Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,141   Online: 1006
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
  1. #1
    Daniel Lawton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    474
    Images
    26

    Is Plus-X a sleeper?

    Hi everyone. Just out of curiosity I bought 3 rolls of Plus-X today to give it a try. Being that this is one of if not "the" oldest continuously made film out there, I'm suprised that very little is said about it. I can count on one hand the number of images I've come across in the galleries that were made with it. Much is made of FP4 and APX 100 but not Plus-X. What are everyones thoughts on this film compared to the other two. I'm looking for increased acutance so I was going to develop in highly diluted Xtol or HC-110.

  2. #2
    mikewhi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Redmond, WA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    808
    Images
    9
    I have used it a lot over the years, especially in 35mm. I develop it in Rodinal. I absolutely love the film, especially with this developer. It has a low film base + fog level, had sharp grain, great contrast too. I have a few pictures in my gallery taken with 35mm PXP.

    -Mike

    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...cat=500&page=1
    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...cat=500&page=1

  3. #3
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,921
    Love it. It doesn't get much better than Plus-x in D-76 (1:1). It's just so darned expensive compared to FP-4 though.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,048
    I think Plus-X is a fine film and yes, quite the sleeper. I used it almost exclusively in my younger days for outdoor photography with 35mm and got fine images with D-76 1+0. Nowadays, I shoot APX 100 instead, it's over $1.00/roll less expensive (I'd love to support my neighbors in Rochester, but my wallet comes first) and Plus-X now comes with a nasty blue stain in it. I know it's harmless, but it drives me nuts; kinda like nails on a chalkboard. My APX comes out nice and clear.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, Western Suburbs
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,423
    Dear Daniel,

    I think Plus-X was always a bit of a forgotten "middle child". Folks used Pan-X for fine grain and Tri-X for speed (and just a little "cachet"<g>). It never collected the cult following of it's siblings. Once TMX came out, Kodak shooters had fine grain and the same speed as Plus-X in one product.

  6. #6
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,079
    Images
    20


    It's not as striking as Tri-X--more happening in the midtones than at the ends of the scale with Plus-X, I suppose. I haven't used it for a long time, but sometimes I go back and print some 35mm negs that I shot on Plus-X in the 1980s, and I like them. This is one of my favorites--Plus-X in D-76 I think, printed on Oriental Seagull in 1986.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  7. #7
    juan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,635
    Images
    4
    A long time ago, Ansel Adams wrote that he liked Plus-X in HC-110. A lot of people, including me, tried it in the 70s-80s and hated it. Soot and chalk. We blamed the film. I now think it was the film/developer combination. Note that not one of the above positive responses used HC-110 as the developer. Before you make a decision, I'd recommend trying several developers.
    juan

  8. #8
    bobfowler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Jersey, Land of the Living Dead
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,440
    Images
    19
    I always liked Plus-X in Microdol-X, but never managed REALLY good results in HC-110. Lately, I've been burning off my last 4X5 Plus-X using Ilfosol-S 1:9 with good results.
    Bob Fowler
    fowler@verizon.net
    Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

  9. #9
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,001
    Images
    117
    I was given about 10 120 propacks of it some time back.
    I develope it in Microdol-X and D-76 both @1:3 with dev times in the 11 t0 13 min range (don't hold me to that) when shot just under iso 100. I am not an expert on dev's, the 1:3 was a recommendation.

    I think the film is great, but when it is the only film you have you adjust to it. I used it on the street and in studio. The studio shots were mostly high(er) key -- white background @ 2-stops over and a red filter -- and I think the shots rocked.

    I have probably 3-5 rolls left and will probably replace it in kind.

    *

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    485
    Images
    14
    WHeb I was using Microdol, I always got very nice results. Now using D76 1:1, I still get nice results. It's an old standard.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin