Why do you suppose Plus X and Double X didn't make the cut?

[zuiko85]

I've still got two 100 foot rolls of Plus-X in 16mm in the freezer. I keep looking for a good 110 camera to shoot it in, but so far haven't found anything that does it justice.

Best,
-Tim

In my recollection, since the introduction of 110 in 1972, there has never been a fully mechanical, fully manual 110 camera. There’s that and the 110 cartridges are not made to be reloaded. (Although I know some folks have done so.)
For 16mm about the only full featured cameras were some of the Mamiya 16 models. Minolta also made the nifty 16 II model but too bad it was hobbled by a fixed focus lens. The Russian Kiev 16 models had a focusing lens but a limited shutter speed range and variable quality.

 

[Nokton48]

Multigrade RC VC 70mm PX 1981 Microdol-X by Nokton48, on Flickr

Photograph made last year. 70mm Plus-X (expired in 1981!) Hasselblad 500C/M 100mm F3.5 T* Zeiss Planar Microdol-X. Printed on Ilford Multigrade paper developed in Multigrade developer, and print was then scanned. Old Plus-X has always worked well for me, if it was properly stored.

If I remember correctly, when Plus-X was discontinued, Kodak stated that TMAX100 was superior and was replacing it. :/

Eastman XX has been continuously produced for cinematography purposes since 1958. They have never changed the formulation, only added a lubricant at one point so it will slide through Hollywood 35mm movie cameras without creating static marks on the film.

 

[Keith]

Plus-x was an interesting film and I noticed when using it that it had a look that put it in with the older Kodak emulsions. I scanned some rolls of film for a friend that he inherited from his wife's family ... mostly shot in the thirties and mostly nitrate based. The one film that really stood out to me was Panatomic of which there was numerous rolls and it instantly reminded me of Plus-X.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Would it be worth buying a nice condition Pentax 110 SLR? 😕

Get a motion picture camera. I think I have 7 or 8 16mm motion picture cameras and I barely paid anything for any of them. At the lower speeds, you can shoot single frame and get ~4000 images per 100ft roll.
I'm out right now walking around Philly with some ancient expired Plus-X reversal in my pre-WWII Cine-Kodak model K with a rare-earth glass Cone-Ektar 15mm hanging off the front.
Phil Forrest

 

[Nokton48]

70mm Kodak Plus X by Nokton48, on Flickr

700 feet of 70mm type II perfed Plus-X (the real good panchromatic stuff, this is not Aero film). Given to me with some darkroom stuff I was buying. That's about 3500 6x6cm exposures 🙂

See photo above ^^ from this shooting stock. EI 100 worked well in Microdol-X, which reduces film speed somewhat.

 

[MJ Buckpitt]

Leica M3, 50mm f2, Summicron, Eastman DoubleX

Leica M3, 50mm f2, Summicron, Eastman DoubleX



Untitled by Mel Buckpitt, on Flickr

Shot on DoubleX from the https://filmphotographyproject.com

 

[rbiemer]

I've still got two 100 foot rolls of Plus-X in 16mm in the freezer. I keep looking for a good 110 camera to shoot it in, but so far haven't found anything that does it justice.

Best,
-Tim

Maybe the Minicord is a possibility?

Or a Gami 16?

Minicord is a TLR and the Gami 16 is a rangefinder camera.

-Rob

 

[znapper]

Basically they didn't make the cut because there was not enough demand.

So, in other words, it is because you people didn't bought enough of it. Hope you are happy about it. 😀

Marcelo.

That is unfair to state, really.

When the whole marked is less than 1% of what is was,

it really doesn't matter.

And Kodak went trough a "transition period" as well, remember?

I am sure they can reintroduce it, but from a pure technical standpoint, TMax 100 is a better film and most likely sold better too.

It is probably a different story when it comes to Tri-X.

I like Plus-X and I still have 125px in the freezer, as well as the movie version in bulk.

But, if I was Kodak and had TMax in one hand and Plus-x in the other and I had to kill one, Plus-x would be the one to kill every time, sadly.

 

[J enea]

tmax 100 was touted as the plus-x replacement. Kodak, for public use, gave many reasons why they decided that it was superior to plus and told everyone why. But my guess is that they could charge the same amount for tmax as plus, but tmax uses less silver than plus-x, so they could make more money. another genius move by kodak.

I wonder what the sales percentages are for delta 100 vs fp4?

 

[Phil_F_NM]

tmax 100 was touted as the plus-x replacement. ... but tmax uses less silver than plus-x

Tmax was available for 27 years alongside Plus-X. I wouldn't say Kodak touted Tmax as the replacement. More like "this is our slow film we offer, you can have any Kodak slow film you want as long as it's Tmax 100." It was their only option and that's it. I've always thought Plus-X was Kodak's best film of the last 30 years, but that is my opinion. Now my preference is for EK5222. Hopefully it sticks around.

And, could you clarify that statement about silver?

Phil Forrest

 

[mpaniagua]

That is unfair to state, really.

When the whole marked is less than 1% of what is was,

it really doesn't matter.

And Kodak went trough a "transition period" as well, remember?

I am sure they can reintroduce it, but from a pure technical standpoint, TMax 100 is a better film and most likely sold better too.

It is probably a different story when it comes to Tri-X.

I like Plus-X and I still have 125px in the freezer, as well as the movie version in bulk.

But, if I was Kodak and had TMax in one hand and Plus-x in the other and I had to kill one, Plus-x would be the one to kill every time, sadly.

Sorry but it was meant as a joke.

Yeah agree with you. Kodak bid was on TMAX. Really, for a diminishing market/demand, they couldn't afford to keep machines running for two different products that filled the same market niche, so yeah, from a market stand point they cut the technical inferior film and keep the newer one.

Probably will offend some but I think some of the mystic around Plus X is the fact it no longer is produced, a product from an age long gone and yeah, it really is fun using it, but probably (only speaking for myself) FP4+ (or even Ultrafine Xtreme 100) will suit my spot for classic film emulsion needs.

Not sure if Kodak would be able to reintroduce the same Plus X as before, since there have been lots of law restrictions to certain chemicals used for film and I would think some of the components for Plus X would no longer be readily availabe, so, if reintroduced, most likely would be a reformulated film. I could be wrong of course (in fact I hope I'm wrong).

Marcelo

 

[giganova]

I don't know ... if you scan your negatives and give them some gentle Photoshop treatment (mostly levels, curves and contrast), all emulsions can be made look the same. Am I wrong here?

 

[mpaniagua]

I think they are talking about silver printing.

 

[PRJ]

I believe this was shot on XX with special filters. https://a24films.com/films/the-lighthouse

I use XX these days. It is pretty malleable for results depending on the developer.

 

[Freakscene]

Not sure if Kodak would be able to reintroduce the same Plus X as before, since there have been lots of law restrictions to certain chemicals used for film and I would think some of the components for Plus X would no longer be readily availabe, so, if reintroduced, most likely would be a reformulated film. I could be wrong of course (in fact I hope I'm wrong).

There is nothing in the most recent formulation of Plus-X that would prevent it from being re-manufactured. But making film is very much like a very precise tricky version of cooking something very complicated, and even if all the same components were available, it would need to be re-formulated were it to be reproduced. Kodak had to re-formulate TMZ when they reintroduced it.

Marty

 

[mpaniagua]

Good to know. Thanks Marty.

 

[Tim Gray]

That’s cool. I didn’t know that film was shot on... film.

I always liked plus-x. Unfortunately it only ever made up about 10% of my shooting. Almost everything else was faster - Tri-X and the T-Max 400 & 3200.

 

[Noserider]

When Kodak consolidated all their films into one building/on line they changed the base and the name (125PX) and then soon dropped it. The old stuff had the bluish base. I would say first off next on; they brought back TMZ3200 there is no technical reason why Plus_x (new and improved certainly) could not right now be an existing Kodak product. The only way I see this occurring is if Kodak did such a Giant master roll run that it would support a price of 3.00 USD per roll 40.00/100ft roll. I'd stock up on a case of 100ft rolls right now from a Kodak dealer. I bet there would be a few other on RF that would get a few rolls of real fresh Plus-X.

 

[znapper]

I don't know ... if you scan your negatives and give them some gentle Photoshop treatment (mostly levels, curves and contrast), all emulsions can be made look the same. Am I wrong here?

Not really, the spectral response is different among films as well.
(how red, green and blues are represented in terms of dark or light grays).

If you use filters and then use curves (or develop the film in certain developers), you can probably get some films pretty equal.

It is better to try to replace orthochromatic films with other orthochromatic films and panchromatic with panchromatic films as well.

But there is also the difference in grain-characteristics, but even that can be manipulated trough which developer you use.

 

[kiemchacsu]

Yeah, you can still get Double XX. I buy it in 400 ft rolls and spool it down, then put it in a Lloyds bulk film loader and load 35mm cassettes with it. Lots of fun.

Plus X unfortunately is long gone.

Best,
-Tim

can you show your set up ,
how to prepare 100ft roll from 400ft roll to ofit in common loader.

thanks.