Kodak 125 Plus X Best B&W Film All Time

[rich815]

FP4 can do the job you want - you may just have to learn how to get it to do what you want.

My point exactly. I've learned since my first developed roll at age 11 or so back in 1973 is that chasing a magic bullet or giving up or forming an opinion on a film after only 1-2 rolls is senseless. I love trying different films and developers just to see what I get and I have an experimental nature. But through many, many films and many, many developers the one thing I've learned is almost ANY film is capable of terrific results.

[Roger Cole]

I agree with the people who say it isn't the film.

I liked Plux-X, but one of the things I liked about it was how well it worked in Diafine. I could shoot it at box speed in D76 (or whatever) or, if needed, at 400 and develop in Diafine, and carry one film. None of the other medium speed films I've tried have responded as well, and that includes FP4+ which does get an effective boost, just not as much. People who have tried Shanghai GP3 in Diafine say it is definitely not Plus-X, in this way at least.

But that's fairly minor. I have good 400 films I can use at box speed any time I want. I switched to FP4+ for medium speed (have a few rolls of Acros to try though) and like it a lot. The differences between the two, while probably not non-existent, are simply going to be drowned out in the noise compared to the differences in photographers.

[Andre Noble]

giving up or forming an opinion on a film after only 1-2 rolls is senseless.

True Except for Ektar 100

[Thomas Bertilsson]

None of the 100-125 ISO B&W films I've used over the years has "given up" or "surrenedered" the shadow detail, that's down to how we as photographers control our film's tonality by exposure and development. That includes FP4, Tmax and Delta 100, AP/APX100 and more recently Fomapan 100, lus a few rolls of Acros.

It's a case of learning how different films respond and making necessary adjustments to achieve the resul;ts you#re after. only the Foma films in my experience need significantly different development times.

Ian.

A lot of times I hear exclamations that allude to not completely comprehending how two films should be compared: you can only compare their tonality AFTER they have been exposed and processed such that they have the same contrast. Then, and only then, can you tell the relative difference between them. Any other comparison simply doesn't justify the qualities of either film.

I have prints in the same series that are from FP4+ and Plus-X negatives. I dare anyone to tell them apart.

[Ian Grant]

A lot of times I hear exclamations that allude to not completely comprehending how two films should be compared: you can only compare their tonality AFTER they have been exposed and processed such that they have the same contrast. Then, and only then, can you tell the relative difference between them. Any other comparison simply doesn't justify the qualities of either film.

I have prints in the same series that are from FP4+ and Plus-X negatives. I dare anyone to tell them apart.

An example would be Tmax 100 and AP/APX100 both in Rodinal both superb films and final results are indistinguishable in 35mm through to LF, the only major difference was the Agfa films were rated at 100ISO and Tmax 100 @ 50 EI, dev times were identical.

Some of my series span longer periods typically 25 years+ and I have no issuse putting prints from Tmax100 and AP/APX100 alongside those shot more recently with Delta 100 and even HP5 (LF) although I have had to reprint on current papers but that's another issue.

Ian

[Dave in Kansas]

I've been using more FP 4 recently and sure like it. It will most likely become my replacement for Plus-X. I get excellent results out of either and can't say one is better than the other, at least at my stage in the game.

Dave

[Andre Noble]

I agree with the people who say it isn't the film.

Yes and "size doesn't matter". "It's not how beautiful you are, it's your inner beauty that counts", and finally, "No, you don't look fat in that dress."

Admittedly, many of you have much more extensive B+W experience than me. I just notice trends.

[Roger Cole]

If you are talking about trying to use APX 25 instead of TMZ, yes, it's the film. If you are comparing Portra 400 with Velvia 50, yes it's the film. But between Plus-X and FP4+? I'm with Thomas on this - develop both to the same contrast and I'd defy anyone to tell the difference in the prints by eye.

[Gerald C Koch]

It's a case of learning how different films respond and making necessary adjustments to achieve the resul;ts you#re after. only the Foma films in my experience need significantly different development times.

YES!!! I don't know how many times I have heard people pan a film after only a single try.

[DREW WILEY]

There is no "best". It all depends on what you are doing and what look you want. Plus X Pan was
appropriately marketed mainly as a studio portrait film. It had a very long sweeping toe designed to
give subtle midtones and highlight gradation. If you had a soft lighting ratio you would get gradation
in the shadows too. But with strong lighting you'd have to resort to compensating dev to dig deep,
and that would likely spoil the delicacy of the uppers. Not a very good film for direct sunlight conditions with deep shadows. The closest thing today in curve shape is Delta 100. FP4 has a much longer straight line, as does ACROS, though neither are true straight line films.