Another Desperate Plea for Kodak Plus-X

I'd pay as much as $20 for a roll of twenty-four exposures if Kodak started to produce this exact film again. Nothing in current production even comes close. OMG how I miss it!

I was just talking to someone about cleaning out my closets and basement and getting rid of stuff. Hard as it is, one great thing about moving on from the past is making way for the future.

 

Serenity prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Gentle suggestion... Post some samples. I'm sure we'd all enjoy some imagery

I'd personally rather have some fresh rolls of Panatomic-X, but each to their own favorites.

 

Here is some Plus X that had expired in 1995, exposed in a Contaflex Prima in 2009 and developed then

 

By the way, if you can still find it, try some Ilford XP2 chromogenic.

Edited July 24, 2021 by JDMvW

Pinnacles N.P. California when it was a National Monument. Notice the lack of grain. And this is 35mm

 

Arches N.P. Utah also 35mm

 

Sierra de la Sals, Utah taken from Canyonlands N.P.: All of these images taken with a Canon AE-1 on Plus-X.

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by danac

Great Plus-X images, danac. Down to only a few rolls of cold-stored 35mm Plus-X and two 120 propaks plus a couple more rolls.

With HC110 developer dilution H (which I use with Plus-X) I find the contrast I get with Kentmere 100 similar, although it is grainier than Plus-X.

Plus X Pan is certainly a nice film, I tried it for the first time last year (May 2020). It was a 120 roll, expired in 1982, fairly old but still gave good results. I like the broad tonal range and fine grain. I'll be using more, I bought some 4x5 that was listed at an insanely cheap price however the boxes look brand new, also early eighties.

 

@danac, did you use a yellow filter for your shots ?

 

 

1982 Plus X Pan. Very happy with it, it lends itself well to scanning and post processing.

kmac: That was back in the early '80s when I had yet to discover colored filters. A circular polarizer was my usual filter choice.

Very good shots with the 35mm. I especially like your use of filtration. What chemistry for developing?. My first post did not go in, (asking what filter(s) used), so now I will try the polarizer and see how it compares to my "usual" G filter. I have not used a polarizer since taking up the FSU 35mms. Bill

I wish Kodak would bring back both Plus X and Panatomic X, at least in a small run. These two films, along with Tri-X and Efke 25, were my favorite 4 B&W films. Sadly only 1 of the 4 is still available new.

This situation at least makes me use my remaining cold-stored Plus-X and Panatomic-X more sparingly. I really didn't use a lot of Efke 25 so I can't really make an informed comment about it. I do miss Agfapan 25, though. I also liked the Rolleipan 25 (so much that I used up a 100' bulk roll once). I don't know how it compares with the new RPX 25 which is sold under the Rollei name.

Bill: It was probably D-76. That's what my brother's shop used back then.

 

Has anyone here tried Fujifilm Acros II? I just read some glowing reviews on it.

Have you tried Tmax 100 with its T grain? How does that compare to Plus X?

Tmax 100 will have finer grain than Plus-X, but it will have a different look because of its grain structure. Some people like it or at least have learned to live with it. Others have experimented with different developers to achieve the desired results. Back in the late 1980's I went through a "phase" where I thought fine grain was most important. I went through a few 100' rolls of the TMX. I did find (for my tastes) that Tmax developer was not the optimum developer for this film. As I recall my best results came from Patterson Fx-39 (now sold under Adox label). Another possibility is to use Rodinal. I had a few rolls that I did in Rodinal at 1:25 dilution that I liked.

Tmax 100 will have finer grain than Plus-X, but it will have a different look because of its grain structure. Some people like it or at least have learned to live with it. Others have experimented with different developers to achieve the desired results. Back in the late 1980's I went through a "phase" where I thought fine grain was most important. I went through a few 100' rolls of the TMX. I did find (for my tastes) that Tmax developer was not the optimum developer for this film. As I recall my best results came from Patterson Fx-39 (now sold under Adox label). Another possibility is to use Rodinal. I had a few rolls that I did in Rodinal at 1:25 dilution that I liked.

Apparently this gives XTOL high marks with Tmax. See chart down the page a little.

film - What are the differences between D-76 and Xtol? - Photography Stack Exchange

Looking at some of my TMAX 100 images they do look a bit boring. I will try to re-do some prints with contrasty filters. Maybe that will save them. Delta 100 has somewhat more character and similar grain. I'm getting some Fujifilm Acros II tomorrow. Judging from images online It could touch all the bases. If it does I will surely report the results here with examples.

 

Alan: Plus-X had much better contrast. It was the best all around B&W film.

Edited July 26, 2021 by danac

The grain of Plus-X is fine enough that if one wants more contrast under flat lighting the film can be rated at ISO 200 to 250 without sacrificing much quality. For D-76 and later HC110 I mostly rated it at box speed. However, I did rate it a bit higher when using it under overcast conditions. A favorite developer for the ISO 250 rating was Acufine, Today, with scanning negatives I find that rating it at a higher ISO for more contrast unnecessary since I can do that in post processing, Great film and I will be sad when I've exhausted my remaining supply.

This was one of my favorite images using Plus-X that for me, exploited its capabilities in terms of grain, sharpness, and tonality.

 

 

Old Sacramento, California, Leica 0-Series Replica, 50mm f/3.5 Leitz Anastigmat, HC-110B

I wish Kodak would bring back both Plus X and Panatomic X, at least in a small run. These two films, along with Tri-X and Efke 25, were my favorite 4 B&W films. Sadly only 1 of the 4 is still available new.

 

Agree about Plus-X and Panatomic-X needing revival. Plus-X was a favorite of mine. If Ilford can do old school Black & White and Delta versions of their range, so can Kodak.

I wonder Kodak brought back Ektachrome, why not at least Plus-X? I believe that Panatomic-x used a material that was not environmentally friendly (don't remember what it was). Likely if Kodak did revive these films I suspect the coating and packaging would be outsourced and likely compromises made in manufacturing, Consider Kodak's chemistry: HC110 is now made in Germany and not longer is like syrup in its consistency. Still works the same, but I wonder about its shelf life once opened. Of course, I go through a bottle very quickly so shelf life is not an issue for me. That's all I better say unless I go over to one of the film forums,

Im aware of the banned chemical(s) in Panatomic X were a reason it isn't made today, though they did have the Aerial Pan X film well up to the 2000s. I believe it was Cadmium may of been one of the bad chemicals. But Kodak was able to reformulate a lot of their older emulsions with replacement chemicals, etc., so I don't see why they couldnt reformulate Pan X a little so it could be made today. But I guess it comes down to they dont want to spend the money on that. Shame, because even today, there still isn't a film like Pan X or as good as it was for what it did. Its the only slow speed film that had moderate contrast instead of high contrast. Its midtones were what made the film special.

 

Mike- I've used RPX 25 film and even did a video on it. It really isn't that great of a film, as it has a flat look to it, and has really lousy tones on it. I've shot over 5 rolls of the stuff (more then that I think), and they all look blah to me. I have 1 roll left, and after its gone, I dont think I'll be buying any more of it. Efke 25 had really good tones in it, with an old fashioned look to it. It really was a special film.

Edited August 8, 2021 by 25asa

Thanks for the warning on the RPX 25 film, 25asa. I suspected it to be a different film from the earlier Rolleipan 25 (which I liked). As for Panatomic-X, Kodak could have it coated overseas in a country that does not have a problem with cadmium. Well, wishful thinking, I guess.

I have to agree that I would love to see Plus x and Panatomic x and both in 120. Something about those two that I’ve never found elsewhere but I’m speaking one who was going through 10-20 rolls of Tri x a week.

 

Rick H.