Why was Plus-X so fast?
I have a few hundred feet of Plus-X 125 left. When that's done, I'll need to find a new 100/125 speed film. Thing is, I'm cheap and lazy, so I like developing in D-76 at 1:1. And Plus-X is fast (7 minutes at 1:1, 4.5 minutes at stock).
When I look at my options, they take a lot longer to develop.
Across 100, 10.5 minutes
Delta 100, 11 minutes
Fomapan 100, 10 minutes
FP4 125, 9.5 minutes
Kentmere 100, 11.5 minutes
Rollei RPX100, 8 minutes
Tmax 100, 9.5 miuntes
Only the Rollei is in the same league as the Plus-X - and it is not cheap (almost twice the cost of HP5+)
Okay, I'm not going to moan too much about adding 4 minutes to a process that, all told, takes me almost an hour (from loading the reels to hanging the negatives).
But it raises the question, why do all the still-produced films take longer to develop than Plus-X? Was Plus-X simply a higher silver content? (I recall someone saying the reason Kentmere takes so long to develop was due to the lower silver content)
How long does Super XX cine film take?
The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.
According to the Massive Dev Chart, Eastman Double X (the closest name I can find to "Super XX cine") takes 10 minutes at 1:1 for ISO250.
I can't say I've ever seen that for sale at B&H.
Eastman 5222 (Double-X) can be purchased directly from Kodak in 400 and 1000 ft lengths. There is also the possibility of buying "short ends" which would be a cheaper alternative. There are several sites that sell short ends.
BTw, Kodak cine films are marketed under the name Eastman rather than Kodak. The films are numbered either 5nnn (36 mm) or 7nnn (16 mm).
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Look at ORWO UN54. Not too pricey,and mighty Plus-X in look too. Not sure about times in D-76 off the top of my head.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Why are you in such a hurry to develop the film. What is a few minutes devoted to getting good negatives?
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
Seems like a strange priority.
Move to a different developer. I believe that Rodinal will work quicker.
Definitely learning stuff today.
The Orwo looks very interesting. Dev time is same as Plus-X. Price is right ($47/100'). Unfortunately the website says they are sold out of it and the ISO 400 equivalent. Their tumblr and twitter accounts have been quiet for 3 months. I hope their still going.
Jim, it isn't that I'm in a hurry (well, maybe I am). Like I said, I'm not moaning about adding less than 10% time to my total time. Although, I'll admit, I find 7 minutes to be a good amount of time standing in the basement waiting to agitate. By 12 minutes I find it's tedious. Because I tend to develop in cold water (I adjust times rather than work to get my water temp exact), my times tend to be a bit longer.
The reason for this post was the question I put at the end - what is it about Plus-X that makes it develop so much faster than newer films?
Pioneer - I'm still learning, so I'm keeping my 'playing with developers' to a minimum. D-76 is definitely easy for me to use, and I like the way it develops all my films so far. That said, I've got some Rodinal on order. I like what I've seen with how it does edges. Semi-stand, while taking longer, fits well with my personality (I can do other things while it devs). I'm really looking forward to playing with Rodinal and some Retro 80S in the future.
Last edited by MattKrull; 10-04-2013 at 10:30 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Back to the original question. There are several possibilities for the faster development time, among them: the emulsion formulation, a thinner emulsion, or a more permeable emulsion. I don't know the answer.