Your experiences with the developer ADX

hallertauBW · 2010-07-04T14:34:06+00:00

Hallo, ich würde mal gerne wissen welche Erfahrungen ihr gemacht habt mit dem Filmentwickler Adox ADX. Ich selber habe das Gefühl das ich noch weit weg bin...

hallertauBW

Hello, I’d be interested to hear about your experiences with the ADOX ADX film developer. Personally, I feel I’m still a long way from getting the best results. My developments so far have been: 1. Agfa APX 100, with an exposure of 100 ASA, 7 frames +/- 0.5 stops. Development time 5.5 mins, agitation once every 30 seconds. Result: I can’t detect any finer grain (subjectively) and the contrast is lower. My impression is that it’s worse than my standard development. 2. Ilford HP5, with an exposure at 400 ASA, 7 shots +/- 0.5 stops. Development time 6.5 mins, agitation once every 30 seconds. Result: Coarse grain, but this is the first time I’ve developed this film. Perhaps due to the higher speed. Apart from the grain, it’s on a par with my standard development. 3. Agfa APX 100, with 2 stops of overexposure, developed for 5.5 minutes but agitated 3 times per minute. Result: Interesting, almost no grain visible. It looks as though all the grains have been smoothed out. In the exposure series (3 frames, 1-stop difference), I can’t detect any difference. And overall, the negative looks as if there is a grey, dull emulsion over it. Base: Agfa APX 100, Rodinal 1:50, 20°C, 28 mins Generally speaking, I don’t have any measuring equipment available; I assess grain size using the 8x focusing screen. I will develop the negatives during my holiday.

GilbertMayer

Hello I’m a newcomer, or rather, someone returning to the hobby. I initially developed dozens of rolls of film using APH 09 and ATM49 and was quite happy with the results. Then the ADX piqued my curiosity and I started developing with it. In principle, I’ve stuck to the recommended times, dilutions and temperatures. I now use this developer regularly for 35mm films. APX 100 comes out brilliantly. Neopan 400 too. The ADOX CHS 50 actually turns out very nicely and with fine grain, but a shimmering film remains on the negative, which made me worry that the fixer had failed. (See my question in the forum). However, when enlarged, there is nothing adverse to be seen. These negatives also produce beautifully balanced, sharp and fine-grain prints. For medium format and sheet films, I’ll stick with the APH 09, as the balance and grain effect aren’t as significant there. I had a roll of CHS 100, which I’d exposed with a 6x9 Arca Swiss, developed in ADX. This negative captures my most beautiful backlit evening scene, with leaves in the foreground that are incredibly three-dimensional and a shimmering spider’s web. But to be perfectly honest, I can’t say whether the developer played a decisive role in the result here, or whether I simply managed to take a particularly beautiful shot. Generally speaking, I can only say that if you don’t work with proper test strips and densitometers, negative evaluation sometimes has no basis in reality. It’s only when enlarging that I realise some negatives are easier—or indeed more laborious—to turn into a beautiful image. Since I started shooting with manual split grading, my results have become much more controllable and are mostly satisfactory. My conclusion: For 35mm films that are highly recommended in the ADX table, this is a really good developer. But I don’t think it’s suitable for unusual experiments. Regards Gilbert

christer

....... I’ll be developing the photos from the negatives whilst I’m on holiday........

Only then can you really say with any certainty whether you like a particular developer/film combination. By the way, for the first test, I think that 7 shots at 1/2 a stop is too few. Either more shots or larger aperture steps – in this case, full stops.