Replacement for Plus-X

I too miss Plus-x but have found that Ilford FP-4+ is as good or even better..
 
I still have some rolls of Plus-X in the 'fridge; I stocked up when Kodak announced that it was discontinuing it.

And I've searched for a replacement. Nothing I've found yet quite matches the rich dark greys and blacks. But I agree that FP4+ comes close. I also think Fomapan 200 also comes close. I'm also experimenting with Eastman Double X; I like that film but am not sure whether it's a Plus-X replacement.
 
GarageBoy said:
What were the characteristics of it? Can we bend tmx to match that curve?
Click to expand...

TMY has curve (or lack of curve) of Plus-X and Tri-X Pro (for most purposes).

TMX has a more traditional S-curve, like Tri-X.

If you are optically printing, you have to get to a pretty big size before the grain structure differences become evident. As in TMY has less grain than PX. Not sure that there was anything special to PX grain - it didn't really have any at most normal enlargements.

Dante
 
I have to admit, I only just developed my first roll of Plus-X about a month ago. I had randomly purchased two rolls a few months back at Mel Pierce Camera for real cheap (I guess they were emptying out one of their freezers). I didn't think anything of it when I purchased the film and really had no expectations. I assumed Plus-X was going to end up similar to TMAX-100. Well, when I finally shot and developed my first roll in Rodinal last month, I was pretty blown away at the tonality of the film.

Immediately, I went online to see if I could purchase more, when I had discovered that it had been discontinued some time ago. Booooo! I'm really disappointed now that I hadn't purchased more when I had the opportunity. It reminds me of the time when I discovered how awesome Kodak Ektachrome was and then learned it had been discontinued a year and a half earlier. I guess I should have been born earlier. I missed out on a lot of great film stocks ;)

I was thinking of developing my second roll in HC-110 to compare the results to the Rodinal. What can I expect here? Does anyone recommend one developer over the other for Plus-X? The grain with this film in Rodinal was pretty much already non-existent.
 
Bellasqueeza said:
I was thinking of developing my second roll in HC-110 to compare the results to the Rodinal. What can I expect here? Does anyone recommend one developer over the other for Plus-X? The grain with this film in Rodinal was pretty much already non-existent.
Click to expand...

I think most people preferred using Microdol-X for Plus-X. No coincidence the Microdol was discontinued the same time as they discontinued Plus-X.
Perceptol might be closest available now to Microdol.
 
Interesting thread, I have 15 rolls in 35mm and 19 rolls in 120, I did some buying as soon as it was clear it was to be discontinued.

I also found from forums that FP4+ was the closest alternative.

J. Scooter: How the heck do you shoot it at EI 500 ? I guess you need the perfect light for that, no?

I have very bad experience with pushing film; My conclusion is that, if there is just enough light for, say ISO 1600, a ISO 400 film will not be able to "see" values other than in the zones i-iv.

I have never gotten any good results with pushing in situations I really had to. Only in good light have I got it working, where I've pushed for the increased contrast.
IMO, the film needs to see values from zone iV and up, or you will end up with a murky shot.
 
I have had good results shooting at 500 in all sorts of lighting conditions. Mostly developed in d76. I don't have any recent shots but will have to check my archives.
 
This thread interests me as I have used up the last of my Plus-X.
I still have some Neopan SS and original APX100, plus some 5222.

I once tried a few rolls of Ilford FP4+. IIRC I shot it at box speed.
The negatives were kind of muddy, and I never used it again.
Any suggestions for better results, especially using HC110?

5231 sounds promising. Is it still in production?
I assume Eastman 5231 is a cine film, like 5222.
Any special instructions for use in still photography?

TIA,
Chris
 
A couple more at 500
med_U38373I1462642763.SEQ.0.jpg

med_U38373I1462642763.SEQ.1.jpg
 
I've got one more roll left, but can't bring myself to shoot it. This was taken with my second to last roll in a Kodak Retinette 1A Type 044 on a cloudy day with off-and-on rain. Just great tones all over, and such nice contrast. FP4+ has a bit more bite to it than I care for, but it's okay for a 125 ISO film. Tri-X pulled to 200 is pretty nice, but I don't have enough of it to do that very often.

6394255651_f7d86835b3_z.jpg

Court House Swing Gate by P F McFarland, on Flickr

https://flic.kr/s/aHsjwVkbGK for the rest of the roll.

PF
 
when plus-X was discontinued, I asked online if there was anything similar, and a few said to try Kentmere 100. I still haven't tried it, but has anybody else done so? Is it anything like plus-X?
 
I also started a thread some time back on this topi.

I bought some Double-X and will give it a try. It's in the camera in fact now.

Me, too, Plus-X was my main film. Great tonality, pretty sharp in DD-X, easy to print and scan, wide latitude. But subjectively speaking, just right contrast and look for my taste.

I have tried Rollei Retro 80s, FP4+, Silvermax, all in several developers, and have not yet found the replacement.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
I think most people preferred using Microdol-X for Plus-X. No coincidence the Microdol was discontinued the same time as they discontinued Plus-X.
Perceptol might be closest available now to Microdol.
Click to expand...

That reminded me, there's a thread somewhere where Friedlander is reported to have used Plus-X/Microdol for decades. Makes sense to me, many of his photos have a distinctive Plus-X look to them. (It's also said he switched to FP4+, apparently before Plus-X was phased out. FWIW.)

znapper said:
...

I have very bad experience with pushing film; My conclusion is that, if there is just enough light for, say ISO 1600, a ISO 400 film will not be able to "see" values other than in the zones i-iv.

I have never gotten any good results with pushing in situations I really had to. Only in good light have I got it working, where I've pushed for the increased contrast.
IMO, the film needs to see values from zone iV and up, or you will end up with a murky shot.
Click to expand...

I don't know about zones, my experience agrees with yours in the rest. Pushing raises contrast with film speed being what it is, depending (slightly) on choice of developer. I.e. you may gain half a stop with this developer or lose a stop with that, but that's it. One can't put light where there was none recorded, no matter how much one pushes, or kicks, or screams. (Trust me on this :D )

ChrisPlatt said:
...
I once tried a few rolls of Ilford FP4+. IIRC I shot it at box speed.
The negatives were kind of muddy, and I never used it again.
Any suggestions for better results, especially using HC110?

...

TIA,
Chris
Click to expand...

I had unusually uninspiring results with FP4+ in D76. I reckon it has to do with my exposures or the quality of light I have here or something else, but what exactly, I didn't find. Then, I tried FP4+ in Xtol and it worked much better for me. Nine out of ten times I prefer D76 over Xtol, but in this case...Go figure. Can't say much about HC110, which I don't use, my first thought though would be to use a higher dilution (assuming you used dil.B go for dil.H) to control the activity of the developer.

.
 
I think i read a discussion between Peter Lindbergh and Helmut Newton, and they were both on the Plus-X in D-76 train. I think Lindbergh shot it at lower than box speed, though.
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I think i read a discussion between Peter Lindbergh and Helmut Newton, and they were both on the Plus-X in D-76 train. I think Lindbergh shot it at lower than box speed, though.
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom