StefanCaspari
Hello,
I think this is a question for the owner!
Is there any chance that the newly produced APX films will also be available in PF 9x12/4x5 inch formats?
I’m a professional photographer and I really miss this film stock because it was very forgiving, and despite its comparatively high image quality, it was relatively easy to process in large quantities.
The CHS 50 and CHS 100 are certainly considerably better and more nuanced in terms of tonal range and colour modulation.
But for mass processing, I need films that I can develop quickly in a continuous process with reproducible results.
Best regards from Munich: Stefan
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Stefan,
We’re starting with the AP 400, as stocks of that are (finally) running low.
After that, we’ll move on to the AP 100.
All films are also to be offered as sheet films, but our packaging process isn’t finalised yet and so far no one has been able to offer a contract packaging service that meets our quality standards (interleaves, sheet checks every 100 metres, etc.) at an affordable price. If everything goes to plan, the full range could be ready by this time next year.
Some sections may be available sooner.
Best regards,
Mirko
StefanCaspari
Hello Stefan,
We’re working on the AP 400 first, as stocks of that model are (finally) running low.
After that, we’ll move on to the AP 100.
All films are also to be offered as sheet films, but our packaging process isn’t finalised yet and so far no one has offered a contract packaging service that meets our quality standards (interleaves, sheet checks every 100 metres, etc.) at an affordable price. If everything goes to plan, the full range could be ready by this time next year.
Some parts may be ready sooner.
Best regards,
Mirko
Hello Mirko!
Well, those are certainly very encouraging prospects!
Many thanks and best regards:
Stefan
CPD
Hello!
There’s always someone who’s grumbling about something or other... :lol: But it’s not quite as bad as all that, the grumbling:
I never really missed the APX 400 anyway; it never really blew me away. The APX 100, which I once loved dearly, was replaced several years ago by the FP 4+, which I’ve since grown to love just as much; and, resistant to innovation as I am, I’ll probably stick with that one.
Now, of the three, only the APX 25 remains, and I fear that, for me – and presumably for others too – there won’t be much of a market for it, even though I’m sure I’ll use it now and then. This film is simply too niche for that.
I also assume that it won’t be available as sheet film (I believe the last Agfa sheet film of this sensitivity was the Agfa Pan 25, on which the Bechers photographed right up to the end, and that in 13x18 cm!) and probably not as roll film either.
I really admire your commitment and wish you every success with the planned products. However, I have a strong fear that you’re a bit too late with this. Because quite a few people, like me, will stick with the materials they already know. Unless there’s a compelling reason to switch, as was the case back then with the Agfa materials for a sad reason. So essentially, only the newcomers remain. Let’s hope the market is big enough.
Best regards
CP
StefanCaspari
Hello!
There’s always some bloke who’s got something to grumble about... :lol: But it’s not quite as bad as all that, the grumbling:
I never really missed the APX 400 anyway; it never really blew me away. The APX 100, which I once loved dearly, was replaced several years ago by the FP 4+, which I’ve since come to adore; and, resistant to innovation as I am, I’ll probably stick with that one.
Now, of the three, only the APX 25 remains, and I fear that, for me – and presumably for others too – there won’t be much of a market for it, even though I’m sure I’ll use it now and then. This film is simply too niche for that.
I also assume that it won’t be available as sheet film (I believe the last Agfa sheet film of this speed was the Agfa Pan 25, which the Bechers used until the very end, and that in 13x18 cm!) and probably not as roll film either.
I really admire your commitment and wish you every success with the planned products. However, I have a strong fear that you’re a bit too late with this. Because quite a few people, like me, will stick with the materials they already know. Unless there’s a compelling reason to switch, as was the case back then with the Agfa materials for that sad reason. So essentially, only the newcomers remain. Let’s hope the market will be big enough.
Best regards
CP
Hello CP!
I think, fundamentally, everyone should decide for themselves which material to work with... that also depends crucially on the intended use and personal taste.
I, for example, don’t find the FP4 all that ‘thrilling’ despite its good sharpness and fine grain, because to my mind the colour sensitisation makes the skin tones come across as too ‘chalky’.
The APX has more nuanced grey tones there...
With the APX400, I find the grain more even than with the HP5 or even TriX.
And fundamentally: the super-simple and forgiving processing!
But as I said: it’s all a very personal decision.
For the 25, I’m going to go for ADOX this time, specifically the ‘more modern’ version.
Best regards: Stefan
CPD
Hi Stefan,
Actually, I agree with you on this! B)
I’m torn about the 320 Tri-X, which isn’t exactly new anymore—it was re-released a few years back. For a classic film in this speed range, it has an incredibly fine grain (although I was particularly fond of the grain in the old Tri-X films – the 320 and 400) and, more importantly, it has a wonderful tonal range.
I use the FP4+ with Tanol for architectural photography, and the HP 5+ for shooting on the go without a tripod. It has replaced its predecessor, the APX 100, in Rodinal for me. The pain of parting with it back then was intense – but I’ve now got the hang of the FP 4+ very well, and in my opinion, the best film is the one you know best. The latter is also a good excuse for my laziness when it comes to trying something new; TMax and Delta have been on my test list for a long time for good reason, I just can’t seem to get round to it. :lol:
But what I really miss is the SCALA as 4x5" roll film and sheet film. I didn’t use it every day, mind you, but I did use it as a supplement. It’s a real shame that it’s no longer available. Except as a 35mm film, and that’s no use to me.
Best regards
CP
MirkoBoeddecker
Hi CP,
I completely agree with you. To each their own. Anyone who swears by FP4 or Trix isn’t going to switch to APX, of course. Why should they?
One of the most exciting things about black-and-white photography is precisely the wide variety of materials and possible combinations. So, inevitably, any given combination will only cover a small part of the market.
We’re bringing these films back because there are good reasons for APX. Stefan has mentioned one important reason: they deliver good results with minimal effort, are very forgiving, and the grey tones on the 100 film are absolutely brilliant. APX emulsions are also relatively straightforward in terms of manufacturing complexity.
With these two films (100 and 400), we have good emulsions that we can process in all film formats and offer as an all-round material at an attractive price.
Naturally, they will also be available as roll films.
A Scala variant is also conceivable.
Best regards,
Mirko
CPD
Hello Mirko!
Thanks for your comment!
I’m now assuming that the APX 25 isn’t in the pipeline. It’s a shame, but entirely understandable. There must have been a reason why Agfa discontinued this film back then. Certainly not because of poor quality – it was, after all, one of the best black-and-white films ever made – but because of sales figures.
SCALA! If that were to work out, it would of course be wonderful. Alternatives to this film have been touted from time to time. But these were ultimately unable to hold a candle to the ‘original’. Furthermore, the ‘alternatives’ weren’t always available in the formats I use.
Best regards and – once again – good luck!
CP
MirkoBoeddecker
CP,
Whenever the topic of the APX 25 comes up, I ask in return: What exactly was different or better about the APX 25 compared to our PAN 25?
I need specific references to which parameters are better or worse.
Unfortunately, I haven’t received a single concrete answer so far......
Scala: A film not designed as a reversal film delivers usable – but rarely top-class – results when processed as a reversal.
To deliver top-class results, the film must be adapted to the reversal process.
This is no rocket science and could, in principle, be done by any manufacturer for any film.
A few thousand euros for research and the new product would be ready.
The problem, however, is that this film would only need to be produced in very limited quantities for Scala’s customer base.
In another forum, I was showered with malice by a certain party when I remarked that we could also produce 3,000 square metres economically.
I don’t see significantly greater sales potential for a modified Scala from fresh 6-month production (consistent batch-to-batch continuity). I’m happy to be proven wrong, but I certainly wouldn’t have it produced at the start.
We can give it a go. But it’s only possible once the base emulsion for the 100 is ready, and we still need capacity for the Polywarmton project...
Best regards,
Mirko
PS For the record: I didn’t mention sheet films in relation to the Scala.
StefanCaspari
CP,
Whenever the topic of the APX 25 comes up, I ask in return: What exactly was different or better about the APX 25 compared to our PAN 25?
I need specific references to which parameters are better or worse.
Unfortunately, I haven’t received a single concrete answer so far......
Scala: A film not designed as a reversal film delivers usable – but rarely top-class – results when processed as a reversal.
To deliver top-class results, the film must be adapted to the reversal process.
This is no rocket science and could, in principle, be done by any manufacturer for any film.
A few thousand euros for research and the new product would be ready.
The problem, however, is that this film would only need to be produced in very limited quantities for Scala’s customer base.
In another forum, I was showered with schadenfreude by a certain party when I remarked that we could also produce 3,000 square metres economically.
I don’t see significantly greater sales potential for a modified Scala from fresh 6-month production (consistent batch-to-batch consistency). I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I certainly wouldn’t have it produced at the start.
We can give it a go. But it’s definitely only possible once the base emulsion for the 100 is ready, and we also need capacity for the Polywarmton project...
Best regards,
Mirko
PS For the record: I didn’t say ‘sheet film’ in relation to the Scala.
Hi Mirko!
I’ll be testing the Pan 25 as a PF (as I mentioned above).
I’m curious to see how it performs in the highlights with slight overexposure (for the purpose of underexposure to assess contrast).
I’ve got some architectural photography coming up soon.
Speaking of grey tones: I’m currently taking the first shots for my exhibition: plants in the greenhouse and outdoors, some very early in the morning in beautiful, flat backlighting; on CHS 100 in PF.
THAT is what grey tones are all about... to die for!!
Best regards, Stefan
CPD
CP,
Whenever the topic of the APX 25 comes up, I always ask: What exactly was different or better about the APX 25 compared to our PAN 25?
I need specific references to which parameters are better or worse.
Unfortunately, I haven’t received a single concrete answer so far......
Well, I have to admit to my shame that you’ve caught me off guard! I didn’t know anything about this film until just now. But I’ll give it a go as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it’s not 120, but I don’t want to moan again. :lol:
Scala: A film not designed as a reversal film delivers usable—but rarely top-notch—results when processed as a reversal.
To deliver top-notch results, the film must be adapted to the reversal process.
It’s not rocket science and, in principle, could be done by any manufacturer for any film.
A few thousand euros for research and the new product would be ready.
The problem, however, is that this film would only need to be produced in very limited quantities for Scala’s customer base.
In another forum, I was showered with malice by a certain party when I remarked that we could also produce 3,000 square metres economically.
I noticed that in the other forum! Given what else goes on in that ‘certain forum’, you certainly shouldn’t let it give you any grey hairs.
I do read a lot of the posts. Not just in the German-language forums, but in the English-language ones as well. Based on the comments made there, I can certainly imagine that a Scala successor would find its enthusiasts. And if you say that nothing stands in the way of producing even smaller quantities, why should anyone doubt that? After all, you’re the one taking the business risk.
I don’t see significantly greater sales potential for a modified Scala from a fresh 6-month production run (consistent batch-to-batch connections). I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I certainly wouldn’t have it produced at the outset.
And what if you set up a ‘subscription list’? Once a certain number of units have been ordered, the little machine gets started. That sort of thing still existed in the early 80s with glass plates for photogrammetry. Back then, Gevaert only started production once they had enough orders. Naturally, they ended up producing more than was ordered, and they also had many university institutes as reliable customers.
You draw up a list like that. CP (and the other interested parties) then make a deposit and get the Scala a few per cent cheaper once it’s finished. The others who didn’t sign up to the list will just have to accept that the film might be sold out and also more expensive. It’s only fair! – Isn’t it?
Best regards
CP
CPD
Hello!
Just one more thing, although it’s only tangentially related to the topic at hand. It’s something I’ve noticed quite often, though I’m not sure what the solution is.
I was just searching various forums (both German and English-language ones) for the Pan 25. Apart from the fact that this isn’t exactly made any easier by the search functions (just try typing ‘Pan’ into any forum), the CHS 25 and the Pan 25 are all jumbled together, and a huge number of people seem not to know the difference. The replies are therefore often useless, as you don’t know which of your company’s films they’re referring to.
I’ve noticed something similar time and again with CHM and CHS. Perhaps clearer naming conventions could help? Or sending a systematic list of the key differences – not just the nomenclature – to the main forums? In short, I don’t know! But if the Agfa successors are now called ADOX as well... Some people really seem to be at a loss... :lol:
Best regards
CP
bernhardmangelsgmxde
As far as overlaps go, the only ones with the same speed are on the CHS / Pan 25. CHM is only available at 125 and 400, while CHS comes in 25, 50 and 100.
CHM will be history soon anyway. But while we’re on the subject of changing names: I wouldn’t mind ADOX KB 14 for the CHS 25 either... (I’ve still got one of my grandad’s left)
StefanCaspari
Hello, you 'tech gurus'!
Just a very simple question: do you actually take photos, or are brand names and spec sheets more important to you?
CHS or CHM is clearly defined in the catalogue as single-layer or multi-layer (i.e. single-layer and multilayer film).
I think that, particularly when it comes to ‘ADOX’, the descriptions of the film characteristics are quite detailed and accurate.
But regardless of what it says and where it’s written: why not give it a go and find the film/developer combination that works best for you....
No hard feelings, and warm regards from Munich from someone who learnt the craft of photography in the 70s, when there were still plenty of good and interesting films available, who then had to endure a good 20 years of the range becoming ever narrower and more meagre (and not just for personal hobby use, but also for client commissions), and who is now absolutely delighted with films like CHS, Ortho, Pan 25 and the revival of the APX range!
Warm regards: Stefan
CPD
Hello!
Hello, you ‘tech gurus’!
Just a very simple question: do you actually take photos yourselves, or are names and spec sheets more important to you?
Names are important to me insofar as I want to know whether a film discussed in forums is actually the one I’m looking for information on. It has nothing to do with being a ‘techie’ at all, and you do take part in forums too, don’t you?
CHS or CHM is clearly defined in the catalogue as single-layer or multilayer
(i.e. single-layer and multilayer film)
I think, particularly when it comes to ‘ADOX’, the descriptions of the film characteristics are quite detailed and accurate.
I’m not aware of anyone disputing that – certainly not me. The fact is, however, that I don’t want to rely on ‘data sheets’ alone and am quite keen to know what experiences others have had with a film. But then I need to know that they’re also writing about the film I want to find out about.
But regardless of how or where it’s written: why not give it a go and find the film/developer combination that works best for you....
Thanks for the tip! I’ve only been taking photos since yesterday...
This trial-and-error business is really a product of the internet age. In the old days, you developed the film according to the instructions and the result was already pretty close to ideal. Then came a bit of fine-tuning, and the process was sorted after just a few rolls. Nowadays, everyone in every forum is quick to point out that there’s no getting round doing your own personal testing. It’s just odd: due to time constraints, I’m occasionally forced to send my films to a professional lab, and the results still turn out very well. Of course, I do make sure to tell the people there that I suffer from overexposure and what type of enlarger I use.
No hard feelings, and warm regards from Munich from someone who learnt the craft of photography in the 70s, when there were still plenty of good and interesting films available, who then had to endure a good 20 years of the range becoming ever narrower and more meagre (and not just for personal hobby use, but also for client commissions), and who is now absolutely delighted with films like CHS, Ortho, Pan 25 and the revival of the APX range!
Warm regards: Stefan
I was still at school in the 70s! But I didn’t get the impression back then that the range of black-and-white films was any wider than it is today, especially as I was limited to whatever the local specialist shop had in stock.
When it comes to colour reversal film, I certainly don’t miss the films of that era. The only usable reversal film back then was Kodachrome, and unfortunately that was too expensive for me. In the black-and-white sector, there were things like Ilford’s HP 4 – an absolute abomination – and I didn’t find the Agfa Pan 400 and its East German counterpart much better; really, only TriX remained. I probably don’t need to point out that I only shot 35mm back then, so sharpness played a rather significant role for me. The 15 DIN films of that era (Agfa and Orwo) were very good, but they regularly demanded the use of a tripod.
Best regards
CP
StefanCaspari
Hello!
Hello, you ‘tech gurus’!
Just a very simple question: do you actually take photos yourselves, or are names and spec sheets more important to you?
Names are important to me insofar as I want to know whether a film discussed in forums is actually the one I’m looking for information on. It has nothing to do with being a ‘techie’ at all, and you do take part in forums too, don’t you?
CHS or CHM is clearly defined in the catalogue as single-layer or multilayer
(i.e. single-layer and multilayer film)
I think, particularly when it comes to ‘ADOX’, the descriptions of the film characteristics are quite detailed and accurate.
I’m not aware of anyone disputing that – certainly not me. The fact is, however, that I don’t want to rely on ‘data sheets’ alone and am quite keen to know what experiences others have had with a film. But then I need to know that they’re also writing about the film I want to find out about.
But regardless of how or where it’s written: why not give it a go and find the film/developer combination that works best for you....
Thanks for the tip! I’ve only been taking photos since yesterday...
This trial-and-error business is really a product of the internet age. In the old days, you developed the film according to the instructions and the result was already pretty close to ideal. Then came a bit of fine-tuning, and the process was sorted after just a few rolls. Nowadays, everyone in every forum is quick to point out that there’s no getting round doing your own personal testing. It’s just odd: due to time constraints, I’m occasionally forced to send my films to a professional lab, and the results still turn out very well. Of course, I do make the staff there aware that I suffer from overexposure and what type of enlarger I use.
No hard feelings, and warm regards from Munich from someone who learnt the craft of photography in the 70s, when there were still plenty of good and interesting films available, who then had to endure a good 20 years of the range becoming ever narrower and more meagre (and not just for personal hobby use, but also for client commissions), and who is now absolutely delighted with films like CHS, Ortho, Pan 25 and the revival of the APX range!
Warm regards: Stefan
I was still a schoolboy in the 70s! But I didn’t get the impression back then that the range of black-and-white films was any greater than it is today, especially as I was also dependent on whatever the local specialist shop had in stock.
When it comes to colour reversal film, I certainly don’t miss the films of that era. The only usable reversal film back then was Kodachrome, and unfortunately that was too expensive for me. In the black-and-white sector, there were things like Ilford’s HP 4 – an absolute abomination – and I didn’t find the Agfa Pan 400 and its East German counterpart much better; really, only TriX remained. I probably don’t need to point out that I only shot 35mm back then, so sharpness played a rather big role for me. The 15 DIN films of that era (Agfa and Orwo) were very good, but they regularly cried out for the use of a tripod.
Best regards
CP
Hello CP!
Don’t get your knickers in a twist!
But perhaps you’ll simply take my word for it that the range was wider and ‘more interesting’.
These are brand names and film names, not a matter of opinion... (or do you know what a Verichrome-Pan was?)
And when it came to slide film, I found the Agfachrome 50S and -L miles better than the Ektachrome X, which was still running on E-4.
But never mind: I don’t want to show off here, but in my day-to-day work I’ve simply come to realise that what really makes you good at your job and wins clients over is consistent self-testing and continuous development. From job to job.
That was the point of my question about whether you take photos too.
As for CHS, the ADOXE films were already off the market back then – the EFKES weren’t ‘marketable’ in the professional sector (at least here in Munich).
Today, I’ll admit quite openly, I experience a ‘tonal ecstasy’ with the CHS100 that makes me cheer.
Warm regards: Stefan
CPD
[quote name=''Stefan'']Hi CP!
Don’t get your knickers in a twist![/quote]
I’m not!
[quote name=''Stefan'']But perhaps you’ll simply take my word for it that the range was wider and ‘more interesting’.[/quote]
Although, of course, one could argue about what constitutes ‘interesting’...
[quote name=''Stefan'']These are brand names and film names, not a matter of opinion... (or do you know what a Verichrome-Pan was?)
And when it came to slide film, I found the Agfachrome 50S and -L to be miles better than the Ektachrome X, which was still running on E-4.[/quote]
I felt the same way, but both (Ekta and Agfachrome) were miles worse than Kodachrome back then – that only gradually started to change in the 1980s. But that’s a matter of opinion, of course.
[quote name=''Stefan'']But never mind: I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all here, but in my day-to-day work I’ve simply come to realise that what really makes you good at your job, and wins clients over, is consistent self-assessment and continuous improvement. From job to job.[/quote]
We probably differ a bit on that. You’re a professional photographer. I only take photographs as part of my job (heritage conservation, building research, archaeology) and, of course, as a hobby as well. Photography is only a small, albeit much-loved, part of what I do.
[quote name=''Stefan'']That was the point of my question: whether you also take photographs.[/quote]
This question is asked regularly and frequently in all sorts of German-language forums – never in English-language ones. I can’t quite see the point of this question.
Of course, there are plenty of people out there who photograph nothing but grey cards. But that shouldn’t concern us much here. After all, these people generate a certain amount of turnover and thus help to sustain the experience of the ‘medium’ of film. And with their experiences, these ‘testers only’ can ultimately help me too.
In any case, I wouldn’t dream of shooting my commissioned photos on Verichrome (yes, I remember that one too). Supposedly great grey tones or not.
I simply don’t believe the range was better in the 70s, perhaps just wider. But apart from Agfa, Ilford, Kodak and Orwo, I knew of nothing else back then, and I think I would have been happy to have films like those available today. So no cultural pessimism here. And, oh, what interesting things there used to be back then.
I’ve spent a lot of time in all sorts of archives with historical photographs; some dating back to the 19th century. I’m always struck by what was possible back then. People knew what they were doing and generally had to work with far less reliable equipment than we do today. Enlargements of glass negatives showing Istanbul in the 1920s made a very strong impression on me. But is that a reason to mourn materials that are supposedly lost?
As for the CHS, I’m glad you’re happy with it. I used it for a while (perhaps 20 rolls of 120) when it was still called Efke. I liked it very much too. However, it was not least the comments on the internet about its unreliability that put me off it. I simply cannot afford to take shots that might be irreproducible using a film I cannot rely on. Perhaps the online reports weren’t true at all... But hand on heart, what would you take with you to a country like Yemen, for example, if you knew for certain that this would probably be the only trip of your life there? Or if you – my profession can certainly be a sad one – had to document a building in the Upper Palatinate that was destined for demolition but was unique in terms of architectural history.
I don’t want to ‘dither about’ here any longer, as we say in Swabian, as that would inevitably lead to a situation like in another forum, but I think you’ll agree that I’m gathering others’ experiences regarding photographic materials and, in doing so, naturally running the risk of falling for internet hoaxes.
Best regards
CP
StefanCaspari
[quote name=''Stefan'']Hi CP!
Don't get your knickers in a twist!
I’m not at all!
[quote name=''Stefan'']But perhaps you’ll simply take my word for it that the range was wider and ‘more interesting’.[/quote]
Although, of course, one could argue about what constitutes ‘interesting’...
[quote name=''Stefan'']These are brand names and film names, not a matter of opinion... (or do you know what a Verichrome-Pan was?)
And when it came to slide film, I found the Agfachrome 50S and -L to be miles better than the Ektachrome X, which was still being processed in E-4.[/quote]
I felt the same way, but both (Ekta- and Agfachrome) were miles worse than Kodachrome back then – that only gradually started to change in the 1980s. But that’s a matter of opinion, of course.
[quote name=''Stefan'']But never mind: I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all here, but in my day-to-day work I’ve simply come to realise that what really makes you good at your jobs and wins clients over is consistent self-testing and continuous development. From job to job.[/quote]
We probably differ a bit on that point. You’re a professional photographer. I only take photographs as part of my job (heritage conservation, building research, archaeology) and, of course, as a hobby as well. Photography is only a small, albeit much-loved, part of my work.
[quote name=''Stefan'']That was the point of my question: whether you also take photographs.[/quote]
This question is asked regularly and frequently in all sorts of German-language forums – never in English-language ones. I can’t quite see the point of this question.
Of course, there are plenty of people out there who photograph nothing but grey cards. But that shouldn’t concern us much here. After all, these people generate a certain amount of turnover and thus help to sustain the experience of the ‘medium’ of film. And with their experiences, these ‘testers only’ can ultimately help me too.
In any case, I wouldn’t dream of shooting my commissioned photos on Verichrome (yes, I remember that one too). Supposedly great grey tones or not.
I simply don’t believe the range was better in the 70s, perhaps just wider. But apart from Agfa, Ilford, Kodak and Orwo, I knew of nothing else back then, and I think I would have been happy to have films like those available today. So no cultural pessimism here. And, oh, what
interesting things there used to be back then.
I’ve spent a lot of time in all sorts of archives with historical photographs; some dating back to the 19th century. I’m always struck by what was possible back then. People knew what they were doing and generally had to work with far less reliable equipment than we do today. Enlargements of glass negatives showing Istanbul in the 1920s made a very strong impression on me. But is that a reason to mourn materials that are supposedly lost?
As for the CHS, I’m glad you’re happy with it. I used it for a while (perhaps 20 rolls of 120) when it was still called Efke. I liked it very much too. However, it was not least the comments on the internet about its unreliability that put me off it. I simply cannot afford to take shots that might be irreproducible using a film I cannot rely on. Perhaps the online reports weren’t true at all... But hand on heart, what would you take with you to a country like Yemen, for example, if you knew for certain that this would probably be the only trip of your life there? Or if you—my profession can certainly be a sad one—had to document a building in the Upper Palatinate that was slated for demolition but was unique in terms of architectural history.
I don’t want to ‘dither about’ here any longer, as we say in Swabian, as this would inevitably lead to a situation like in another forum, but I think you’ll agree that I’m gathering others’ experiences regarding photographic equipment and, of course, taking the risk of falling for
internet hoaxes.
Best regards
CP
[/quote]
Hello CP!
You’re absolutely right!
For me, the CHS is ‘just for art’ – just for myself – and helps me photograph the very reason why I switched to photography back then and said goodbye to ‘Prosecutor Caspari’. - So to speak, for the amateur photographer I’ve kept within me (though it must be said that the original ADOX films were once virtually standard material for journalists, and they can’t repeat anything either!)
For work, I need reproducible and predictable parameters. That’s why I asked about the APX as a PF at the start.
Everyone has their own philosophy on this...
And to answer your question about Yemen quite honestly: I’d definitely work with redundancy there, and take a high-resolution digital camera along with the APX and Ektachrome! (And send the storage media home separately).
Best regards: Stefan
KlausWehner
Hi Stefan,
I highly recommend ADOX 25 – especially for large format!
Reasons: 1. The rated sensitivity is actually achieved (there are very few films that manage this)
2. Problem-free processing in many developers.
3. Very good, true-to-eye grey-scale reproduction.
4. Fine grain and high sharpness go without saying.
5. Unusually good detail in the shadows.
Not unimportant to me: I can also process the film (with minor limitations) as a black-and-white slide.
(Limitation means: the maximum density reaches 3.10...3.30)
I’ve just ordered some Adox Pan 25 sheet film. My project: 8x10-inch black-and-white slides!
Best regards,
Klaus
StefanCaspari
Hi Klaus!
What a lovely project with the slides!
Pop them in the lightbox, then get right up close – or even use a magnifying glass – to search for details and micro-scenes: all the things you normally wouldn’t notice when viewing the whole thing in person.
That’s what I love about large format – those incredible details!
I’ve just ordered two pan25 PFs as well, and I’m going to try my hand at architectural photography.
Thanks for your detailed description!
Best regards: Stefan
