Differences APH09, Adonal, ADX, ATM49

GilbertMayer · 2010-02-19T23:25:22+00:00

Hallo zusammen, Ich entwickle meine Filme bisher zur Hauptsache mit APH09 und bei 400 ASA Filmen mit ATM49. Beide Entwickler liefern nachvollziehbare Result...

GilbertMayer

Hello everyone, So far, I’ve mainly been conducting the development of my films using APH09, and ATM49 for 400 ISO films. Both developers produce results that match the descriptions provided by FOTOIMPEX. So APH09 produces sharpness, high-contrast results and a slight richness, whilst ATM49 develops in a very balanced way, though not quite as crisp. For future development adventures, I’m now interested to know if anyone can tell me of a visible difference between APH09 and Adonal or Rodinal. It would also be interesting to hear about experiences with the two-component developer ADX, whose specifications sound very promising. I’m gradually narrowing down my film choices to medium format CHS 100 and Fomapan 400, although I’ve now ordered some Superpan 200 from Rollei to have a comparison. For 35mm, I’m using Adox CHS 50, APX and Rollei Retro 100, Fuji Acros 100 and Fuji Neopan 400 (sold by the metre from Freestyle). I’d be grateful for any feedback. Best regards, Gilbert

oliverdienst

Hello, Here are my experiences with Rodinal and APH09: I develop my films (Kodak 400TX, Ilford HP5+, ClassicPan200) mainly using APH09 (still the 1+40 version) and Rodinal, both at dilutions of 1+50 (1+40) and 1+25 (1+20). As you’ve already described, both developers produce very high levels of sharpness and contrast. The only difference I notice is the granularity. Films developed in Rodinal have slightly lower levels of granularity than those developed in APH09. I can’t comment on ADX, as I don’t use it. However, I do sometimes use Diafine as a two-bath developer. The processing is very simple: Solution 1 in the tank, development for approx. 4:00 mins, drain; Solution 2 in the tank, development for approx. 4:00 mins, drain, rinse with water (no stop bath!); fix, done. The temperature of the developer is not important within certain limits, nor is the time. I haven’t had any problems with the negatives yet; they’ve always been easy to enlarge. And the great thing about Diafine: after developing 20 films with each of solutions A and B, top up 700ml of the used solution with 300ml of fresh solution and develop another 20 films. I’ve been using Diafine with this regeneration method for over two years now and haven’t noticed any change in the processing results. Best regards, Oliver.

GilbertMayer

Hello, Here are my experiences with Rodinal and APH09: I develop my films (Kodak 400TX, Ilford HP5+, ClassicPan200) mainly using APH09 (still the 1+40 version) and Rodinal, both at dilutions of 1+50 (1+40) and 1+25 (1+20). As you’ve already described, both developers produce very high-sharpness and high-contrast results. The only difference I notice is the granularity. Films developed in Rodinal are slightly (but clearly!) finer in terms of fine grain than those developed in APH09. I can’t comment on ADX, as I don’t use it. However, I do sometimes use Diafine as a two-bath developer. The processing is very simple: Solution 1 in the tank, development for approx. 4:00 mins, drain, Solution 2 in the tank, development for approx. 4:00 mins, drain, rinse with water (no stop bath!); fix, done. The temperature of the developer is not important within certain limits, nor is the time. I haven’t had any problems with the negatives yet; they’ve always been easy to enlarge. And the great thing about Diafine: after developing 20 films with each of solutions A and B, top up 700ml of the used solution with 300ml of fresh solution and develop another 20 films. I’ve been using Diafine with this regeneration method for over two years now and haven’t noticed any change in the processing results. Best regards, Oliver.

Thank you very much, Oliver That’s exactly what I was interested in. So one could say that Rodinal maintains the quality in terms of sharpness and contrast, but produces a finer grain than APH09. So the development of the chemistry between 1918 and 1954 hasn’t gone unnoticed. In which cases do you resort to Diafine? I use ATM49 for the more sensitive films, as I fear APH09 produces too much grain. But, as expected, acutance is lost. Does a two-bath developer really improve this noticeably? Best regards, Gilbert

oliverdienst

...So you could say that Rodinal retains the same level of sharpness and contrast, but produces a finer grain than APH09. So the development of the chemistry between 1918 and 1954 hasn’t been without its impact...

Yes, I suppose you could put it that way. However, my experiences stem more from everyday use rather than from comparative tests under ‘laboratory conditions’. Perhaps there is someone here who has carried out such tests. I read somewhere once that Rodinal had been further developed over the years in terms of grain suppression – I just can’t remember where. I don’t know what the situation is regarding further development of the R09 (now APH09). I could only conclude that I saw no differences between the old Orwo R09 (bought in the 1980s and used until around 2007) and its ‘successor’ APH09.

...In which situations do you resort to Diafine? I use the ATM49 for the more sensitive films, because I’m worried that APH09 will produce too much grain. But, as expected, acutance is lost. Does a two-bath developer really improve this noticeably?

I mainly use Diafine when I’m feeling lazy – that is, when I can’t be bothered to keep an eye on exact temperatures and times. I also like to use it when I know in advance that the contrast ratios in the shot would be too high, even for my preference for ‘harder prints’. With Diafine, I haven’t really paid much attention to acutance yet – but it isn’t as strong as with Rodinal/APH09. Best regards Oliver

GilbertMayer

So, I’ve now tested the ADX two-component developer myself. So far, I’ve processed a few rolls of Legacy Pro 400 and Fuji Neopan 400, as well as an ADOX CHS 50. The results with the Neopan are absolutely impressive. I made my first 40x30 print on Adox baryta paper from a 35mm negative from this series. It shows wonderful grain and crisp sharpness. Although I’m a beginner, it looks like a proper fine art print. I’ve had it framed and, naturally, my friends don’t dare say anything negative about it. With the CHS 50, I noticed a greenish fog. At first I thought I hadn’t fixed it properly, so I put it back in the canister and fixed it again. The fog remained. When printing, however, this negative also proved to be well-balanced and has good acutance at the edges. The characteristics of CHS films are simply different. I like both. To show a few examples, I’ve created a small portfolio in the members’ gallery titled ‘Baselworld’ using the combination of Neopan 400 and ADX. Here I’ve deliberately enlarged the images a bit more aggressively, and in my opinion it works wonderfully. So for anyone who hasn’t tried this developer yet: it’s well worth a go.