FP4 compared to Plus-X?

[Erik Asgeirsson]

I'm looking for experience from people who have used both in sheets. How does FP 4 compare to Plus-X? Mainly, how do the curves, "look," etc. compare?

[Pete Andrews]

No comparison. FP4 is far superior IMHO. Kodak should have retired Plus-x years ago. (well, you asked!)The data sheets are downloadable from Ilford and Kodak's respective websites.

[M.]

Hi Pete, in what way is FP-4 superior? Exposed at EI=80, and developed in 1:3 Microdol, Plus-X produces some of the most beautiful, easy to print 16x20s I've ever made. Highlights don't block up, Shadow detail is awesome, the grain is minimal and unobjectionable in appearance. Physically it is tough, and chemically it is forgiving in the darkroom. How much better can it get?

[David Richhart]

I vote for Plus-x too... as basic as it gets developed 1:1 in D76 and the results are wonderful.

[Erik Asgeirsson]

What do you guys rate Plus-X at? When I use FP4, I rate it around 64.

[David VanMeter]

I use FP4 almost exclusively. I shoot it at 100 and expose for the shadows. Processing this in PMK Pyro has produced the most incredibly beautiful negatives with incredible range. Plus-X left me cold. So, you see, it is a matter of opinion, try both and see what you like.

[Steve Clark]

I realize it`s available 120 only, but what happens when you throw Verichrome Pan into this same argument? Oops, sorry I meant to say discussion. I don`t have any idea, as I`ve just started working with VP yesterday.

[David A. Goldfarb]

To me, VP has a very different look from either FP4 or Plus-X--less acutance, creamier highlights.

[Pete Andrews]

A belated response to 'why not Plus-X?': I last used Plus-x over 25 years ago, when it was still available in all formats. I was still hopping from film to film in my testing phase in those days. My findings were that Plus-X was grainy, overrated in (then) ASA speed, and altogether muddy looking, compared to FP4. I concluded that Plus-x was only useable for larger formats, due to its golf-ball size grain and poor sharpness, and I didn't see the point in swapping film type with format size, since FP4 was good at all formats.Maybe Kodak has tweaked or re-formulated Plus-X in the intervening years, I'm not prepared to give it another chance.For me, Kodak 'blew their chances' in B&W film many years ago, and only the introduction of T grain emulsions has dragged me back to their B&W films.

[Paula Swaim]

I personally did not like FP4 Plus. I did not care for the lower contrast. It seemed dull. But Plus-X is my favorite film. And I'm doing 35 mm portraits. I like to print 5x7 though, so at that size, there is small but attractive grain. Plus-X has better contrast and creamy highlights. There are tons of mid tones. It's beautiful to me. I use ID-11 1:1 for 7-1/2 minutes and the results are consistently good. That's the most important thing. With my setup, I get consistent and wonderful results every time. My portraits look great with this film. It's nice to know that I will get great results every single time with this film. I mix ID-11 often and use it up within a few weeks too, so the fresh chemicals help.