A49
Does anyone have any experience with the CG512 negative developer? How does it compare, for example, with Neofin or A49 when used with Neopan or T-Max films?
Does anyone know if this so-called ‘miracle developer’, CG512, is still available to buy?
What developing chemicals is it based on, or does anyone even know the formula?
Thanks for your replies,
Andreas
PhilippeGrunchec
Has anyone had any experience with the CG512 negative developer? How does it compare, for example, with Neofin or A49 when used with Neopan or T-Max films?
Does anyone know if this so-called ‘miracle developer’, CG512, is still available to buy?
What developing chemicals is it based on, or does anyone even know the formula?
Thanks for your replies,
Andreas
= Rollei Low Speed –
zensusa
Hi Andreas,
I’ve already said quite a bit about the CG 512 on this forum. Have a look. Otherwise, you can still buy the CG 512 from a number of other retailers, or directly from the manufacturer, FOTOTECHNIK SUVATLAR in Hamburg (unless they’ve changed their policy in the meantime). Rolleis Low Speed (formerly Cube SX) is *almost identical* and can be used as a more expensive alternative (development times, processing, etc. can be carried over). Otherwise, the CG 512 compares to Rollei in much the same way as Calbe’s R09 compares to Rodinal.
Incidentally, CG 512 produces very fine-grain negatives and is *softer* than A49 and many other developers with fine grain. The best thing, however, is that it also delivers outstandingly good grey tones! It therefore makes sense to use films that inherently offer this potential (APX films or Efke/ADOX CHS, Rollei R3, etc.). You certainly can’t say that about TMax films!
The downside of CG 512, apart from the fact that it must be processed at exactly 24 degrees, is the loss of sensitivity. Generally speaking, the films yield the best results at half their nominal sensitivity. Agfa APX 400 at 200 to 120; APX 100 at 64 or 50; Maco PO 100c and Adox CHS at 50, etc. In return, you get unrivalled, rich-in-tone, fine-grain and sharp negatives. However, with some films you can also use the specified nominal speed, though you won’t then achieve the full potential this developer offers.
Until then, Lothar
A49
Hello Lothar,
Thank you for your detailed reply. The fact that film and chemical names are regularly changed, particularly by smaller suppliers, unfortunately makes it difficult to keep track of things at times.
Sharpness is indeed the biggest problem with the A49. The CG512 is certainly better in that respect. Do you know if the fine grain is better on the CG512 as well? Based on my tests so far, the A49 is unbeatable for Delta, Neopan and T-Maxe. The grey tone issue is a tricky one, as it quickly becomes subjective. Do you know the grey tones of T-Maxe in A49? I actually find them quite decent. It also surprises me that so many large-format photographers (e.g. Weidner) swear by T-Max 400 when other films produce better grey tones. But perhaps the conditions are different with KB. If you attest that CG has outstanding grey tones, which other developers are you comparing it to?
The crucial question for me, however, is: if CG512 only delivers about half of the film’s ISO sensitivity, wouldn’t one get better results by processing low-speed films with developers that make particularly good use of the ISO sensitivity (e.g. Neofin)? After all, a 100 film is far more sharp and has a finer grain than a 400 film. With the lowest-speed films, which you’d only use with a tripod anyway, the loss of speed wouldn’t be an argument against CG512.
Best regards,
Andreas
zensusa
Hello Andreas,
I’ll try to keep this brief, as I’ve already said quite a bit about the CG512 in this forum. Suffice it to say that for years the CG512 was the benchmark developer when it came to comparisons and tests, etc., precisely because it offers the advantages I mentioned earlier: sharpness, fine grain and tonal range.
I refer to grey tones when discussing developers I’ve used over the last few decades (including D76, DXX, Xtol, Rodinal, A49, R09, various Tetenal products, etc.). In this comparison, the CG512 is right up there with the best. Of course, there are other developers that perform very well too. As you yourself mention, it all comes down to personal preferences and perceptions.
So just give the CG 512 a try and make up your own mind. I myself work with medium-format and large-format cameras, and only now and then do I use my very old 35mm cameras – a Voigtländer Prominent from the 1950s and a Yashica FR 1 from the 1970s – just to keep them from rusting and for fun. That’s why the aspect of *fine grain* isn’t particularly relevant to me.
As I said before, the CG 512 can, in relation to your question
......If the CG 512 only delivers about half the ISO sensitivity, wouldn’t you get better results if you used low-ISO films with developers......
it can, of course, also be used at full speed with low-speed films (up to 100 ASA). The results are excellent here too, both with 35mm and roll film. However, at reduced speed, they’re just that bit better!
Personally, I’m not a *sharpness fanatic*; I very often work with a wide aperture and again with films that aren’t so *smooth* and tend to be a bit *out of focus*, but are instead vivid and rich in tonal range, such as ADOX 100, Rollei R3, Forte 200 and 400, and Rollei/Maco PO 100c. Unfortunately, the latter are no longer available, or only as remaining stock – at least in my fridge.
By the way, when working with my medium-format cameras and 50 or 64 ASA, I also mostly work without a tripod and, in most cases, don’t want a great depth of field.
Well, I can only repeat myself once more. Give the CG 512 a try (I’d particularly recommend it for 50 and 100 films); otherwise, for 400 and *pushed* films, if you want a fine grain, good sharpness and good tonal range, why not try the Promicrol? I’ve had very good experiences with it too and still use it today alongside the CG 512 and Rodinal (or RO 9), even though I believe it’s being phased out, i.e. no longer in production.
So see you later, and don’t just talk and discuss it – just give it a go :-)
Best regards,
Lothar
Otto
To add to what Lothar says, the CG512 normally has a development time of just over 10 minutes. This means that by adjusting the development time, you can tailor the result very well to the contrast of the subject (contrast control). Further information can be found here:
http://www.ottobausw.de/tipps&tricks.html
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
A49
All right, Lothar,
...and rather than just talking and discussing it, why not just give it a go :-)
...I completely agree with you, even though this is the place for discussion – where else, if not here... :).
At the moment, I’m also shooting almost exclusively in 13x18 large format, though with a tripod, even though the camera does have handles :) . For developing, I use R09 here for the sake of simplicity. But I do find it exciting every now and then to explore the limits of 35mm lab techniques, which I find indispensable, especially for spontaneous shots and portraits. These experiences can then be applied to medium format as well. I’ll be getting a medium-format camera for ‘handheld’ shots in the near future; I’m already looking forward to that leap in quality. :P
I also find it interesting that your focus is on grey tones. I don’t yet have enough experience to gauge just how significant the differences are between various film developers in that regard. To put it another way, apart from Neopan 1600 at its rated speed, I haven’t yet come across a film that I’ve noticed negatively :) due to its poor tonal reproduction. I’ve only heard of the films you use through the grapevine so far. I tend to stick to modern emulsions, but I’ll broaden my horizons.
Thanks and good light,
Andreas
A49
Good afternoon Mr Beyer,
Thank you for your very informative website about the CG512. It was through this that I first became aware of it, and having read the praise here in the forum, I now want to give it a try. It would be even better if your website featured sample images developed with CG512 – ideally with a zoom function or close-ups so that one can assess the grain and sheen. But that’s just a suggestion.
Best regards,
Andreas
Wolf_XL
Hello Andreas,
If you’re looking for precision and sensitivity, then the Spur HRX-2 is also worth considering. It’s easier to process (€20) and, with the T-models, offers the rated sensitivity – and with the 400 model, even a touch more.
Otto
Hello Andreas,
Thank you very much for your comment on my website. I had already considered posting comparison images. However, when you scan the prints, too much detail is lost and the grain is rendered quite differently. With print sizes of 24x30 or 30x40, the differences do become apparent.
However, one shouldn’t expect too much from the choice of film developer. To detect differences, you really need to work very carefully and test the films thoroughly before the comparison test. Simply using the development times provided by the respective developer manufacturer for a comparison is not enough. If in doubt, you cannot then determine whether the differences were due to sub-optimal development times or actually to the developer used.
In the past, I tested a whole range of developers and made comparisons. I always shared the results with Terry Schaeven. The CG512 works very well with 35mm film and roll film in the standard Jobo 1500 series tanks. This is not a given with all developers. Occasionally, you come across a developer that leads to uneven development when used with roll film in the 1520 tank.
Standard development times of over 10 minutes are important to me. By adjusting the development time, the development can then be adapted to the subject contrast. A shorter development time for high subject contrast does not immediately result in a development time of under 5 minutes.
Best of luck and kind regards,
Otto Beyer!
PhilippeGrunchec
But why develop at exactly 24°C ;) ? To get shorter processing times?
Wolfgg
Hello Philippe,
Apparently, the late inventor Udo Raffay optimised the developer so that it delivers the best results at 24°C. But you just need to carry out a quick test and develop the same image once at 24°C and once at 20°C (development time x1.4), and then you’ll know whether there’s a difference in quality with your film.
Regards, Wolfgang
