alan_rockwood Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 OK, yet another comparison question. What do you like better and why, Plus-X or FP4 plus? You can bring other conventional grain medium speed films into the discussion if you want, but I am especiallycurious about the comparison between Plus-X and FP4 plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Alan, I think you'll get votes all over the board with your question. My personal preference is Plus-X, but there are a lot of people you'd have to pull FP4 from their cold dead hands. I also really like Delta 100, but a lot of people hate it. To me it comes down to the whole process more than just the film. I've got my processes for certain films pretty dialed in. Others will have their process dialed in for the other films I don't like. What do you like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_rockwood Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 I don't think I have shot a roll of FP4 plus yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Gammill Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Check the archives if you don't get all the answers you are looking for. Like Michael said, you'll get "votes all over the board." I like the slightly higher contrast of Plus-X in HC110 compared to FP4+, but I will use FP4+ if I run out of Plus-X or get a good deal on it. The contrast is not excessive even if I expose it as high as E.I. 200. For portraits in 35mm, I do prefer the finer grain of Delta 100, but otherwise, it's PX or HP4+. For 120, though, I prefer Fuji Acros. I rate it at E.I. 80 and process it in HC110 Dil. B. Since your original question was about PX and FP4+, I would recommend that you try some of each and use the same kind of developer for both. You may find that you prefer one over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 They're really not comparable films, other than in ISO rating. FP4+ tends to be a "neutral palette" film without either distinctive characteristics or significant weaknesses. I like it because it's forgiving of my tendency to take liberties with exposure and processing. Plus-X tends to have a unique tonality. I found it a bit difficult to use, at least years ago when my darkroom habits were sloppy. In skilled and attentive hands, it's as unique as T-Max 100 and a handful of other films with distinctive personalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 The latest PLUS X looks unique and beautiful. FP 4 + is just a neutral film without character Plus X in D76 is a great combo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Foma 100 Rodinal 1-50 13 minutes<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_waller Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 FP4. I don't think I've ever even shot Plus-X. I tri FP4 in the past, didn't like it (that wasn't the fault of the film), then a few years ago I returned to it and, iven my improved darkroom skills, I got excellent results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Yes Chris every film has it's perfect point and developer Many people use a film 1 time in 1 situation use the times dilutions and developers called for by the manufacture and then quit because ...well those times ect. are average times not perfect times and dilutions. Taking time to know a film is more like love than marriage. *g* Larry<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_rockwood Posted October 30, 2008 Author Share Posted October 30, 2008 Thanks for all the interesting responses so far. My impression, just from reading older posts, is that there are a lot more comments about FP4+ than Plus-X, which MIGHT mean that there are are more FP4+ users than Plus-X users at sites like photo.net and apug.org. My other impression is that many people think of FP4+ more or less as the Tri-X of medium speed films, and some of the comments in this thread are consistent with this impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Plus-X is wonderful in the right hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iliafarniev Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 there is no difference really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 No not if you learn the film As for HP5+ and Tri-X there is a real difference... Tri-X pushes much better and the grain is better to the eye in more different lighting than HP5+. Not o hijack this thread though. I love that Kodak has a renewed interest in film though I do miss the fact that Ilford got out of color I liked their slide films.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User_502260 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I have found Plus-X to be very nice in bright or contrasty light. In flat light it doesnlt seem to look as good. PF4+ isn't as brilliant in bright light but is better in flat light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I'm guessing that FP4+ is mentioned more often online because it was marketed more aggressively during the 1990s-early 2000s. Every local camera shop I visited had blister packs of 8x10 Ilford RC paper that included one or two rolls of either FP4+ or HP5+, aggressively priced and popular among students. My experience with Plus-X and FP4+ will seem contradictory to Jeff Adler's, but I suspect it's because we use very different techniques. I found Plus-X more difficult to use in contrasty light than in moderate to low contrast light. To some extent it's reminiscent of T-Max 100, very rewarding of careful technique, unforgiving of any mistakes in exposure or development. FP4+ is a very neutral film, responsive to exposures from EI 64-250 with appropriate development. In bright dappled sunlight at EI 64 and developed for 9 minutes in ID-11 1+1, the tonal range was beautiful, no problems with highlights or shadows, with fine enough grain for a 35mm negative to deliver high quality 11x14 prints. At 250 in Diafine it was usable, but nothing special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosteaM Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I have used Plus X a lot and I love the look of it. I posted results on 35mm and 120 format in the classic camera forum. I just bought 100 ft bulk roll of FP4 that I look forward to use. There are photography sites like Flickr where you can search by film and get tons of images on either one, see for yourself what is different. Mind you a picture on a monitor will never look like the print but you can get an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penny_greenberg Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I also wanted to know which film I preferred and shot 2 rolls of Plus-X and 2 rolls of FP4. Tonal and grain-wise, I absolutely loved the results from what I got from FP4 than the Plus-X. This could all just be personal preference though and if you want to know, why not try both films and see for yourself? Maybe you'll like Plus-X more than FP4. http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a248/zassou/photo/test-10.jpg --> FP4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 It is rare that I disagree with Lex, but...... I have two reasons for preferring PX, sharpness and fine grain, as far as I'm concerned, when Ilford added a + to FP4 and HP5, they were both practically destroyed (I know, I tend to feel strongly). I have no difficulty with PXP and D76 as well as a couple of other developers including HC110B, Acufine, and UFG, from 1:1 lighting up to 1:16 lighting, it is just a matter of adjusting exposure and development for the circumstances. I did test for several developers, liked D76 best, and started to see grain at 20x. For example: D76 full strength at 68F Shadowless 1:1,: ISO 640, 9.5 min Flat 1:2-1:4,: ISO 320, 5.5 min Normal 1:6-1:8, ISO 160, 5 min Contrasty up to 1:16, ISO 50, 4 min Regards to you all Lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_ Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 To me, Plus-X has better midtones (grays), whereas FP4 has better Tonality. Of course, as mentioned above, what developer you use contributes to the overall look too.....LIKE your pixs. Larry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Hands down Agfa APX 100. Since it's no longer being made (R.I.P) I've used FP4 a number of times in 120. Seems ok although I've found it to be a bit more fussy then Pan F+. For me FP4 work never worked well at iso 125 and highlights seem to build up more rapidly during development then Pan F+. As to Plus-X, I've only used it once or twice several years ago...did better in the shadows at 125 then FP4. I've been shooting some of the 35mm Arista Premium 100 recently which is rumored to be Plus-X. If so it looks great in Rodinal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtayloreckstein Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Plus-X is probably the most finicky film I use. If I used more T-Max 100, it would be a close race. Find a combo you like and the scenes that fit. The tonality is unique in my opinion. Very creamy and dreamy tones without being exaggerated. Even then, I've managed to abuse it. Below is Plus-X in Cachet AB55... blown up highlights courtesy of my scanner. FP4+ in comparison felt very flat.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjferron Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Plus-x is all I use now. Reasonably fine grain and I love the tones. I most often use it in D76 but I've had some superb results in Acufine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Plus X is great in studio lighting as well. I have two big boxes of Plus X 4x5 (expired) that I need to use up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the world in black white Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Larry Dressler: "Plus-X is wonderful in the right hands." Does that mean that you can't use your left hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 Only use the left hand after election day. *g* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now