joerngreuling
Hi there,
Having recently tested the Adox CHS 50 using the Scala process, this week it was the turn of its British counterpart, the Adox CHM 125 Pro, which is identical to the Ilford FP4+. Unlike the Efke/ADOX, the Ilford/ADOX emulsion is considered to be extremely robust. There was therefore little cause for concern about delamination or similar damage caused by the chemical rigours of the Scala process, which runs at almost 40°C in a continuous-process machine, and, to cut a long story short, none occurred.
Nevertheless, the question arose as to whether the FP4+/ADOX CHM 125 Pro would produce any usable results at all in the Scala process. After all, it was rumoured in various online forums that it produced only very delicate and soft slides with poor detail. This is indeed the case at its nominal sensitivity of 125 ASA. The slides are soft, flat and poorly defined because of significant overexposure. My Ilford/ADOX, exposed in a series ranging from 50 to 400 ASA, produced the best results in the Scala process at 330 ASA: Good detail in highlights and shadows, harmonious grey tones in skin tones, solid mid-tones overall, and in the overall image very comparable to an Agfa APX 100 processed in the Scala process, which had an exposure of 200 ISO.
Similar to the APX 100, the Ilford/ADOX base is also slightly grey in colour, but perfectly suitable for slides.
Regards,
Jän
PS: Incidentally, a slight pink tinge, as feared by Roman J. Rohleder, could not be detected.
Stagirit
Much like the APX 100, the Ilford/ADOX film base is also slightly grey in colour, but perfectly suitable for slide photography.
Unfortunately, this cannot be avoided, as Ilford now only produces the FP4+ on PE base film as well.
Stagirit
I’ve never developed a black-and-white slide before, so neither Scala nor anything else.
But you might be able to reduce the base fog by:
a) not using a protective layer.
b) adding potassium bromide to the developer (2 grams per litre)
It’s usually the support material, isn’t it?
RomanJRohleder
Joern,
Back then, I wasn’t talking about “pink”, but rather “blue-violet”; that was the base colour of Ilford’s 35mm film stock up until around 2002–2003 (that’s when I stocked up on FP4+ by the metre, which should last me another three or four years).
"Pink" is a completely different ball game when it comes to film. ,-)
Since the "remake" around 2002, APX100 has been significantly clearer in both 35mm and 120 formats than anything Ilford has used in recent years for its "classic emulsions". Do you perhaps have a highly fogged APX in the cellar, i.e. one that’s past its sell-by date with a consequent high level of base fog?
“Stagirit”,
do you mean polyester or triacetate – PE isn’t used in film? My current HP5s are all cast on triacetate, be they 35mm or 120, ADOX or Oecht-Ilford.
Roman
Stagirit
The old FP4 films were all coated on acetate as well. At one point, I had a few rolls of HP5 KB on polyester. And the first batch of the 3200 Delta was also on polyester.
Either way, the current films definitely use a different base to the ones I have in my archive (FP4 that’s about 8 years old).
However, I haven’t worked with Ilford for years and have only just bought a batch of roll films (FP4 and SFX) for my holiday, precisely because, according to Ilford, they’re coated on acetate.
joerngreuling
Roman,
The 35mm Ilford FP4+ in its ADOX CHM 125 packaging was from 2005. With the Agfa APX 100, I am referring to the latest 35mm version. I have only been using this film regularly since the end of 2003.
When I compare the base of my cross-processed 100 APX films with that of the reversed Ilford FP4+, I ultimately cannot detect any difference in the tinting. Neither film is the first choice for cross-processing due to this tinting, but the Ilford is at least an option if you are looking for a ‘fast’ film for street photography or similar applications.
Otherwise, I would always opt for a film with a completely clear base first. However, there seem to be fewer and fewer usable options of this kind now that even the 35mm Efkes are grey-tinted – at least when they come in Adox CHS packaging. The Maco PO100c is apparently also a discontinued model, and the 100 Lucky is too bright for my liking. Well, what other clear 35mm films are there? Okay, the Rollei R3. But that’s even more expensive than the old Agfa Scala 200X. For street photography, given the high proportion of rejects involved, it’s simply too costly for me in the long run, given my film consumption.
Regards
Jü
RomanJRohleder
Joern,
What are your objections to the Fomapan R100? It’s made for the job, it works, it’s affordable, and it’s always in stock.
joerngreuling
Roman,
Not much, really. If FOTOIMPEX can now supply Fomapan 100R as 36-exposure 35mm film again, I’ll probably go for that. I tried it a while back and liked it, but the Agfa Scala 200X was simply faster and could be pushed without any problems. Besides, the Scala had a slightly cooler tone, which I personally prefer.
Scala is now only available as overpriced clearance stock, the stocks of Scala chemicals are also running out soon (Dormoolen is running low again) and, as it stands, there won’t be any more coming in. So I’ll soon have to get used to other films (which is why I’m currently testing a few out) and to shaking them myself. By the way: how would you agitate the Foma during development using the Fomakit in the canister (I don’t have a Jobo processor)?
Regards
Jü
RomanJRohleder
Joern,
>Not much, really. If FOTOIMPEX can now supply Fomapan 100R >as 36-exposure 35mm film again,
I don’t know. The roll-film option was actually quite appealing.
>I’ll probably go for that. I tried it once before and liked it, but the Agfa Scala 200X was just faster
In the Scala process, yes. Foma might have stepped it up a gear there too.
>Besides, the Scala had a slightly cooler tone, which I personally prefer.
You might be able to influence that with the second developer.
>By the way: how would you agitate the Foma during development using the >Fomakit in the canister (I don’t have a Jobo processor)?
A processor is cheap. Or a Comot. Or a Ciba roll holder. Temperature control isn’t really an issue there.
Otherwise... A friend of mine rolls the can by hand in a tray for 12 minutes; the TT 3s tilting rhythm will also get you the result. Or apply a flat 30% increase to start with for 3x/min tilting, and then evaluate the slides based on the projection.
>Regards
>Jörn
Roman
Christoph
I develop the Fomapan and Agfa Scala (125 ASA) in the Fomakit using a tilting development process as follows:
- Times as specified
- Tilt the primary developer continuously for the first minute; for the remaining 11 minutes of the primary development time, tilt every 10 seconds, i.e. 6 times per minute.
- I follow the same procedure for the other sheets: tilt continuously for the first minute.
-Finally, Tetanal Mirasol in distilled water
-Drying
-DONE!
joerngreuling
Christoph, Roman,
thanks for your comments and the ‘shaking instructions’. To round things off, I’m now going to test the Ilford PanF+ using the Scala process. As it’s supposed to have a clear base according to the Ilford website, it should actually work quite well. Let’s see what speed it delivers. The FP4+ delivered more than double its nominal sensitivity. If the PanF+ performs similarly and delivers 125 ISO or more, it would also be of interest to me. We’ll see
Regards
Jö
Christoph
Hello Joern Greuling,
As the PAN F+ is supposed to have a clear base, I haven’t heard anything yet, so I’ll let you know how it turned out in the Scala process. If it really is clear or fairly clear, it would be worth considering testing it in the Foma reversal kit.
Best regards,
Christoph
