Another Desperate Plea for Kodak Plus-X

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by danac, Jul 23, 2021.

  1. 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!
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. Gentle suggestion... Post some samples. I'm sure we'd all enjoy some imagery
     
  4. 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 Plus-X-090731-30.jpg

    By the way, if you can still find it, try some Ilford XP2 chromogenic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2021
  5. Pinnacles N.P. California when it was a National Monument. Notice the lack of grain. And this is 35mm

    Pinnacles2.jpg
     
    NHSN, Xícara de Café, kklow and 6 others like this.
  6. Arches N.P. Utah also 35mm

    Park Avenue Arches.jpg
     
    NHSN, Xícara de Café, kklow and 6 others like this.
  7. Sierra de la Sals, Utah taken from Canyonlands N.P.: All of these images taken with a Canon AE-1 on Plus-X.

    LaSalssmall.jpg
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2021
  8. 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.
     
    ] likes this.
  9. 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.
    '82 PXP (2)copy.jpg
     
    allancobb, Mike Gammill and danac like this.
  10. kmac: That was back in the early '80s when I had yet to discover colored filters. A circular polarizer was my usual filter choice.
     
  11. 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
     
  12. 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.
     
    ] and Mike Gammill like this.
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. Have you tried Tmax 100 with its T grain? How does that compare to Plus X?
     
  16. 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.
     
    ] likes this.
  17. 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
     
  18. 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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2021
  19. 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.
     
  20. This was one of my favorite images using Plus-X that for me, exploited its capabilities in terms of grain, sharpness, and tonality.

    [​IMG]

    Old Sacramento, California, Leica 0-Series Replica, 50mm f/3.5 Leitz Anastigmat, HC-110B
     
    SCL, kklow, luis triguez and 4 others like this.

Share This Page