ADOX R21

ChrisP · 2018-05-16T18:16:35+00:00

Hallo, ich habe in einer Agfa Billy, die ich gekauft habe, einen Film gefunden: Einen Adox R21. Der ist belichtet und ich würde ihn gerne entwickeln und brä...

ChrisP

Hello, I found a roll of film in an Agfa Billy I bought: an Adox R21. It’s exposed and I’d like to develop it, but I need a bit of help with the exposure times. As the film was probably exposed in the 1950s or 1960s, I realise that the result might be rather poor or even completely unusable, but since I have the film here, I’m definitely going to give it a go. At the moment I have Rodinal and Tetenal Ultrafin to hand; can anyone give me a tip on development times? This thread is about an R17 (i.e. lower speed), where the recommendation was 16 minutes at 20°C. € Regards Christian

Wolfgg

Hello Christian, ? Proceed in two stages. First, cut off 2 cm in the darkroom and develop it to check for fogging. E.g. with Rodinal 1+100, 60 mins of initial development. If the fog is still acceptable, then complete the development with 1+100 for 90 mins, turning the tank upside down after 30 mins and leaving it to stand for the remaining 60 mins to ensure more even development. Bear in mind that the result will only be assessable via scanning. ? Regards, Wolfgang

KlausWehner

An overexposed film loses speed and contrast. Consequently, an ideal developer would be one that makes good use of the film’s speed whilst also producing high contrast (partial contrast). € The purpose of a fixed-time development process is to reduce contrast. In this case, that would be rather counterproductive. € Best regards, Klaus

ChrisP

An overexposed film loses speed and contrast. Consequently, an ideal developer would be one that makes good use of the film’s speed whilst also producing high contrast (partial contrast). … The purpose of a fixed-time development is to reduce the contrast. In this case, that would be rather counterproductive.

… What would you recommend? I’ve just never had an old film like this before. … Regards … Christian

Wolfgg

Klaus: The film was exposed some time ago. The purpose of the bench development here is to compensate for the unknown speed. In the highlights, development is reduced until the local developer is exhausted. And to compensate for the low contrast expected due to the film’s age, I have opted for a steeper ratio of 1:100 and 1.5 hours, rather than 1:160 and 1 hour, as would be correct for fresh emulsions. The motto is: better too dense than too light. In such cases, it is simply impossible to specify a sensible development time for tilt development. I wouldn’t expect anything suitable for enlargement here (haze problem), but would focus on making it suitable for scanning. The best approach in such cases would be to use Rodinal 1:50 and then check the density every 3 minutes with infrared goggles. Regards, Wolfgang

KlausWehner

Thank you, Wolfgang, for your explanation. We certainly have different perspectives on this matter. ? In the past, I have developed a great many films with multiple exposures. With very old films, I have practically never encountered a situation where the contrast turned out to be too high. Excessive contrast has never been a problem in my development – quite the opposite, in fact. ? If a film can achieve a maximum density of perhaps 2.5, a base fog of 0.5 or 0.7 is not yet a real problem. With a density difference of (just under) 2.0, a usable negative contrast can still be achieved. However, if the base fog is higher, the usable density difference decreases right up to the maximum density. The negative can no longer achieve sufficient contrast. ? If the film’s maximum density is then reduced further (e.g. from 2.5 to 2 or even lower), the potential contrast of the negative drops even further. At some point, the contrast becomes so extremely low that it is no longer usable. ? My approach is therefore: 1. Keep the base fog as low as possible 2. Set the maximum density to a normal (or even higher) value 3. Use a developer that provides a (measurably) higher sensitivity utilisation. ? This allows the remaining image information in an over-exposed film to be rendered to its best advantage. ? I realise that every case is different. One must always approach such a task with a degree of tact and sensitivity. ? However, I am certain that with my approach and my developer, a great deal of salvageable image information can be recovered. Perhaps this recommendation differs from the usual approach and will therefore be questioned at first. That is normal and a good thing, ? However, from my own experience, I can confirm that this is a process that all too often results in negatives that can be copied well: ? ? ? Best regards Klaus ? ? ? ?