Steve Karr
Film tank shaker
Ok, is it me or am I the only one who likes Plus X in 35mm? Seems like in that speed range all the others get talked of but you know who ... Plus-X.
I want the retro kinda look more than smooth, slick graditions & perfect zone system exposure. But I don't want to shoot 6000 frames of dog food either.
Please give your honest (bashing) thoughts. I just got 1000' of the stuff and if there is something I'm missing - well you get it! I also have 300 sht of 4x5.
Steve
I want the retro kinda look more than smooth, slick graditions & perfect zone system exposure. But I don't want to shoot 6000 frames of dog food either.
Please give your honest (bashing) thoughts. I just got 1000' of the stuff and if there is something I'm missing - well you get it! I also have 300 sht of 4x5.
Steve
antistatic
Well-known
I like it. I keep reading how it is hard to scan but it has never let me down. Now that it is getting brighter here in Australia, I will be ordering some more from Freestyle.
kipkeston
Well-known
It's as good as that other film, I think it's called tri-x
Last edited:
I always preferred Ilford FP4 over Plus-X, which seemed to me to have a harsh tonality. Maybe I just didn't find the "right" developer...
kemal_mumcu
Well-known
To me it's like TriX but with nicer tones and a slower speed. I find it harder to develop but its become my favorite b&w currently.
dufffader
Leicanaut/Nikonaut...
I have nothing against plus-x. I would even go on to say I like the way b&w looks on it. But I can't say that its the film that I use the most. I have a 100ft reel sitting in my cupboard, and somehow its the gritty tri-x or other cheap chinese made iso 100 film that gets loaded into my 35mm camera before plus-x. Maybe its something I'm not aware of, but technically I can't fault it.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I tried both, Plus-X and FP4... and chose FP4. But if you, Steve, have already some big stock on the Kodak stuff, more power to you! Enjoy it! 
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Plus-X, EI400, Diafine. Major goodness and a delight to scan.
William
William
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I never hated Plus-X, but I must admit I had to learn to love Tri-X or any 400 ASA film...I found them too grainy...
Back when I first started it was Pan-X or Plus-X...
Back when I first started it was Pan-X or Plus-X...
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've always felt Tmax 100 was far better as a 100 speed film from Kodak. Liked the grain and sharpness and the tonality all better than plus-X. As others have mentioned, if you like a traditional, non-T-Grain film, then Ilford FP-4 has nicer tonality.
amateriat
We're all light!
Nothing wrong at all with Plus-X. But, then again, I've been seduced by the likes of chromogenics (XP-2 Super, BW400CN), which can be indexed for smooth, creamy texture, XP-2 in particular. SO much is in the exposure and handling/scanning/printing, it's hard to prescribe a "silver bullet" emulsion to someone else.
- Barrett
- Barrett
mojobebop
Well-known
plus-x
plus-x
had not thought of plus-x in years.
i'm thinking of trying it again, after your post.
i'm also shooting tri-x instead of hp5 again.
recall years ago i used to shoot panatonic x? (asa 25 i believe).
plus-x
had not thought of plus-x in years.
i'm thinking of trying it again, after your post.
i'm also shooting tri-x instead of hp5 again.
recall years ago i used to shoot panatonic x? (asa 25 i believe).
Mephiloco
Well-known
I don't dislike Plus-X. I'll be shooting it shortly (picked up a bunch of expired film, several rolls of which are plus-x), but personally I've liked Acros at that speed. Tri-X is my goto film, and provides consistently good results in nearly all environments, when I want a change from the tri-x grain, Acros is what I reach for, as the grain is essentially non existant and it's essentially the opposite of Tri-X in my opinion. I always thought of Plus-X as an extension of Tri-X (or vice versa).
dof
Fiat Lux
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I hate Plus-X. I just shot couple of rolls after not even thinking about it for about twenty years and am definitely looking forward to processing them and checking out the results.
The perception of it being maligned probably dates back to the introduction of T-Max 100 and 400. Many loved (and continue to love) the 100 speed version. Its finer grain, smooth tonality, and overall pleasing look left Plus-X a little stranded. While it's a fine film, perhaps simply not being the finest-grained film has tarnished its reputation over time.
The perception of it being maligned probably dates back to the introduction of T-Max 100 and 400. Many loved (and continue to love) the 100 speed version. Its finer grain, smooth tonality, and overall pleasing look left Plus-X a little stranded. While it's a fine film, perhaps simply not being the finest-grained film has tarnished its reputation over time.
Mephiloco
Well-known
What I like(d) about Plus-X is that it wasn't like modern 100 speed films. The grain wasn't microscopic like Acros or Tmax 100, which I guess is what people want from 100 speed film these days, but the results are very pleasing and the detail very great. Like I said before I look at it like Tri-X, at a slower speed, which translates to greater shadow detail, a little finer grain, and a great 'look' (or 'signature') to the film which, if you like Tri-X, you'll appreciate. I find shooting Plus-X goes very well with shooting vintage glass, there's something about using a lens that has that 'old look' along with a film with an 'old look.' Worth noting that it all depends on the developer and what you shoot and how it's lit, but in my experience this is what I've taken away from Plus-X
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Two year outdated Plus-X developed in some very dodgy looking Rodinal 1+50 for ten minutes at 20deg with minimal agitation.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's the only film in the Kodak line-up where I actually prefer its tonality to its direct Ilford competitor (heresy I know). Everything else, Ilford wins. But the difference is so slight, and I shoot very little ISO 100/125 B+W anyway in 35mm, and I prefer Delta 100 in 120. Actually, come to think of it, I prefer FP4 in sheet film too. But in 35mm, Plus-X is great.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Ronald M
Veteran
Whats not to like. I used it for decades.
Tri x was a non choice because i dislike the big grain. They way I got rid if that was divided Leica developer, but it was still no plus x.
The new tri X from a few years is vastly improved. But Plus still has the edge character wise in my opinion.
Tri x was a non choice because i dislike the big grain. They way I got rid if that was divided Leica developer, but it was still no plus x.
The new tri X from a few years is vastly improved. But Plus still has the edge character wise in my opinion.
julio1fer
Well-known
I think it's Kodak that does not like it. It is not available where I live (TMX is). So I use FP4+ instead. I could last use Plus-X 20 years ago.
Gumby
Veteran
I like Plus X... in fact it is my favorite film. My second favorite was XX. I wish I had 300 sheet of 4x5 in either emulsion!