Maurice
Hello everyone,
I
After all these years, I’ve found myself drawn back to analogue photography and developing my own film.
I
Now I’m a bit at a loss, as I’ve found that the development times for the combination of “FOTOIMPEX CHM 400” film and “ADOX ADONAL” developer are now 6–12 minutes when I’m looking for APX 400 “NEW”, RPX 400 or Kentere 400...
I
Film:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/fotoimpex-chm-400-35mm film-13536.html
Developer:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/system/?func=detailcall&wkid=16301102959256&prodid=1&artnr=3780500
I
I
Brief details of my requirements:
- no push or pull (exactly 400 ISO)
- Dilution 1+25
- Agitation time 30 seconds
me
me
Perhaps someone has some experience with this and can give me a more precise time than 6–12 minutes, as that’s already quite ‘vague’ ;D
I’d hate to ruin the films...
me
me
Many thanks and best regards from Lake Constance
highscore
My "database" says 1+25 takes approx. 6 mins and 1+50 approx. 11 mins at 20 degrees Celsius
- no guarantee -
Maurice
Hi highscore,
Thanks for your quick reply – that gives me a starting point. Maybe we’ll hear more on the subject :)
It’s just a shame that FOTOIMPEX haven’t provided any information themselves. You’d think they’d have some experience ;D
highscore
Yes, Maurice
I’m still waiting for some information from other photographers.
There are certainly other different exposure times that can serve as a guide.
I recommend the 1+50 settings.
That way, you can work with a bit more leeway.
henniero
Hi Maurice.
?
The Massive Dev Chart recommends 12 minutes for RPX400
?
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Rollei+RPX+400&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C
?
.. for APX 400 NEW: 11.5 mins
?
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=APX+400&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C
?
.. the data sheet for the APX 400 new also states 11.5 mins at ISO 320
?
http://www1.lupus-imaging-media.com/images/downloads/apx400gb2.pdf
?
So I’d tend towards 11 to 12 mins, but I haven’t developed the film myself yet, so take this with a pinch of salt..
?
Regards
Hendrik
?
Maurice
Hi henniero & highscore,
?
First of all, thanks for all the info :)
?
?
But it’s not getting any less confusing ;D
?
6 mins at 1+25, 11 mins at 1+50
?
Now there’s this as well
?
11–12 mins with 1+25 (logically, with 1+50 it would be around 18–20 mins)
?
?
But I’m not giving up; I’m sure someone else will chime in :D
Otherwise, I’ll just have to sacrifice a film ;D
?
But it’s clearly leaning towards 11–12 mins, or about 21 at 1+50 :)
Morte
Let me quote myself (from
http://forum.fotoimpex.de/index.php?showtopic=2630#entry14787 ):
€
€
€
Yes, me.
I really like it. Digitaltruth only lists a single development time (8 mins at 1+25 for Rodinal), but that made it terribly grainy for me. So I simply adapted the time for the Tri-X: 13 mins at 1+50. Absolutely wonderful results, in my opinion.
And even at ASA 3200 (27 mins, though at 22°C), it still produces surprisingly good images. It has more grain then, but it’s still lovely.
€
€
€
€
The CHM 400 can be considered identical to the (old) RPX400 and the Kentmere 400. There’s more on this in the forum if you have a look.
Maurice
Hi Morte,
?
Thanks for your reply.
?
But I think you’ll understand if I’m getting more and more confused.
With your info, I now have another piece of information that doesn’t really match the previous ones :(
?
6, 8, 11–12 mins at 1+25, 11, 13, 21 mins at 1+50
?
I’m still hoping for an official comment from FOTOIMPEX; I mean, they should know, shouldn’t they? ;D
Gast
Here are the development times for the APX 400, which also apply to Kentmere and ADOX:
€
http://www1.lupus-imaging-media.com/images/downloads/apx400gb2.pdf
€
Best regards,
Wolfgang
Maurice
Thanks, Wolfgang, I’ve already had a look at the PDF.
?
I’d go by that too, so 11:30 at 1+25 and 21:00 at 1+50.
I’m just a bit confused, though, as there’s information suggesting that 13:00 at 1+50 would be ideal ;)
?
As I said, I’m still waiting for official feedback from FOTOIMPEX (their phone support couldn’t tell me anything) here on the forum – because they should know, surely ;)
If nothing comes of it, I’ll probably have to test it myself and buy the next batch of materials elsewhere (which would be a shame) :(
Morte
At FOTOIMPEX, the most you’ll get are recommendations. They don’t manufacture the film. (See also Mirko’s statement elsewhere in the forum regarding CHM.) Your confusion stems from the fact that you’re expecting definitive or universally valid answers. But you’ll never get those when it comes to film. There are only ever guidelines, which you have to try out for yourself and adapt to your own process. There are simply too many variables in method, timing, water temperature, moon phase and air pressure. It’s like baking: the recipe tells you how much water to use for the yeast dough – and yet it still turns out too wet or too dry. It’s different for everyone – and that’s normal.
?
Generally speaking, the rule is simply this: the longer you develop, the more contrast you get. The shorter the time, the less. You can’t go wrong with the happy medium. Many people think, ‘Contrast is great,’ and over-develop their films. That isn’t a disaster in itself, but you may run into problems when printing because the grey tones are off, the shadows are washed out, and the highlights can’t be controlled. If your negatives are too flat (too little contrast), you may reach the upper magenta limit (= maximum possible sharpness) when enlarging under mixed light, depending on the type of paper and enlarger.
?
Without wanting to present my experience as universally applicable, 13 minutes should serve you well. Whether 11 or 13 minutes, that’s not such a huge difference. Whether 6 or 20 minutes, that is. I would never start with the extremes, but with tried-and-tested average values. Then it depends on how you proceed: with a scanner, with a mixed-light enlarger (which requires slightly harder negatives), or with a condenser enlarger (which requires slightly softer negatives). And it depends on your personal taste. The only rule of thumb is: negatives shouldn’t be as hard as slides (even if that looks great on the film strip). They should be defined in the shadows so that you can still make something out (i.e. the almost transparent areas). And in the highlights (sky, etc.) they shouldn’t be so dense (= black on the negative) that no light gets through. Because then you’ll have to expose for a very long time, which makes enlarging difficult and damages the image quality. A good negative looks delicate, but not ‘thin’ – in other words, subject to underexposure. To get there, you’ll have to experiment. Tables won’t help you here. And certainly not manufacturers’ specifications calculated under laboratory conditions, which have nothing to do with photographic reality. You’ve seen just how much you can trust manufacturers’ specifications, at least since the VW scandal... though I wouldn’t accuse the film industry of faking anything. They wouldn’t gain anything from that. ;) But they simply MEASURE, whilst you’re taking photos. You want good-looking pictures; they want good-looking figures. And those don’t always have to match...
?
So don’t let yourself be confused. Just have a go. It won’t go wrong. And the CHM is a good film that I use very often as a ‘replacement’ for the Kentmere, see above.
?
?
?
Edit: Changed CHS to CHM
Maurice
Thanks Morte,
I’ll just give it a go and see how it turns out ;)
I’ll be trying 13 minutes at 1+50 this weekend and will let you know how it goes here ;)
I was just a bit confused because I found a developer ratio for Ilford HP5 that worked perfectly :)
PS: What agitation rhythm did you use? 30 seconds and then every 30 seconds, or 30 seconds and 1 minute?
Morte
That business with agitating is another one of those alchemical things that works differently for everyone. This is how I do it:
?
With Rodinal (Adonal), agitate continuously for the first minute (but don’t get flustered ;) ), then three times every minute.
?
With A49, on the other hand, once every 30 seconds.
?
You’ll only notice any real differences, if at all, once you’ve tested all the parameters of your method over the course of years. The important thing is that you stick to your method (your film, your developer, your times...) for now and don’t do something different every time. Otherwise, it’s just chaos. Unless, of course, you’re a Lomographer and you’re into serendipity...
Maurice
I’ll do that – luckily I’ve bought a pack of 10 CHM 400s ;)
My Minolta XE-1, complete with a 1/1.2, 58mm Rokkor, is already looking forward to it ;D
€
Thanks anyway for the great feedback – that’s what makes forums fun :)
Maurice
I’ve just received another official list from FOTOIMPEX.
?
APX 400 (New) / Rodinal / 1+50 / 21 mins. APX 400 (New) / Rodinal / 1+25 / 11.5 mins.
?
I think I’ll start with that, as they said: ‘...Please use the times given in the attachment as a guide. In any case, use the times for the APX 400 (new)...’
?
Let’s see how it turns out :)
TiMo
Morte, I assume you’re referring to CHM in your post #11.
Morte
Morte, I assume you’re referring to CHM in your post #11.
€
Absolutely right. Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve already changed it. You always miss something... and I’m still mourning the loss of the CHS 50... ;)
TiMo
and I’m still mourning the loss of the CHS 50 … ;)
?
I can well imagine that’s on ADOX’s agenda.
Maurice
So, my takeaway from the weekend:
The settings for APX 400 (New) / Rodinal / 1+25 / 11.5 mins don’t seem too bad.
I still need to tweak my camera settings a bit; the photos have come out a bit too bright.
But that’s down to the auto exposure, which I reckon isn’t quite up to scratch on my Minolta anymore ;D
A big thank you to everyone here on the forum :)
Morte
I need to tweak my camera settings a bit now; the photos have come out a bit too bright.
Or perhaps it’s because you’ve over-developed them. In that case, the shadows stay as they are, whilst the highlights just keep developing and developing and developing... The result is negatives that have too much density (= are too bright). As I wrote above...
But do carry on experimenting. These are important lessons to learn.
