Gast
I’ve recently developed about 40 rolls of CHM 400 and a few other films, such as Acros (brilliant!), using Adolux ADX, and I’d now like to share a few questions and comments.
1. Overall, I’m very pleased with it, and the description of ADX as a ‘middle ground’ between, say, ID-11 and Rodinal is, in my opinion, spot on. High edge contrast with a fine grain.
2. However, it seems to me that the sensitivity response leans heavily towards Rodinal. The fact that most films benefit from 1/3–2/3 stops of underexposure is nothing new to me, but with other developers, e.g. ID-11 again, this doesn’t seem quite as pronounced to me (leaving A49 etc. aside, those are a different kettle of fish).
3. Question: what about dilutions higher than 1+24? As I never carry out ‘tests’, but start with the standard values and then adjust the speed if necessary, I’d be grateful for any practical experience.
4. The 4-minute processing time for FP4+ and CHM 125 seems a bit short to me (?)
Regards
Elmar
Gast
Re 2: Printing error! ...1/3–2/3 stops of overexposure ... naturally
Gast
Over the past few weeks, I have been working very intensively with the ADX developer. I used both Acros and APX100 film, in both 35mm and roll film formats. During the tests, I also recorded the characteristic curve. I obtained the following results when using Jobo 1510 / 1520 tanks:
APX100: I achieved the speed specified in the development table, although I had to extend the development time slightly; instead of 5.5 minutes, I developed for 6 minutes. The curve is slightly steeper in the mid-range, but slightly flatter in the shadows and highlights than the standard curve. This results in a more pleasing impression and is advantageous for subjects where the key parts of the image lie in the mid-range of the characteristic curve. Further dilution of the developer beyond 1+24 (equivalent to 1+1+48) leads to uneven development, particularly with roll films (clouding).
Acros: I was unable to quite achieve the speed of ISO 80/20 specified in the development table. I achieved ISO 64/19 with a development time of 5.5 minutes. The film reacts very drastically to changes in development parameters. An extension of the development time by 15 seconds is clearly visible; therefore, work very precisely. The standard curve is well matched with a development time of 5.5 minutes. At a dilution of 1+24 (equivalent to 1+1+48), roll films develop unevenly in a Jobo 1520 canister (clouding). With 35mm film, these areas are located in the perforation zone and do not affect the image result. These areas may disappear if more concentrate is used per development cycle (cf. APX100 above).
For both films, the fog is noticeably higher than, for example, when using Rodinal. This leads at least to longer exposure times during enlargement. The contrast is lower than when using Rodinal 1+50. I would strongly advise against using a higher dilution of the concentrate than specified.
Note: The two-component developer Spur SD2525, which is similar in concept, behaves very differently with Acros. In the highlights, the characteristic curve flattens out, and this happens as early as around Zone VIII. This is only advantageous for certain subjects.
Well, I hope I haven’t forgotten anything.
Regards, Otto Beyer!
Gast
Hi Elmar,
I can add my own experiences with other films here:
FP4@80 also takes 5 minutes of development time for me. As you suspected, 4 minutes is a bit too short. The results are good, but the exposure latitude is rather limited, as the characteristic curve for FP4 also flattens out quite a bit from zone 8–9 onwards. The highlights are similarly flat with Fuji 1600@1000, but that’s probably typical of this film (my development time: 6:45).
I really love the combination of ADX and Delta 100, with an exposure at 125 ASA and development for 5 minutes. The result, with good sensitivity utilisation, is more sharp *and* has a finer grain than with my previous standard developer, A49.
The only minor drawback of ADX is the generally quite short development time, meaning you have to maintain a particularly consistent process here, as Otto Beyer has also noted.
Regards, Manfred
Gast
Hello,
Why aren't the screening times listed for the classic films?
Kind regards,
Wolfgang
Gast
Addendum to my report above:
It has since become clear that the clouding that occurs with roll films (APX100) depends on the reel used in the Jobo 1500 system. With the new reels (thin ribs, milky plastic), this clouding does not occur. With the older, transparent reels, however, it does. For me, this is the first developer to show such differences.
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
PhilippReichmuth
Hi Otto,
Are you developing the film in a rotating drum, or does the reel produce the same effect when developed in a tilting tray?
Philipp
Gast
I develop using the tilt-and-turn method, as described in the ADX instructions. I’ve always preferred to use the old Jobo reels for roll films, as they’re easier to load, especially with roll film.
Best regards,
Otto Beyer!
