Gast
Hi,
I’ve got two questions about this film:
1. What’s the grain like? Is it similar to Kodak Plus-X and Ilford FP4, or more pronounced?
2. Is the film cast on a clear base, meaning it can be reversal-processed into a black-and-white transparency? If so, what ISO setting should it be exposed at?
Regards,
Fred
MirkoBoeddecker
Fred,
As far as the quality is concerned, it’s just as I’ve often said in various places: it depends.
It depends on which developer you use. And because not all films perform equally well in the same developer, it’s difficult to make a fair comparison.
ADOX, for example, comes out superbly in APH09, Neofin or D76/ID11. It produces very brilliant negatives with high acutance and detailed plasticity.
Unfortunately, these developers all tend to produce a rather coarse grain. In a fine-grain developer (ATM49), it becomes significantly finer-grained but loses some of its advantages.
The ADOX is a classic film with cubic silver crystals and is therefore, from the ranges of the two major manufacturers, most comparable to the films you mentioned. The Fuji Acros would be even more comparable in terms of modulation (the conversion of colours into grey tones).
Overall, you don’t buy an ADOX CHS 100, a PlusX or an FP4 for its (fine) grain. If fine grain is your top priority, you’d be better off buying a flat-crystal film like Tmax or Delta 100. They are significantly finer-grained.
As for me, I’m not a fan of these films because I find that the images look better with a bit of grain. Subjectively, they seem more beautiful to me because the eye can orient itself on the grain, and you can immediately tell from a 30x40 print of a 35mm negative that it’s real photography and not a pixelated image ;-)
Besides, the fine grain is so fine that at a normal viewing distance (about 40 cm for a 30x40 cm print and more for larger formats) it doesn’t look distracting at all.
In black-and-white photography, I pay particular attention to the light and its atmosphere. The CHS 50 and CHS 100 capture this fantastically for me. The resulting images look exactly as I had imagined them when taking the shot. That is why these two are my films of choice.
Whether the technical parameters, such as graininess or resolution per mm, are a few percentage points lower than those of other films is of secondary importance to me and should be so for all users of these films as well. Especially when the right developer combination still needs to be found.
In this context, we can easily move on to your second question: the developer used in the reversal process (Eukobrom or Fomadon) is actually quite potent but produces a coarse-grained result.
The slides therefore turn out relatively grainy, and given the expected long viewing distance (projection), I would almost be inclined to go for the CHS 50 ;-)
No, the KB films aren’t cast on a completely clear base – but they still produce good B&W slides because even a standard base can be bleached to be relatively clear.
Best regards,
Mirko
cfb_de
Hi Mirko,
Whilst I’m currently burning the midnight oil with enlargements, *I simply have to reply to your post.
> The ADOX, for example, comes out great in APH09, Neofin or D76/ID11.
I’m more into the Rodinal look. At 24°C, even the 50s gets a hint of grain, and it’s quite nice.
> Royalty. Anyone who puts that at the top of their list would be better off with a flat-grain film
Nope! Anyone who likes and wants grain would be better off buying an HP5+. You won’t be happy with TM films. If you don’t like grain: 100TMax with HRX-II – that’s easily good enough for prints up to 30x40 from the negative. Andreas Weidner is surprised, and I agree with you.
> Atmosphere. The CHS 50 and CHS 100 capture this fantastically for me.
I haven’t tested the 100 yet. But with the 50, I agree with you. It’s bloody good that the 50 is still available! (Even if the base material could do with a bit of a change – I won’t bring up the backing paper issue again here. When I get the chance, I’ll switch my K-60 over to the thinner stuff.)
> A few percentage points lower in terms of quality or resolution per mm than other films
But compared to the 50, there are very few films that are of lower quality and have lower resolution. Primarily flat-crystal films with effectively the same speed, or document films such as Imagelink or Copex.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Hi Franz,
I think that when 'grain' was mentioned as the top priority, they meant fine grain. That makes Mirko's suggestion make sense, even though I personally don't like this 'grainless' fusel look.
Best regards
Martin
MirkoBoeddecker
That's right – it was a bit confusing at first – I've changed it.
Thanks,
Mirko
