kalleschwa
Hello everyone,
I’ve been given about 20 rolls of Agfa APX 400, all exposed at 400 ISO. As I have no experience with this film and would like to produce 30x40 enlargements from the good shots, I naturally want to achieve a certain level of sharpness, but without producing too much grain.
I reckon the ADX A+B might be a good option. As I’d been meaning to try this developer anyway, I’ve already got both bottles to hand.
On the label, I see that this only achieves a speed of 250 ISO. I’m not too familiar with this: as I’ve already performed the exposure at 400 ISO, do I need to adjust the specified time somehow, or should I use a different developer, perhaps Neofin Blaue?
It would be great if someone could help me.
Thanks in advance.
Kalle
kalleschwa
Hello,
As no one had any advice, I decided to give it a go and developed the Agfa APX in ADX A+B for 11.5 minutes instead of the recommended 9.5 minutes.
I ended up with very well-defined, easily printable negatives, so I assume the exposure time is roughly right. But the grain!!!!! :D
The first 18x24 contact prints are just about passable, with some limitations. Compared to my other results (T-Max 400 in X-Tol 1:2) and the 30x40 comparison prints, the Agfa 400 has the grain I’m used to seeing with the T-Max 3200 – in fact, it’s even coarser. The acutance also leaves a lot to be desired.
Now I’m even more at a loss with my Agfa 400s exposed at ISO 400. Since the developer is generally rated quite highly, I’ll rule that out as the cause for now. Is the coarse grain down to the slight pushing, or is the film itself that coarse-grained? I have no idea, as I haven’t used either the film or the developer before. I simply don’t have any more film to test with, and I don’t want to ruin the ones I’ve already exposed.
I would be very grateful to the expert community if anyone could recommend a developer that produces slightly less grain with Agfa 400.
kalleschwa
Stagirit
I haven’t worked with the APX 400 myself yet, but based on my experience with the other Agfapan films, I can only warn you that you won’t find this balancing act particularly easy.
You could try the following:
Develop with Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C for 16 minutes. You’ll probably need to use a stop bath on the film afterwards.
A delayed development process: this involves starting with a developer (Rodinal 1+25) at around 12°C, developing the film for just under 45–60 minutes, and then warming it in a water bath to 20°C. The canister must be airtight and should contain an inert gas rather than normal air to prevent oxidation. I only know this from my father, who developed the FP4 in this way, achieving incredibly fine-grained results and good acutance.
However, testing and the development process itself are extremely time-consuming.
A two-bath developer is probably best; you can buy this from Impex or mix it yourself:
Two-bath developer at Fotolaborinfo
kalleschwa
Yes, thank you very much, but I’ve just had some unsatisfactory results during the Photoimpex two-bath developer development process.
arothaus
Hi Kalle,
Which version of APX400 do you have, the old one or the new one? The old one is supposed to be significantly coarser-grained than the new one. I’ve only used the new one in 120 format. It develops beautifully in Rodinal (1+50, 19.5 (!) degrees Celsius) or R09, and I haven’t had any problems with grain up to 30x40. Unfortunately, that’s no longer an issue now...
Best regards,
Andreas
Roman
So, alongside the Forte 400, the APX400 is/was the king of films in this class on the market (OK, the ‘new’ one might be a touch finer, but it’s still coarser-grained than TriX, HP5+ and the like); what’s more, it has a lower nominal speed than the others, so you practically have to push it at ISO 400 – which means even more grain….
Calbe A49 is usually recommended as the first choice when it comes to the finest grain and the fullest possible nominal sensitivity for 400 films (though I haven’t tried the developer with the APX 400 yet, as I stopped using it a long time ago in favour of Neopan 400...)
kalleschwa
Thank you all very much for the detailed explanations!
So, I reckon these are new films, as the expiry dates are 2009 and 2010 respectively.
Perhaps I’ve been so spoilt by my usual standard that I’m now noticing this so negatively. Mind you, that was the T-Max, not even the Tri-X. If that’s the case, I’ve used the film in the wrong way – street photography.
Well, I suppose I’ll have to get hold of some Calbe A 49 and give it a go. A friend recommended Emofin to me in an email, but I’m not really convinced there’s much difference between that and the ADX.
Kalle
cfb_de
Hi Kalle,
So, compared to TMax400, you’re not happy with the grain? The negatives from the APX400 apparently came out well-defined and easy to print.
Yes... There’s only one thing to say: you’ve seen the difference between flat-crystal films (TMax) and cubic emulsions (APX) with your own eyes... And you’ve even bathed the flat-crystal film in a recognised emulsion with fine grain, whereas you haven’t done the same with the classic one...
Sure, even among the cubic films, the APX400 is one of the coarser-grained ones (the Classic-400 might even top it), but even the ‘fine-grain’ classic emulations like HP5+, Neopan400 or TriX will still come out coarser-grained than the TMY.
That said, I can also achieve fine grain results with HP5+/Rodinal. However, for 40x40 prints I need medium format for that, whereas TMY/HRX-II manages it in 35mm. Both @400ASA.
In 35mm, I stick to HP5+/HRX-II/250ASA. For anything higher, I use TMY, or if I specifically want that reportage look, I use HP5+/Rodinal/800ASA.
Best regards,
Franz
Roman
If you’ve used the film for street photography, the grain shouldn’t be a problem at all – it’s practically part of the look...
Gast
ADX is a two-component developer, not a two-bath developer. You can find more details here:
http://www.adoxfilm.de/html/adolux_adadox_x.html
I have already processed two twin packs of ADX with different films. Generally speaking, the information on the processing sheet is reliable. This applies to both the times and the specified speeds. The table evaluates the respective film/developer combination. If you are aiming for convincing results, I believe the information should be interpreted as follows: recommended = there are better options. The results with the APX100 are truly ‘highly recommended’. The new APX400 is significantly more finely grainy than the old one. With Rodinal 1+50 and A49 1+1, you get very good results, as has already been noted elsewhere here. It is also worth remembering that many sharpness-enhancing developers are only recommended for films up to 200 ASA.
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
kalleschwa
Hello Roman, hello Franz and everyone else,
In principle, it’s true that that’s not quite how it works in street photography.
These shots are part of a longer-term project I’ve been working on for 3–4 years, which I hope will eventually lead to a major exhibition. So far, I’ve mostly been shooting with T-Max 400 or Tri-Xpan, and the first Agfa roll out of the 22 I’ve developed really doesn’t measure up. I’ll try to do a bit better with the rest of the films.
I know that you’re not supposed to change your film stock for a project like this. But the Agfas were a gift and were just lying around unused, so my natural stinginess kicked in.
So, taking on board all the great advice, I’m going to give ATM 49 1:1 a go. I’ve just prepared the solution; I’ll start tomorrow.
I find the suggestion about Stargirit’s father’s homemade soup very interesting in principle, but at the moment, with my normal daily stress of earning a living, I unfortunately don’t have time for it.
kalleschwa
