ADOX CHS50 in Neofin blue => coarse grain size

HenningH · 2006-07-25T14:21:59+00:00

Hallo, nachdem ich nun problemlos diesen Film einspulen kann (s. alter Thread), bin ich doch immer noch nicht zufrieden was das Korn angeht. Ich habe mittl...

HenningH

Hello, Now that I’ve managed to wind this film on without any problems (see previous thread), I’m still not happy with the grain. I’ve tried a few things in the meantime: had different exposures (50 ASA and 100 ASA); developed for long and short periods; rotated and tilted the tank; read a lot on forums... The negatives always stand out for their fantastic beauty, but also for quite visible grain in the areas without detail – that is, uniform surfaces and areas that are out of focus (i.e. outside the lens’s focus). Otherwise, everything was the same: Nikkormat FT2, Nikkor lenses, 1/2 ampoule of Neofin, four rinses as a stop bath, fixed in Adofix 1+4, “Ilford washing”, final rinse in distilled water with a few drops of Mirasol, enlarged in a 35mm condenser enlarger to 13x18, developed in Variospeed... Although the grain is significantly finer than with HP4+ or APX100, it is still a long way from being ‘grainless’... Is it the case that Neofin, whilst having a high level of sharpness, still produces quite noticeable grain? Are other developers preferable? Coarse-grained regards from Balve Henning

max

Hi Henning, So, enlarging KB to 13x18 means you had to search for the artists with a magnifying glass. I admit, I haven’t used 50s yet – just 100s and 25s so far – but ADOX CHS in Neofin will never be ‘grain-free’. That was never the original idea either (no idea who’s been saying that). ADOX in Neofin produces a relatively fine grain (as you say yourself, finer than APX 100) but with very sharp edges. Are other developers preferable? Well, something like A49 does produce a more ‘grainless’ result, but who wants that? ;-) You might as well just use an XP2 (not entirely serious). Regards Martin Oh, and for real sharpness combined with very fine grain, I’d actually recommend a proper film format (from 4x5 upwards).

HenningH

35mm photographs are almost indistinguishable from medium-format ones. Grain-free 40x50 enlargements with stunning tonal range await you.

That’s what it says on the Impex website... Well, it doesn’t mention Neofin... I still have quite a few KB17 negatives from my father dating back to the 60s, and compared to my results, they really are grain-free... How did a standard large print develop back then? I realise that MF and GF are in a completely different league, but I simply don’t have the equipment (apart from an Agfa Klack... or is it a Klick?). The enlarger can only handle 35mm; otherwise I’d probably have got my hands on some medium format gear ages ago... :ph34r: I’ll definitely be ordering a pack of ATM49 as well... Best regards Henning

max

Oh yes, the marketing copy... So I can confirm 30x40 grainless (and not easily distinguishable from a 6x9 ADX100 in Rodinal), though for 25s in A49... << there’s no mention of Neofin >> that’s certainly a point. 40x50 from KB is roughly 18x24 from Minox, just under 20 times the size. At that point, grain-free becomes a question of viewing distance anyway. Thankfully, the catalogue is a bit more down-to-earth than the old stuff on the page (I don’t know if we should accuse Mirko of a copying error carried over from the 25). In any case, this film isn’t a jack-of-all-trades either, but rather a specialist that produces very beautiful results. For truly grain-free results, I’d use something like the new Spur Orthopan (I’ve tested it), or the ADOX CMS 20 (it’ll be similar). The catch: a tripod, mirror lock-up, etc. Well, nothing comes for free. Regards Martin

MirkoBoeddecker

Henning, You’ve basically figured it out for yourself. Neofin Blaue isn’t a developer with fine grain processing. We have three ADOX developers in our range: 1) ATM 49: a fine-grained developer with very good sensitivity utilisation and excellent balancing properties. It produces fine-grained negatives but does not produce sharp results. 2) APH 09: a developer that produces sharp results, creates edge effects and accentuates grain. It produces the highest level of sharpness and creates high detail definition, but has a grain-enlarging effect. 3) ADX A+B. A combination of the two. It does both, but does not quite match the speed of the other two, particularly with classic cubic silver crystal films. Here you would get the best of both worlds, but would have to sacrifice some speed. Neofin would be classified as APH09 but works particularly well with the CHS 25 and CHS 50, as Beutler was a developer who specialized in developing ADOX films. The grain is visibly dependent on the developer used. Personally, I find the grain fine enough with the CHS 25 and CHS 50, and I would prefer a sharpness-enhancing developer to take advantage of the benefits these developers offer. If grain is the most important factor, then you’re better off using the CMS 20; there’s no grain to speak of, even at one metre by one metre. Best regards, Mirko

HenningH

Hi Mirko, Thanks for your reply. The negatives really are sharp. I was just surprised that combining two classic products would cause such ‘problems’. Above all, my father’s old photos didn’t have such visible grain – though they weren’t as sharp either... Anyway – now I know it’s not down to me, and that was the main point. As is often the case with typical test shots – I probably wouldn’t have even noticed it with ‘normal’ photos... So next up is testing ATM 49 – I’m looking forward to it. Best regards, Henning

max

Hi Henning, That’s right, there was also the question about your father’s photos. You can assume that, unless otherwise instructed, all labs use (standard) developers from the ‘Balanced’ category (including FOTOIMPEX Lab; see the catalogue description). Sure, it causes fewer problems in terms of contrast – a one-size-fits-all solution for all films, ideally with a single processing time for all films (have a read of Mirko’s catalogue text on Maco LP Super Grain Liquid). However, these are generally not very sharp and tend to be of a fine grain, which overall is perceived exactly as you describe: “grainless but less sharp”. Where Mirko writes “you’d get both”, that’s precisely the problem: where there’s sharpness, you can also perceive grain (even if it’s slightly larger or smaller). The other option would be a staining developer, such as Tanol, which in principle produces a (rather fine) sharp grain, but due to the staining effect with multigrade paper, it doesn’t tear up quite so spectacularly, particularly in the lighter, homogeneous areas (overcast sky). That also comes at the cost of speed. For a look like Dad’s photos, A49 is the way to go. Regards Martin

MirkoBoeddecker

Martin, What do you mean by "legacy content on the page"? I assume there’s still information from the 90s floating around on the FOTOIMPEX page. For information on CHS films, please check the ADOX website or the NEW FOTOIMPEX website (www.fotoimpex.com). Unfortunately, the German version has to stay exactly as it is because too many links point to it. If I ever get round to it, I’ll stamp “outdated” on every page. But as the source code went up in smoke along with the hard drive of my old laptop back in January, that means a lot of manual HTML work (copy & paste, copy & paste, copy & paste...) and it’s simply too hot for that at the moment.... Best regards, Mirko

HenningH

Hello Mirko, The sentence

This film is a ‘living legend’. 35mm shots are almost indistinguishable from medium format. Grain-free. 40x50 enlargements with stunning tonality await you.

can be found here and here. So, for both the 25 and the 50. The new ADOX pages now only say

Grain-free enlargements await you with CHS 50 film.

Perhaps there should be a small note about the corresponding developer... :huh: Otherwise, the new pages have a very professional design. I like it! Best regards Henning

max

Hi Mirko, I’m referring specifically to the pages linked by Henning with the little efke pictures (which, strictly speaking, don’t exist anymore anyway, as everything is now ADOX). As the current catalogue text is much more factual in this regard, I referred to it as ‘legacy content’. Best regards Martin

Gast

Why don't you try developing this film in FINOL (Moersch Photochemie)?

max

Ha, gotcha, Hi Hanspeter, Have you had a go with Finol yet? I’m a bit fed up with testing Tanol and Speed, and I’m looking for someone who can tell me whether Finol is worth a go and if it’ll take things in the right direction. Best regards, Martin

Gast

Ha, gotcha, Hi Hanspeter, Have you had a go with Finol yet? I’m a bit fed up with testing Tanol and Speed, and I’m looking for someone who can tell me whether Finol is worth a go, and if so, what kind of results it might deliver. Regards, Martin

Hi Martin What have you got me out on? Well, I’ve been doing a bit of testing with FINOL (using the 2x50ml trial pack), though so far only with the Rollei IR. After the second roll of film, I got roughly the result I expected (though I’ve hardly any previous experience with IR). As soon as I have the larger quantities of Finol here, I will test the series on the films I use in normal black-and-white photography, which are: PO100c, still D100 (using up residues), TRIX and Rollei PAN25. I will initially test exactly according to wm’s specifications and then make adjustments. BTW: I use (almost) exclusively medium format (4.5x6). I have completed tests with TANOL and the PO100c. My results (exposure times) differ from those of Moersch, and in the direction of minus, i.e. N corresponds roughly to N-1, N+1 roughly to N and N+2 roughly to N+1. However, I did not extend the times by the standard factors of 1.3 and 1.8, but by slightly less. But as I was already off the mark with N, I am now waiting for a statement from wm (currently on holiday). BTW: I generally use only distilled water with these mixing ratios (1+1+100). Generally speaking, I have mainly worked with XTOL so far, and previously with D76. What I like about the staining developers, however, are the results, which I (subjectively) find very pleasing, the excellent shelf life of the developers, and the fact that they are from Moersch (excellent customer service).

Rotti

In any case, Adox CHS50 performs very well in Tanol Speed, according to wm’s data (with an exposure at 50 ASA). It foams quite heavily, but this has no effect on the result. Very sharp, excellent tonal range, fine grain. It remains to be seen whether these results hold true for the new (roll film) batch... So far, I’ve developed Acros, Retro 100 and TRI-X (roll films) in Finol. All these combinations produce wonderful results. Best regards, Markus

Gast

In any case, Adox CHS50 performs very well in Tanol Speed according to wm’s data (with an exposure at 50 ASA). It foams quite heavily, but this has no effect on the result. Very sharp, excellent tonal range, fine grain. It remains to be seen whether the results will hold true for the new (roll film) batch... So far, I’ve developed Acros, Retro 100 and TRI-X (roll films) in Finol. All these combinations produce wonderful results. Regards Markus

Markus That doesn’t sound too bad :huh: Regarding the foaming: did you pre-rinse?

Rotti

Hanspeter, I pre-soaked the film for two minutes as per the instructions. Despite this, the developer foamed heavily. However, after checking with wm, this is normal with this combination and does not affect the (positive) result. Efke 25 also works well in Tanol Speed (though it foams too). Note the different dilution ratios (ADOX CHS 50 1+1+70 at 50 ASA; Efke 25 1+1+130 at 25 ASA). In my own experience, Tanol Speed also works very well with FP4 (200 ISO without pushing), Retro 100 KB (200 ISO) and TMax 400 (500 ISO). The standard development temperature of 24 degrees has also been quite usable recently :huh: Regards Markus

Gast

I pre-soaked the film for two minutes as per the instructions. Despite this, the developer foamed up quite a bit. However, after checking with wm, this is normal with this combination and doesn’t affect the (positive) result.

Good to know.

Efke 25 also works well in Tanol Speed (though it does show some clouding too). Note the different dilution ratios (ADOX CHS 50 1+1+70 at 50 ASA; Efke 25 1+1+130 at 25 ASA). I should be receiving my first CHS25 soon In my own experience, Tanol Speed also works very well with FP4 (200 ISO without pushing), Retro 100 KB (200 ISO) and TMax 400 (500 ISO).

Yesterday I measured the water temperature (distilled water, 30-litre tank) in the cellar. A mere 23.5°C. It’s supposed to get cooler again.

I pre-soaked for two minutes as per the instructions. Nevertheless, the developer foamed up heavily. After consulting with wm, however, this is normal with this combination and has no effect on the (positive) result.

Good to know.

Efke 25 also works well in Tanol Speed (though it foams too). Note the different dilution ratios (ADOX CHS 50 1+1+70 at 50 ISO; Efke 25 1+1+130 at 25 ISO). I should be receiving my first CHS25 soon In my own experience, Tanol Speed also works very well with FP4 (200 ISO without pushing), Retro 100 KB (200 ISO) and TMax 400 (500 ISO).

I measured the water temperature (distilled water, 30-litre tank) in the cellar yesterday. A mere 23.5°C. It’s supposed to get cooler again.

HenningH

Hello, Impatient as I am, I’ve gone and developed another CHS50 in Ultrafin liquid (without the ‘plus’) in the meantime... Less grain? Yes, but also fewer sheep and waaaay less contrast. Great stuff. :huh: The first print looked like a postcard from 1905... Oh well. I managed to get a few usable prints from a still life – they don’t look too bad at all. Anyway. The ATM49 arrived today; I’ve already mixed it up, so I’ll be giving it a go tomorrow. Best regards, Henning PS: Do staining developers work on fixed-grade paper as well? I’ve only got a condenser without a filter drawer.

Gast

Hello, Impatient as I am, I’ve gone ahead and developed another CHS50 in Ultrafin liquid (without the ‘plus’) in the meantime... Less grain? Yes, but also fewer sheep and waaaay less contrast. Great stuff. :huh: The first print looked like a postcard from 1905... Oh well. I managed to get a few usable prints from a still life – they don’t look half bad. Anyway. The ATM49 arrived today; I’ve already prepared it, so I’ll be giving it a go tomorrow. Best regards Henning PS: Do staining developers make a difference even with fixed-grade paper? I’ve only got a condenser without a filter drawer.

I can’t say whether the stain makes a difference with fixed-grade paper; ask Wolfgang Moersch about that, but I think it does. Besides, until about 4–5 months ago, I worked without a filter drawer too, just holding the filter under the lens. It’s not convenient, but it works.

max

Hello Henning, I’d recommend checking with the master himself regarding staining developers and fixed gradation. There’s a recent article that, whilst primarily focusing on fine-printing capabilities, also addresses this issue. Best regards, Martin http://moersch-photochemie.de/daten/zeigepdf.php?file=pdf/TanolundCo.pdf

Nächste Seite »