thms
Hi everyone,
I developed my first roll of film yesterday – an APX100 using Rodinal 1+50 at 20 degrees for about 12 minutes.
Unfortunately, the results are very disappointing. Here’s a sample image (the dust is from the scanner):
https://photos-3.dropbox.com/t/2/AAAoIq8GTOrXn8OpdgSKozxKni3nm_GWLuiZ4OUtaRprCg/12/6357747/jpeg/32x32/1/1439830800/0/2/img057.jpg/CPOFhAMgASACIAMgBCAFIAYgBygBKAIoBw/pYqeKZ60pEIdStQdM8y6_6b8IobLwRphAMFu70td770?size=1024x768&size_mode=2
Do you perhaps have any idea what might have gone wrong? The other photos look similar. Especially in areas that should be a bit darker, the image is just black. Is the development time too short? I’m really at a loss, unfortunately.
Neutrino
Dark areas of the image that no longer show any detail, but are simply black as you describe, suggest that the exposure was too low. If there is no detail in the shadows, developing the film for longer will achieve little or nothing. What camera did you use to take the photo?
thms
I performed the exposure on the film with my AE-1. But that was quite a while ago now. That puts my mind at rest a bit. I was starting to think I’d done something wrong during the developing process.
Morte
It’s a shame your Dropbox link isn’t working. That means we can’t tell whether the problem lies with the scanning process. If you’ve set the black point too high (or used the scanner software’s default setting), it’s also possible that all the dark areas of the image have been ‘clipped’ in the histogram. The scanner software that comes with the scanner is often unsuitable for scanning negatives. I recommend programmes such as Vuescan, where you can really adjust all the parameters.
- A scanner does not, as one might think, deliver ‘neutral’ image data. It is basically like an additional camera – here too, the exposure and so on must be right ...
Neutrino
Strange, the link still worked for me. As far as I can tell, it’s not down to an incorrect black point setting. The deep shadows were actually slightly brightened, but certainly not clipped. At least as far as I can remember.
€
thms, perhaps you could re-upload the image so others can have a look too. It might also be interesting if you could photograph the negative strip itself – with two or three photos on it – (using a digital camera or mobile phone) and upload that. Maybe then one or two others might be able to say more.
€
Which APX 100 did you use? The old, original film or the new one? The old Agfaphoto APX 100, which was still on sale until recently, still contained the original Agfa Leverkusen film. Before Agfa Leverkusen went bankrupt in 2005, they produced so much film that the remaining stock could still be sold for almost ten years under a wide variety of brands. One of these brands is Agfaphoto by lupus imaging. Since the remaining stock finally ran out recently, a completely different film is now being sold under this name. It is manufactured by Ilford and is comparable or identical to Kentmere 100. However, the new packaging also features something like ‘New’ or ‘New Emulsion’.
€
The development times differ for these films. digitaltruth.com specifies a development time of 10 minutes for the new film with Rodinal 1+50, whereas for the old one it is just under 12 minutes. So if you had used the new film, a development time of 12 minutes would actually have resulted in overdevelopment (though in my opinion, slight over- or underdevelopment really isn’t a problem). That’s why, precisely because you developed it either correctly or even slightly over-developed it, I strongly suspect underexposure. As I said before, insufficient shadow detail usually points to insufficient exposure rather than incorrect development.
€
My guesses as to what might have gone wrong:
€
.) Incorrect ISO setting on the camera.
€
.) The camera’s light meter is no longer working properly. Try comparing the readings with other cameras.
€
.) Shutter speeds are no longer accurate.
€
.) Mainly backlit shots or images containing a lot of sky or other very bright areas, causing the camera to experience underexposure of the entire image. However, this does not apply to the image shown.
thms
Strange about the image. Here’s a new link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gdow3fg3c27mja3/AACCFN8ToKlFsbz8umAXzzm_a?dl=0
€
I’m actually using the standard software that came with the scanner. I’ll give VueScan a go. Thanks for the tip.
€
The film was a ‘new’ APX. I’m now also starting to think that the camera’s exposure meter was playing up. Unfortunately, many of the images on the film are very dark, whilst others are actually quite well exposed. I initially suspected the development process because I’d never done it before and thought a major error might have crept in there. I’ve never had any problems with the light meter on my AE-1 before. I’ll pay closer attention to that in future.
€
I’m actually a bit confused about the development times for APX 100 film. I read on another forum that some people leave the film in the developer for 17 minutes, which wouldn’t correspond at all with the recommended 12 or 10 minutes.
DerReisefotograf
Hello,
The 17 minutes are for the old APX films. Here’s the old film:
http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/11220_1_APX100%20Datenblatt.pdf
€
€
and here’s the new one:
http://www1.lupus-imaging-media.com/images/downloads/apx100ger1.pdf
€
Hmm, I’m not sure what to make of the image. I think the exposure was thrown off by the white wall; that looks properly exposed. The shirt is properly exposed too. That causes the shadows to run together. So far, so good.
I’m familiar with this effect: if you push a slider in the scanner software too far past a certain point, the image ‘tips over’. I can’t describe it exactly.
So I experimented a bit with VueScan, and I was able to recreate a similar effect to the one you see on the man’s head against the wall.
Set the image brightness slider to minimum, the light gradation slider to maximum, the dark gradation slider to minimum, and then the image tilts.
That’s just a guess on my part. It could be a scanning error.
Best regards, Tobias
grommi
Where on earth did you get those times from? The Massive Def Chart specifies, at 20 °C and standard sensitivity, 15 minutes for Kentmere 100 in Rodinal 1:50, and 18 minutes for RPX 100 – in line with the official data sheet. These are times I can confirm from my own experience and consider reasonable. I once developed an APX100 ‘new emulsion’ for 10 minutes – God knows where I got that time from, but it was definitely far too short. The three films were actually supposed to use the same material.
?
Apart from that, the photo looks awful – partly like a solarisation, the face far too dark and certain areas completely washed out. It’s not underexposed. It’s not just (though probably also) underdeveloped. I’ve had something similar with poorly fixed film. I’d start by checking the fixer and re-fixing if necessary. So, do a clarity test with an undeveloped snippet from the start of the film in the light, i.e. determine the time it takes until the film is completely clear and transparent. The standard fixing time is then double that, though Kodak TMX requires triple the time.
?
Something has gone terribly wrong here, but we’ll sort it out. You need to take new test shots in straightforward(!) daylight, note down the exposure and post it here; you can tell if it’s roughly right even without a light meter. You don’t need to sacrifice a whole roll of film for this either; with 35mm film, on many cameras you can open the camera in the dark after 3 or 4 shots and cut off the start to develop it. You can then continue using the rest; just trim the start at an angle.
thms
So 18 minutes after all? I’m completely lost now. I’ll give that fixer a go.
grommi
Hmm, I’d actually written something about this before, and I need to correct myself. Shame on me… I’d developed the APX100 New for 18 minutes (like the RPX100) instead of 10 minutes, and the film was completely overdeveloped. It seems there are different versions of these films after all.
?
http://forum.FOTOIMPEX.de/index.php?showtopic=3352
?
Yeah, yeah, the dust is slowly settling... and I’m slowly getting fed up with the ‘no-name’ films like the Agfaphoto APX and its siblings.
?
But I still think the post-fixing and/or new test shots make sense.
DerReisefotograf
So the 18-minute films are the ones that are still original AGFA Leverkusen. They were produced up until around 2006. They also still have the original AGFA diamond logo on them. These are generally films that are well over 10 years old.
And the 10-minute films are those distributed by Lupus. They have an emblem featuring a diamond and a wolf. And currently, they also say ‘New Emulsion’ on them. These are all the current films you can buy in chemists.
Best wishes, Tobias
Olivinyl
Hello everyone,
The old AGFA:
So 18 minutes for an original Agfa APX 100 from Leverkusen in a 1:50 Rodinal solution is waaaay too long! Even the 160 ASA and 17 minutes recommended in the original Rodinal instructions are no good.
The best approach is to provide the film with an exposure of 80 ASA and develop it in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C for 13 minutes. Agitate 15 times for the first 30 seconds, then once every 30 seconds. Done!
As far as I know, the very last genuine Leverkusen APX 100 black-and-white films are marked with the exp. date 12/2015.
After that, everything is similar to the Kentmere 100 / RPX 100.
The new AGFA APX 100 "NEW":
Unfortunately, I cannot provide any reliable exposure times for the Agfafoto APX 100 NEW. However, I can well imagine that the Kentmere 100 and its clones (APX New/RPX) in Rodinal also only have a true ISO of 64 to 80.
I would follow the Lupus processing instructions here and expose the film at ISO 80, then develop it for 10 minutes in Rodinal 1+50. Here too, tilt 15 times for the first 30 seconds and then once every 30 seconds.
I think I once read that, from a certain batch number onwards, Rollei sells a slightly modified RPX 100 with a different emulsion. That’s why the Rollei RPX 100 times are also a bit longer. (But that’s just vague hearsay.) However, the Lupus Agfa Partonen currently contain Kentmere or identical 100-speed material.
The sample image on Dropbox also looks really poorly fixed.
Best regards, Oliver
DerReisefotograf
Hello everyone,
€
The old AGFA:
€
So 18 minutes for an original Agfa APX 100 from Leverkusen in Rodinal 1+50 is waaaay too long! Even the 160 ASA and 17 minutes recommended in the original Rodinal instructions are no good.
The best approach is to use an exposure of 80 ASA for the film and develop it in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C for 13 minutes. Swirl 15 times for the first 30 seconds, then once every 30 seconds. Done!
€
As far as I know, the very last genuine Leverkusen APX 100 black-and-white films have an expiry date of 12/2015.
Best regards, Oliver
What makes you think that 17 (18) minutes is waaaay too long? It’s right there at the top of the linked data sheet. I developed my old 120 APX rolls for exactly 17 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 and got very usable results.
What do you think happens during those 17 minutes that makes it unusable?
grommi
Happy guessing!
€
"There's an emblem with a diamond and a wolf on it. And at the moment, it also says 'New Emulsion' on it."
€
No way! The red diamond is the original Agfa Leverkusen (bankrupt since 2005) and the rights to the diamond are still held today by the real, genuine Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium, which still produces lovely film stock. But that’s a whole other story. Lupus/Agfaphoto, the distributor of the “APX 100 new emulsion”, therefore has a red dot on it, not a diamond.
€
"However, the Lupus Agfa cartridges currently contain Kentmere or identical 100-speed material."
€
Nah, not identical, but similar, yes; manufactured by Harman (Ilford) with a near certainty, yes, but with much shorter development times. For whatever reason.
€
What a fuss. I’d rather not say anything about the 400 series from the English film manufacturer, as that’s where things get truly bizarre.
€
PS. The fact that the times for the old, original APX100 from Leverkusen and the RPX100 from England are very similar is pure coincidence.
DerReisefotograf
The red diamond with the wolf already exists, but it’s just Lupus’s website logo. The APX boxes feature the red dot. I thought that might be printed on them somewhere, in very small print.
Best wishes, Tobias
wosis123
I think, strictly speaking, it comes in three different types of packaging:
?
1. With the Agfa diamond logo: APX original Agfa:
http://filmphotography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/agfa-apx-100-35mm.jpg
2. With a red dot: APX original Agfa, produced after the bankruptcy but still genuine Agfa stock:
http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop_system/images/artikel/detail/AGFAPAN_APX_100.jpg
3. With a red dot and the inscription "New Emulsion": not Agfa, the Kentmere offshoot:
http://www.pixelprinzen.de/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/APX100NEW.jpg
Olivinyl
€
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Olivinyl" data-cid="18803" data-time="1440086017">
<div>
Hello everyone,
€
The old AGFA:
€
So 18 minutes for an original Agfa APX 100 from Leverkusen in Rodinal 1+50 is waaaay too long! Even the 160 ASA and 17 minutes according to the original Rodinal instructions are rubbish.
The best approach is to provide the film with an exposure of 80 ASA and develop it in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C for 13 minutes. Swirl 15 times for the first 30 seconds, then once every 30 seconds. Done!
€
As far as I know, the very last genuine Leverkusen APX 100 black-and-white films have an expiry date of 12/2015.
Best regards, Oliver
</div>
</blockquote>
€What makes you think that 17 (18) minutes is waaaay too long? It’s right there at the top of the linked data sheet. I developed my old 120 APX rolls with exactly 17 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 and got very usable results.
What do you think happens during those 17 minutes that makes it unusable?
</div>
</blockquote>
€
Just for fun, I exposed a genuine APX 100 with a series of exposures (Zones 1–10; the subject: a grey card). I set up the exposure series so that Zone 5 corresponds to 100 ISO. Finally, I took three identical test shots at 80 ISO, 100 ISO and 160 ISO. I then developed the film for 17 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C. Agitation: tilted 15 times for the first 30 seconds, then once every 30 seconds. Water as a stop bath and fixed with double the clearing time. I then measured the film with a densitometer and achieved a speed of just over 80 ASA. From Zone 5 onwards, the densities increase and the film then corresponds to a development at N+1.5. With 120 film, I arrived at roughly the same values. Here, however, I only took two exposures of the grey card, at Zones 1 and 5.
€
The result is that the highlights blow out and details are lost.
€
With the Leverkusen AGFA APX 100, I have also found that it is extremely ‘age-resistant’. An APX from 2005 differs from one from 2015 by just under 5–10 ISO... provided the cold chain has been maintained.
€
Best regards, Oliver
TR
Hi everyone, it’s all so simple, really:
?
You can tell whether the negatives have been correctly exposed by checking on a light table with a magnifying glass to see if the shadows still have definition. This allows you to rule out any potential sources of error later on.
You really do need to ensure correct exposure, and here you should treat the ‘standard’ light meters in old cameras with caution if, for example, a sky that is 1/3 brighter (or the aforementioned white wall) is included in the shot: the camera will suffer from underexposure of the shadows if you don’t make a correction. More modern cameras feature what is known as “matrix metering”. This technology is “smarter” and detects such subjects. If you have a “standard” built-in light meter, you should first measure a neutral surface (e.g. the floor) and use that value. I constantly see examples of this in forums where this has clearly not been taken into account.
?
The development time primarily controls only the density of the mid-tones and highlights. Beyond a certain point, the shadows can no longer be controlled by the negative development process, so any information regarding development times is completely irrelevant in this respect. You really can save yourself the trouble: the length of development merely determines the contrast of the image, and this can just as easily be fine-tuned later during image processing or when enlarging in the darkroom. If in doubt, it is better to develop for a slightly shorter time than a longer one. This does not affect the shadows, and highlights or mid-tones that are too weak can be ‘boosted’ perfectly well using image processing or a harder gradient.
?
The negative must then be scanned correctly. I would always start by performing a ‘full-scale scan’ without any contrast adjustment or cropping, and only adjust the contrast as a final step:
http://www.fotografische.de/bildbearbeitung/negative-scannen/
?
ralle
Hello,
I used the APX 100 NEW at first as well. I don’t like it because it bears no resemblance to the old AGFA APX 100. I’ve tested several developers. I was happy with Ilfosol 3
Here are a few examples using different developers:
http://haun-media.de/tiltdesign-faq/index.php?action=show&cat=5
Incidentally, I got the impression that the quality of the APX 100 NEW varies.
I miss the old AGFA APX 100. It was available for around €3.40 at DM. It developed well in Kodak D76:
http://haun-media.de/tiltdesign-faq/index.php?action=artikel&cat=4&id=68&artlang=de
Regards, Ralle
Wolfgg
Hello,
I once calibrated the original Agfa APX100 precisely to the zone system. The result was that for 9 zones (i.e. subject contrast of 8 stops) on Special Paper Gradation (copying range 5 stops), using original Rodinal 1+50 at 20°C, a development time of 17 minutes is required, agitating fully for the first minute, then every minute thereafter.
€
Regards, Wolfgang
