Replacement for the APX 400 (old)

GerdK · 2006-01-09T20:25:11+00:00

Hallo liebe Mitleser, welchen Ersatz für den APX 400 könnt Ihr empfehlen, wenn es um 'schönes' Korn in Rodinal (oder R09) geht? Was ich mit schönem Korn me...

GerdK

Hello fellow readers, What alternative to the APX 400 would you recommend if I’m looking for ‘nice’ grain when developing with Rodinal (or R09)? You can see what I mean by ‘nice’ grain here: http://www.fotoimpex.de/forum/index.php?ac...y&cmd=si&img=76. I’ve had a bad experience with the Fomapan 400 in terms of grain (too coarse, too large gaps and too out of focus). Bye, Gerd

piu58

Fortepan 400.

silberkorn

Rollei Retro 400. Until further notice, this is Agfa APX 400, relabelled by Maco and sourced from Agfa’s insolvency estate. Best regards, Jo

arothaus

Hello, I’ve only used the APX 400 (new) in 120 format, and I think I’ll switch to HP5, which I also use as a 35mm film. In my opinion, HP5 also works well with Rodinal if you’re looking for a pronounced grain. I only recently discovered this combination myself. What’s more, HP5 pushes well (even in Rodinal). Forte 400 is significantly coarser-grained. It’s even coarser than the Foma 400, which I don’t think is bad at all, by the way. The Rollei APX isn’t really an alternative, as it’s also being phased out eventually. That just postpones the problem, and until then I’ll be stuck with overpriced APX. I’m curious to see what the valued customer will be told when the smart wooden boxes contain new contents. Probably some statement that the Rollei Retro film has been further improved on top of its already excellent qualities (and then there’ll be Efke films again). Regards, Andreas R.

MirkoBoeddecker

Foma 400 coarse-grained? Well, you can say all sorts of things about this film – like that it curls up and isn’t really 400 ISO – but it certainly isn’t coarse-grained for a non-T-Crystal 400 film. Best regards, Mirko

SamuliSchielke

Well, Fomapan 400 does look grainy in Rodinal, but so does everything else, so that shouldn’t come as a surprise. Foma’s recommended development times are, however, very short; if you develop it according to those, the result looks both flat and washed-out, which doesn’t really come across very well. It’s better to follow FOTOIMPEX’s times; then the negative is already around 250–300 ISO (I don’t have a densitometer, but I exposed the film at 320 and the shadows don’t wash out) and looks decent. Whether you like it or not is, of course, a matter of taste. If not, HP5 would be my choice.

GerdK

Foma 400 coarse-grained? Well, you can say all sorts of things about this film, like that it curls and isn’t really 400 ISO, but it certainly isn’t coarse-grained for a non-T-Crystal 400 film. Regards, Mirko [right][post="5888"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]

Hello Mirko, Yes, it is extremely coarse-grained in Rodinal, if you go by the manufacturer’s specifications. I wrote something about this in the article: http://www.fotoimpex.de/forum/index.php?sh...t=10&#entry5877 Perhaps you could point out to the manufacturer that they should provide precise information regarding the achievable speed with Rodinal. Thanks, Gerd

Roman

Gerd, Even HP5+ and TriX become extremely grainy when developed in Rodinal at ISO 400, even if you follow the manufacturer’s instructions – there is no ISO 400 film that actually achieves ISO 400 with Rodinal (even if the manufacturers specify development times for it)! The ASA/ISO standard simply has nothing in common with real-world photographic conditions; moreover, the speeds determined using the developer specified for it (ID11, if I recall correctly) cannot, of course, be applied to other developers, and Rodinal simply yields at least half a stop less with ALL films than, for example, ID11. The fact that the sensitivity figures on the packet are merely (very optimistic) guidelines for one’s own tests is actually something that a black-and-white novice learns right at the start; this has nothing to do with inaccuracies on the part of the manufacturers, but quite simply with the fact that, given the differences in various lighting and subject situations (light/dark, high/low contrast, etc.), exposure metering (meters can sometimes deviate by +/- 1 stop, and there are various metering methods...) and development (thermometers calibrated to varying degrees of accuracy, individual differences in agitation, varying mineral content in tap water, and who knows what else...), data generated under artificial laboratory conditions cannot generally be applied to real-world practice. If you want to achieve optimal results, you will NEVER be able to avoid testing your materials with your own equipment (namely the entire chain – exposure, camera, development, enlargement); data from others (whether from the manufacturer or some forum) can only ever be approximate guidelines! Roman