proving overdevelopment due to the majority of scenes exhibit highlights quite pushed up, often burnt out, while the overall contrast of the scene supposed to be yet manageable (I used to obtain a good one of such in Tri-X).
There are few examples attached. My regular processing flow goes though scanning by Nikon film scanner, no wet printing, so that this is what I'm trying to fit for.
I also surprized to see the grain, albeit being noticeably less coarse then of Tri-X, but yet the difference is not quite as big as I woudl expect from ISO 100 film comparative to what I used to in 400 film such as Tri-X. Plus-X (processed as mentioned above) appears to be quite grainy for slow film (for my liking).

Now the questions is raised: assuming it was overdeveloped (say, by 15-20%), will overdevelopment impact grain ? Can it cause perceived grain increase ?

I'll shoot another Plus-X roll but then will use 15-20% shorter development time (approx 8-8.5 minutes) to try to hold back the highlights.
I'll be intrested to hear your experience with Plus-X in HC-110 as about recommended times, etc...
Also, after trying to achieve satisfying results in HC-110, I'll try Perceptol with Plus-X, hope it will show some worthy results.

 

[varjag]

Alex,

Yes, both increased contrast and pronounced grain are signs of overdevelopment. I'd suggest cutting dev. time by 1 minute for next roll, and if that is not sufficient, in steps of 30 seconds further.

 

[gns]

Alex,

My experience with Plus-X is all dev. in D76, so keep that in mind. But, I found that Plus-x never responded as well as tri-x to shortened dev time. That is, I never could get the highlights to come down to the degree that I could with tri-x. I agree with Eugene about the grain and contrast response to dev time, but I would cut dev time by much more than 10%-20% for my next trial. I would try cutting it by 30%. If it is too much, at least you will be on both sides of the problem and have a really good idea of where to go from there. Also keep in mind that if you don't shoot the same contrast scene, your comparison won't mean much. Probably should shoot the same scene with a couple or few rolls and dev them at different times.

I have to say though, that the pictures you attached don't seem too contrasty to me. Certainly not #3 or even #2. Hard to evaluate scanned image, though.

Good luck,
Gary

 

[charjohncarter]

Was that (H) or (B). I use 13 minutes (but I shoot @64) for (H) (which would be 7.5 minutes for (B))with all the rest very much the same as you. I am also surprised at Plus-X's grain. One thing that is a grain-like factor is aliasing from scanning. This can vary between films, that is the reason everyone is so happy with slide scans. Search this site for a very good discussion on aliasing.

 

[Vics]

I haven't shot any Plus-x for about 6 or 7 years, but I thought it was ISO 125. Not so?
VS

 

[40oz]

in their PlusX pdf, Kodak says 3.5 minutes at 68F in dil. B, so I'd think dil. H would demand ~7 minutes.

 

[gns]

"in their PlusX pdf, Kodak says 3.5 minutes at 68F in dil. B"

Wow, that seems awfully short. If that's what they say, I would change dilution (or developer). At 3.5 minutes I think you'd have a hard time getting even development.

Gary

 

[40oz]

"in their PlusX pdf, Kodak says 3.5 minutes at 68F in dil. B"

Wow, that seems awfully short. If that's what they say, I would change dilution (or developer). At 3.5 minutes I think you'd have a hard time getting even development.

Gary

Well, I agree 🙂 You could use 5 minutes, like they used to recommend before shuffling their manufacturing around and revamping their dev time tables, but acording to the Kodak tech I talked to, the old times were for a higher contrast, while the new times are for a more standard, lower contrast. He did suggest that if the times with HC-110 were that short, you'd be better of with another dilution or a different developer. He also assured me that doubling the time with half the dilution was a valid way of determining times for unlisted HC-110 dilutions.

The take-away, I guess, is that the new times are for a contrast that is supposed to match an ISO standard, and match other films from Kodak and other makers, whereas the old times were for best results with that film as judged, apparently, by the "numerous eyeballs" standard 🙂 Whichever you choose for a starting point depends on your personal eyballs, of course.

In this situation, I'd try 7 minutes at 68F, and perhaps set my meter at 125 instead of 100, as the extra exposure isn't going to help highlights much, even though it really won't have much noticeable effect on the negative once the preferred dev time is established.

 

[Trius]

Number 3 looks pretty good to me, but I agree 1 & 2 exhibit the highlight blocking and extended contrast you note, Alex. However ... the lighting for #3 is very different than in 1 & 2 ... it is more diffuse (overcast? in shade?) and so that accounts for the difference there.

When I look at the shadow values in 1 & 2, it appears (without seeing the actual negatives and only looking at web-display scans) that an EI of 100 may be a bit of over-exposure for your kit with this film. So before playing exclusively with development, I would consider running a test for correct EI. (Shadow values are not affected nearly as much by development time.) I'm guessing that an EI of 125-160 (maybe even 200?) might be more "correct" for your camera/meter/exposure method.

 

[alexz]

Thanlk you all, guys, all valuable advises are given and will be considered.
I'll probably run a test roll of Plus-X at ISO 125 +/- half stops whlie "dancing" with development time around 8 minutes (8, 8-15%, 8+20%).
My belief is in much smoother grain then from ISO 400 films (needed for portraiture) while holding quite a bit of contrast (at least as Tri-X).

There is one image fmo my current roll that I liked though, it is attached here..

 

[FrankS]

Does anyone else find the Massive Development Chart specs odd for Plus X and HC 110? Is there a typo? First (dilution) B for an A maybe?

 

[drewbarb]

This film looks overdeveloped to me, but are you doing a pre-wet? If not, it might help. Just before the developer, give your film two minutes in clean water the same temp as the rest of your chemistry. Agitate the same as for the developer.

A pre-wet will swell the emulsion before the developer hits it. This helps it take the chemistry both more gently and more thoroughly. It will help you achieve finer grain and more even development. But also try reducing your dev time, and watch your agitation. Be gentle. Still, Plus-X isn't what it used to be (what is?).

Fifteen years ago, it was a spectacular film. But when Kodak opened it's new coating facility a few years ago, Plus-X was changed just as much as Tri-X. Much moaning, wailing, and gnashing-of-teeth has been heaped upon the demise of the older version of Tri-X, but what happened to Plus-X was just as sorry, to my mind. All I can say is thank god Ilford still makes FP4+ and HP5+ (and Fuji's Neopan/Acros films are looking really good too..). Anyway, if you want to give Plus-X another shot, shoot a roll with a long and detailed bracket so that you can establish your best E.I. for the film, and try the other suggestions. Good luck, and let us know how it works out.

 

[charjohncarter]

FrankS, I have never been able to use the Massive chart with HC110 for TriX, PlusX. I know they can't test every film, but Kodak can test their films. It seems to me that they (massive) uses the Kodak numbers. When the 'new' films (TriX, PlusX) came out these were their (Kodak) numbers. Everyone screamed because they were to short. They said that there was a reason, which I forget, maybe to better scan, but whatever they, for me, have been too short. Here is one that I have posted before with PlusX @64, HC110(h), 13 minutes, 68 degrees: http://www.flickr.com/photos/carter3john/509661189/

Conclusion, you have to use what you like and find your own times, etc.

 

[Trius]

I only use massive DEV as a starting point, but ... I have found the Rodinal times right on for TX and APX100.

Drew: I think the current TX is as good as has been produced, so I disagree with a lot of people, but agree with GeneW, as he and I discussed this lately. 😉 It is all a matter of taste, though, and if someone likes the former look of TX, then it is better for them.

As for the Plus X, I haven't tried it and don't intend to. I love APX100, and will most probably switch to FP4+ when I am out of APX for good.

 

[Rhoyle]

I shoot Plus X and develp in D76, following the development times on the box. I rate it at 125 when I shoot it. I prewet for 4 minutes in water the same temp as my chemicals, agitate for the first 30 seconds, then two inversions every 30 seconds after that. I get beautiful contrast and very low grain. Maybe HC 110 isn't the best way to go for this film. I'm sure many will disagree, but I'm not raising any questions about he results 'm getting.

BH

 

[titrisol]

I have not used HC110 in a long time, but this site has the best info IMHO
http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

It says about Plus-X and Tri-X:

OLD Plus-X (PX, PXP), Verichrome Pan 125 B 5 min 3.5 min

NEW Plus-X Pan (125PX) 125 B 3.5 min See note below
125 B 5 min 3.5 min Unofficial

OLD Tri-X Pan (TX) 400 B 7.5 min 5 min See note below
1600 B 16 min 12 min

OLD Tri-X Prof (TXP) 320 B 5.5 min 3.7 min

NEW Tri-X Pan (400TX) 400 B 3.7 min See note below
400 E 6.5 min 5 min Unofficial

Note about Kodak Tri-X Pan and Plus-X Pan: Kodak's published time for the new 400TX film in dilution B is 3 3/4 minutes at 68 F. That is too short to be practical, and I think they have made a serious mistake; it looks to me like the time for dilution A. I think they used the wrong dilution in their testing for both 400TX and 125PX.
Numerous photographers tell me that the correct time for 400TX is only a few percent shorter than for the old TX. Even Kodak told me the same thing – though they insist that they didn't mix up the dilutions.
However, it's generally agreed that Kodak's published time of 7.5 minutes for TX in dilution B was a bit long. Most photographers recommend about 6 to 7 minutes.
I want to thank Dick Dickerson and Silvia Zawadzki (retired from Kodak, part of the team that invented Xtol) for correspondence about this. They, too, think the wrong dilution was used in Kodak's tests. It will be interesting to see if the published time changes in future Kodak publications.

After further thought, I suspect that there really isn't much difference between 3.5 minutes and 5 minutes. The reason? This is almost entirely within the induction time (the time taken to start development). Results with development times this short are notoriously irreproducible and I recommend higher dilutions.