Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Rangefinder Forum > Rangefinder Photography Discussion

Rangefinder Photography Discussion General discussions about Rangefinder Photography. This is a great place for questions and answers that are not addressed in a specific category. Take note there is also a General Photography forum.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next

1988: a good vintage for Plus-X?
Old 06-20-2005   #1
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
 
tetrisattack's Avatar
 
tetrisattack is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Olympia, Washington
Age: 30
Posts: 386
Smile 1988: a good vintage for Plus-X?

Greetings all,

I recently found 3 100' bulk rolls of Plus-X stuffed into a drawer where I work, labeled to expire in 1988 and 1989. I have no idea for how long they were refrigerated, if ever, before being relegated to the junk drawer, but there they were. So I purloined them.

I'm barely older than this film, having been born in 1982.

One of the boxes had been opened, so that could potentially be a total loss at the hands of some overly-curious packrat, but the other two boxes were sealed. I opened the 1989 box the other night and spooled up a 12-exposure roll, just for the hell of it, and ran a "quick" test around my apartment with a spare Pentax at varying ISOs. A couple days later I developed in Rodinal 1:50 for a nominal 13 minutes, agitating for 30 seconds and then 5 seconds per two minutes thereafter. Shockingly, they came out! Here're my findings.

First of all: The undeveloped leader looks beautiful, bluish gray on one side and pale white on the other. The base is hardly any darker than my fresh rolls of 400TX. That represents some fogging over time, but by how much I can't judge. Also, the film base is labeled "SAFETY FILM" with the emulsion number, which I find amusing for some reason. It's good to know this film won't spontaneously combust.

The negatives don't look too thick or thin developed as such, nor do they look super contrasty. My scanner, an Epson 4180, thinks they look a little overexposed, the pre-scan histogram being pushed further to the right than usual, and I think it might have clipped the highlights. They look perfectly printable.

It's barely less grainy than 400TX and appears to be missing a little shadow detail, but indoors at 1/15th and f/1.4 is hardly an optimal condition by which to judge the toe of a film. There are a couple pictures of a Heinekin bottle for which I used a tripod and cable release, and they are quite sharp. Attached to this message are select results from my 12-exposure, utterly unscientific, beer-fueled test.

Summary: I think this might work if I shoot at ISO 64-100.

01: 1/30th, f/2.0 (ISO 100)
02: 1/15th, f/1.4 (Mislabeled file, probably more like ISO 64)
05: f/1.4, ISO 64 (Did not record shutter speed)
12: f/1.4, ISO 64 (Did not record shutter speed)
__________________
-- Conor Peterson
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Good, The Bad and the Expensive Fred Leica M Film Cameras 7 06-16-2005 15:41
A Good Find Heath Yashica RF 5 03-08-2005 10:30
I Need Help From A Vintage Electircal Pro d30gaijin Rangefinder Photography Discussion 4 02-15-2005 18:04
Free to a good home . . . l.mar Rangefinder Photography Discussion 8 12-15-2004 19:08
More on the vintage Leica Screw Mount (or LTM) lenses bmattock Rangefinder Photography Discussion 5 08-20-2004 08:58



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:34.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.