Replacement for Plus-X

[telenous]

Well, I just went through some twenty rolls of Foma 100 (and another twenty-thirty last summer) and that's one more film that isn't Plus-X in any way, shape or form. With contrast building up rapidly, I found it worked best for me slightly underexposed to EI125 or even 160. I'll use FP4+ and TMax 100 for the rest of the summer, the latter only with AE cameras. Oh, and three rolls of expired PlusX I found online :angel:


.

 

[telenous]

Apologies for coming back again and again to this thread. I 've been irked by PlusX's demise and I've tried to find a replacement without ever coming to a completely satisfactory conclusion. This time I think I have the answer, or at least as close to one as I am ever going to get with existing films. It was so easy, so obvious as to belie belief. The answer was right under my nose and I couldn't see it. I posted in an earlier comment that TMax 400 seemed somewhat like Plus-X, despite technical differences (a family resemblance thing, which the TriX also has) so the question was why not TMax 100? I've had some really bad experiences (mostly user error I'm afraid) and that made me stay off TMax100 for a long, long while. But this summer I had the chance to use a couple of rolls of Plus-X from 2008 alongside copious amounts of bargain-priced TMax and FP4+. (I am talking about €1.50 per roll for the TMax 😀) What a surprise. There were certain occasions where the two Kodak films were really close or at any rate closer than anything I've ever seen between Plus-X and some other film. To be sure, FP4+ was not that far off either. But, Plus-X and TMax 100 really converged. I am talking about the big picture (not grain similarity and the like) in scans but I think printing (wet/dry) probably will further shave off differences. TMax 100 can be difficult in many ways that Plus-x wasn't (you have to be accurate with exposure/development/temp and I don't know what else) but when you do your part, it is really nice. Now, to think I loved Plus-X and disliked TMax100 😱 There's a lesson there somewhere. 🙂

.

.

 

[sepiareverb]

I will suggest ORWO UN-54 in Perceptol 1:1 as a possible substitute. ISO of 100, and similar grain and sharpness to the Plus-X I remember (but I haven't shot it in 15 years).





UN-54 has become my most used mid speed film, I may give it a try in DD-X, hadn't thought about that as a possible developer till reading through this thread. I do like FP4+ and Pan F+ in DD-X.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

How many of pictures in this thread are scans of negatives? All?
I never judge film by its scan. I print. I also missed almost all of these old emulsions bandwagon, while I was taking pictures only on color film.

On prints it is less important which bw negative emulsion it is. If not important at all.

 

[xayraa33]

What do you think is closer to Plus X in the bargain B&W film department that is currently in production, Kentmere 100 or Fomapan 100?

Still, if none of those two films are contenders to Plus X, which one do you prefer and why?

 

[Godfrey]

Films, papers, and development chemistry are/were always things that were in constant flux, with formulations that changed every couple of years and products that came in and out of existence. Rather than getting upset about the changes or the discontinuations, I always found it best to just keep moving on, developing my skills to take on a new version or a new type of film or paper, finding its advantages, and learning how to use them for the imagery I wanted to produce.

I shot a lot of Plus-X back in the day (1960s/early 1970s), to the annoyance of most of my friends. Most of them expected Tri-X looking images and didn't like the Plus-X look. I liked Plus-X in Acufine more: longer toe, less highlight blocking.

But Plus-X changed, and so did Tri-X, and I often shifted to other films in the 1980s. Agfapan 25 and TMax 100 (after I learned how to process the latter) became my standards for a spell that lasted through the '90s, alongside Ilford XP1, then XP2, then XP2 Super, and Kodak CN400 chromogenic. All of it good, all of it different from one another.

Nowadays I buy film in batches, usually five to twenty rolls (or packs) at a time. I buy it to learn it, to get something out of it, and hopefully to produce a project. When it's used up, I consider what next I want to do ... often the same, but often different.

There's no going back, there no "finding the equivalent" ... There's only pursuing my photographic visions.

I just ordered ten rolls of Washi W-type 120 format film. Orthochromatic, ISO 12-25 depending on the light, a hand-laid emulsion on Japanese Kowo paper. In my 6x6 equipment, I'll have 120 exposures to work out what it sees and how that bends and creates my photographic vision with my different cameras. I'm looking forward to it.

I guess this is my daily entry in the "philosophy of photography" sweepstakes.
... 🙂

G

 

[Highway 61]

What do you think is closer to Plus X in the bargain B&W film department that is currently in production, Kentmere 100 or Fomapan 100?

Still, if none of those two films are contenders to Plus X, which one do you prefer and why?

Fomapan 100 is very different from Plux-X. Fomapan 100 has an extra sensitivity to blue and green. It's an excellent film nonetheless.

Kentmere 100 is the same stuff as the Agfa APX100 "New emulsion" and has nothing to do with the old (genuine) Agfa APX100. It's close to FP4+, while a bit less "punchy" in low-contrast lighting situations.

Look - what is discontinued, is discontinued. Plus-X is gone. There is nothing left which can be considered to be a clone of Plux-X. So use what's left, while there's something left.

FP4+, Fomapan 100, Kentmere 100 and Ilford Pan 100 all are excellent ISO 100 films.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I've resigned myself to that fact. Started shooting Kodak 5222, Double-X, and found a way to rate it and process it that gives me what I'm looking for. When I hear Kodak is planning to discontinue that, I'll buy a couple dozen 400ft rolls.

 

[Fotobot]

I have not found a film that did not look better at 1/2 box speed and 20% reduced development. Gives more shadow detail and less blocked highlights.

Just the opposite of a push which is ok in a pinch, but results are yuck generally.

You've got that right. I sometimes see photographers shooting digital and then emulating the yuck look of pushed film — without shadow detail and with blocked highlights. They've embraced the most unpleasant consequences of pushed film, perhaps as a kind of pretend authenticity.

 

[sepiareverb]

I scan from 810 glossy fiber based prints.

 

[mike rosenlof]

I'm fond of TMax 100 shot at 50, dev in Rodinal 1:50 for about 15 minutes. I'll do something similar with FP4+ also, but I don't recall the dev time off hand.

A lot of the qualities that people apply to a film, might equally be attributed to the process of making a positive from the neg.