Which films

AnalogfotoRostock · 2022-05-02T14:00:59+00:00

Ich fotografiere analog mit einer Leica R6.2 und einer Rollei 35 und entwickle die Filme selbst, vor allem zum Scannen, aber auch um Abzüge zu belichten. Man...

AnalogfotoRostock

I take analogue photographs using a Leica R6.2 and a Rollei 35, and I perform the development myself, mainly for scanning, but also to make prints. As there are no other local retailers, I usually buy Agfa APX film from the chemist’s, with results that are sometimes good, sometimes just okay; occasionally I feel the photos could have better sharpness. As the quality of Agfa films is said to be not as good as it used to be (only the name is still Agfa), I tried the Adox CHS 100 II from Fotoimpex a while ago. The result, however, was very poor; the photos were all out of focus and hazy. Hence my questions to the group: - What experience have you had with Adox films? Could the poor result in my case be due to the fact that the ADOX film is slightly wider than other films and the strips are slightly bent in the photo scanner (I can’t make paper prints at the moment), so that only the scans are out of focus? - Which films do you recommend for black and white and colour photography? They should be suitable for scanning, but of course also for developing on paper, and the black and white films should be suitable for self-development, i.e. not via the C41 process. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Many thanks in advance for your feedback! Best regards from Rostock, Malte

Sanug

Hi Malte, It’s probably not the Adox film; it’s more likely that something went wrong during development. Are the negatives out of focus when viewed under a magnifying glass? Which developer did you use? Was the fixer perhaps past its use-by date? The CHS 100 II does, however, have some peculiarities that you should bear in mind: the clear base acts like a light guide, so there is always a risk that the first few negatives will be damaged by light when loading and unloading the film. Although the film does not need to be loaded in complete darkness, it should under no circumstances be done in full daylight. Unfortunately, this applies much more to the CHS 100 II than to other films. Furthermore, the base material is different, and perhaps not every camera or scanner can handle it. It is, however, a forgiving film; I achieved very nice results straight away with the FX-39 II. It has a very classic rendering of grey tones, high sharpness and moderate grain. I consider it very suitable for high-quality shots, but of course it always depends on careful processing. And the only way to find out is to try it out, though I can recommend the combination with the FX-39 II. Agfapan APX films are now produced by Kentmere in England and are an affordable option for beginners. I don’t think they’re bad as an all-rounder, but the big brands offer better quality, albeit for significantly more money. I find the sharpness acceptable, but the antihalation could be better. Best regards, and don’t let yourself get discouraged, Christof

AnalogfotoRostock

Hi Christof, thanks for your tips! I’ve loaded another CHS into the Leica and am giving it another go. In the meantime, I’ve got a question: which films from the ‘big brands’ would you recommend? Ilford – which one? FP4/HP5 or Delta? I like good contrast and, of course, good sharpness...

Sanug wrote Hi Malte, It’s probably not down to the ADOX film; it’s more likely that something went wrong during development. Are the negatives out of focus when viewed under a magnifying glass? Which developer did you use? Was the fixer perhaps past its use-by date? The CHS 100 II does, however, have some peculiarities that you should bear in mind: the clear base acts like a light guide, so there is always a risk that the first few negatives will be damaged by light when loading and unloading the film. Although the film does not need to be loaded in complete darkness, it should under no circumstances be done in full daylight. Unfortunately, this applies much more to the CHS 100 II than to other films. Furthermore, the base material is different, and perhaps not every camera and scanner can handle it. It is, however, a forgiving film; I achieved very nice results straight away with the FX-39 II. It has a very classic rendering of grey tones, high sharpness and moderate grain. I consider it very suitable for high-quality shots, but of course it always depends on careful processing. And the only way to find out is to try it out, though I can recommend the combination with the FX-39 II. Agfapan APX films are now produced by Kentmere in England and are an affordable option for beginners. I don’t think they’re bad as an all-rounder, but the big brands offer better quality, albeit for significantly more money. I find the sharpness acceptable, but the antihalation could be better. Best regards, and don’t let yourself get discouraged, Christof

Sanug

First things first: don’t try too many things at once; stick to a maximum of two films (one 100 and one 400 ISO) and one developer. Or, even better, start by properly testing just one film and one developer. For that, I’d stick with what you already have: Adox CHS 100 II isn’t a bad choice. Which developer do you use? Ultimately, everyone recommends what they know and are convinced of. Experience shows that eventually all the brands get mentioned. I recommend Ilford because of its good value for money. As a penny-pincher, however, I’m currently making do with APX 400 in Fomadon LQN at 400 ISO, though I haven’t tested this combination thoroughly yet. In this weather, 100 ISO is more than enough outdoors. For 400 ISO and Ilford, it’s certainly a matter of taste whether you go for the classic HP5 Plus or the Delta 400. HP5 has a pronounced grain, which you have to like. The Delta 400 requires fresh fixer and longer fixing times, and not everyone likes the look of the images. If fine grain is what matters, the Delta is certainly the better choice, but there are also people who say that although the grain on the Delta 400 is finer, it isn’t attractive. Even if such comments are tempting, I wouldn’t try everything out myself; instead, as I said, I’d choose one type of film and test it thoroughly. More important than the brand of film and developer is correct processing.

AnalogfotoRostock

Hi Christof, I’ve been using Adox Adonal developer so far, but I’m going to order the developer you recommended. I’ll give the CHS 100 another go here, but if it doesn’t fit in my photo scanner because the negative strips are a bit wider, I won’t be able to use it. Perhaps I’ll take some photos with the FP4+ / HP5+ again; I like that one too, with its coarse grain, but more for ‘artistically valuable’ photos with strong contrasts, which are then meant to look somewhat alienating… It’s a shame you can’t post photos on the forum; do you display yours anywhere online? I have a mini-exhibition on Instagram, Malte Rüther analogue…

Sanug wrote : First things first: don’t try too much at once, but stick to a maximum of two films (one 100 and one 400 ISO each) and one developer. Or, even better, start by properly testing just one film and one developer. For that, I’d stick with what you already have: Adox CHS 100 II isn’t a bad choice. Which developer do you use? Ultimately, everyone recommends what they know and are convinced of. Experience shows that eventually all the brands get mentioned. I recommend Ilford because of the good value for money. As a penny-pincher, I’m currently making do with APX 400 in Fomadon LQN at 400 ISO, though I haven’t tested this combination thoroughly yet. In this weather, 100 ISO is more than enough outdoors. For 400 ISO and Ilford, it’s certainly a matter of taste whether you go for the classic HP5 Plus or the Delta 400. HP5 has a pronounced grain, which you have to like. The Delta 400 requires fresh fixer and longer fixing times, and not everyone likes the look of the images. If fine grain is what matters, the Delta is certainly the better choice, but there are also people who say that although the grain on the Delta 400 is finer, it isn’t attractive. Even if such comments are tempting, I wouldn’t try everything out myself; instead, as I said, I’d choose one type of film and test it thoroughly. More important than the brand of film and developer is correct processing.

lantau

I wouldn’t say that the APX films manufactured by Harman UK are out of focus. Of course, there are better options out there, but we’re probably talking about the last few per cent of performance. I also remember the CHS 100 II as being very ‘clear’. A few years ago, I took various 100-speed films along to an event to compare them. The Tmax 100 was, of course, the most finely grainy and most sharp. I hadn’t used the Acros 100 because I already know it well and use it extensively. The CHS 100 II (the roll was bought back in 2015, so from the original, first production run) also looked very good. Admittedly a bit more grain than the Tmax, but still with fine grain, sharpness and a modern look. I also don’t think these films will appear any more sharp if developed in a different developer. So I’d look for the problem in the scanning process. Possibly a focus issue. A tip: scanning with a scanner is, for good reason, a dead end. High-quality scans are achieved through digital reproduction. So, a digital camera with a good macro lens and, if possible, tethering to a computer, a reproduction stand and, now new, Vaoi equipment for negative transport. It does have a learning curve. I’m still fine-tuning things myself and have been neglecting it a bit. I prefer to be in the darkroom enlarging. But with a new, very bright light source (faster shutter speeds) and the Valoi equipment, I hope to get a better handle on my vibration issues at home (first floor, on the dining table).