Has anybody got any strong opinions on 1.) Plus-X Pan 2.) Bregger 200 3.) Fortepan 400 4.) Ilford SFX (is this a true IR film?)

thanks ken

-- Ken Kwok (kk353@yahoo.com), February 18, 2002

Answers

Ken;

Plus X is of course an excellent "old style" emulsion that has a geat tonal range. Given the right developer, it has a dynamic range of 1 000 000:1, 60 "Decibels", or 17-19 stops. I have yet to find a better film for portraits than PX in D:76.

Bregger also has a traditional tonality with a rating of 200. I have seen some exquisite prints from this on their own paper from LF negs.

Fortepan - I will not touch it in 35 mm or 120 size as I can never get it to dry without excessive curling. I have not yet tried it in LF, but hear it is good as far as tonality and developer tolerance is concerned.

Since you didn't ask, I still use Tri X and D76 1:1, which for my purposes is as fine and sharp as PX but has 2-2.5 times more speed. Besides, it is much more widely available.

Ilford SFX is not a true IR film, but has extended red sensitivity, and when used with a dark red filter, gives results similar to true IR film. Tried it once.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richard.ilomaki@hotmail.com), February 18, 2002.

I use Ilford sfx quite a lot-- I find the effect when used with a dark red filter to be a little more subtle than true infrared. It does have the added bonus that it can be handled like any other film. I also like it for nudes with a meduim red filter. Best,

-- Marke Gilbert (Bohdi137@aol.com), February 18, 2002.

Though not specifically responsive to your inquiry about these particular films, as far as I'm concerned (and informed minds will differ), there isn't any better combination for everything (no matter what, but especially for portraits) than Tri-X 135 & 120 (TX & TXP) @ EI 200 [w/ OG filter for women in contrasty light (a waste of film speed in flat light), green for men (when appropriate, but especially under tungsten light)] processed in D76 1:1 with benzotriazole (liquid). I use to use a lot of Plus-X also and agree that it's a fantastic portrait film, but it doesn't give me the "look" I want in the final print.

-- Cosmo Genovese (cosmo@rome.com), February 18, 2002.

1. Hmmm - I just shot my first rolls of Plus-X in about 20 years - I'll get back to you. There is an apocryphal quote attributed to Ansel Adams to the effect that "if Plus-X was the only film available I'd stop taking photographs." But he's not around to confirm/dispute it.

2-3. Never tried 'em.

4. SFX is just barely an IR film - intended to work with the newer cameras that use infrared diodes to 'count' the sprocket holes for film advance and would fog normal infra-red film. It will darken skies, but not lighten green foliage as much as true IR film. The long red range should make for light skin tones and hide blemishes.

Also, as mentioned, the SFX does not have to be loaded into the camera in a darkroom as with 'true' IR film.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 19, 2002.