grommi
Hello everyone,
?
I actually wanted to reply to Joachim’s question about the APX 100 New, but I don’t want to hijack his thread. The topic is perhaps more complex than we thought.
?
Until a few days ago, I also thought that all the 100s (unlike the 400s) were one and the same film, namely Kentmere 100, then came the RPX100, then the Agfaphoto APX 100 new (emulsion) and finally the CHM 100.
?
I recently used the APX 100 new, assuming I could develop it in the same way as the RPX100, which I know very well and which produces excellent results for me in Rodinal. I developed it as per the RPX 100 data sheet: 1+50, 18 mins, 20 °C, and the film came out significantly over-developed, i.e. far too dark straight from the canister. I was absolutely horrified at first. Nevertheless, the film scanned perfectly, but a properly developed film for printing looks quite different.
?
So I went looking for the data sheet. Strangely enough, there is no data sheet for the new APX on Agfaphoto.com, only for the late Agfa-Leverkusen APX, though there is one on a French site:
http://www.pirate-photo.fr/documents/films/Agfaphoto-APX-100_New.pdf
?
There, for the APX 100 new at an exposure equivalent to 80 ASA, an ADOX Adonal (=Rodinal) processing time of 10 minutes at a 1+50 dilution is recommended. If we disregard the 1/3 stop difference, these are significantly different development times, which would also explain my overdeveloped APX 100 new. As far as I know, there is no ‘official’ Rodinal time for the Kentmere 100, and no data sheet at all for the CHM 100. Reference is made to the similarity between the 100 and 400 films. Which, incidentally, I cannot confirm when comparing the RPX400 and Kentmere400, but that is a different (very broad) topic.
?
So these are probably very similar films, but different in the details. Other characteristic features, such as the suboptimal antihalation or the completely flat acetate base, look completely identical.
?
What does that teach us? With ‘relabelled’ film, don’t believe anything, test it yourself and that’s that. So, dear Joachim, if you’re reading this, when in doubt, stick to a “proper” branded film. Apart from that, black-and-white development isn’t rocket science, so just get on with it and make adjustments if the results aren’t right. And don’t take any irreplaceably important shots the first time you use a new film/developer combination.
?
And, dear manufacturers and distributors, why not just produce some decent data sheets – or any at all! A Kentmere 100 data sheet without a Rodinal processing time is a joke, isn’t it?
?
Good light – Reinhold
?
?
PS: Agfaphoto is purely a distributor and has nothing to do with the late Agfa. That’s why it’s the red dot and not the red diamond.
MiJa
Thank you, Reinhold, for this interesting post!
I agree with you: you do need to find the approach that suits your own process, but a bit of guidance to get started wouldn’t go amiss!
€
Best regards,
Michael
AchimBauer
Hello Reinhold,
Well, the 10-minute Rodinal 1:50 development time for the APX NEW was actually published here by our host before the film was even launched.
What surprises me is that, given all the writing, guesswork and speculation surrounding the film, it’s only now that someone has actually compared the development times.
Unfortunately, in my last major comparison test, I didn’t have an original K100 or RPX alongside the APX 100 NEW; it would certainly have been interesting.
…
Regards, Achim
Magirus
Good evening
After the first batch of APX100 developed with Rodinal 1+50 for 20 minutes and 10 minutes
turned out rather flat,
yesterday I developed a roll of film exposed partly at ISO 64, 80 and 100,
using a 1+50 solution for 20 minutes and 13 minutes.
ASA 80 and 13 minutes is a contrast that might suit me.
It’s a Lupus, or whatever they’re called.
Unfortunately, I’ve run out of the old APX; I’d been hoping for similar quality with the new APX.
I’m looking forward to further experiments.
Regards, Bernd
grommi
@ Achim: Fair enough, but what ordinary user – and sometimes I count myself among them – goes digging around in forums, especially obscure ones? If in doubt, a spec sheet is easy to find, assuming there even is one.
€
“What surprises me is that, with all that’s been written, guessed and speculated about the film, it’s only now that someone has compared the development times.” -> Yep, I feel exactly the same. Obviously, the vast majority of users don’t know what they’re shooting or how, and we’re just a tiny, elitist bunch here with no significance. But I can live with that. I’d just find it a shame if films disappeared again because users can’t cope with them due to a lack of or incorrect information and stop buying them. That doesn’t do anyone any favours. So, get your act together at last, dear manufacturers and distributors: let’s get down to brass tacks!
€
@ Magirus: “It’s a Lupus or whatever they’re called.” -> No, who on earth knows who or what Lupus is? It’s an APX 100 ‘new emulsion’ from the distributor called Agfaphoto – that’s what it says on every pack. Without ‘new emulsion’, it’s a ‘proper’ APX from the former Afga factory in Leverkusen, the ‘proper’ Agfa that died in 2005 – RIP.
wosis123
... and there are official figures for the Kentmere too:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php
€
By the way, I’ve switched from the old APX to our host’s Silvermax, and I really like it.
Ratorium
There’s no getting round having to figure out your own way.
AchimBauer
Hello Reinhold,
?
I agree with you that proper data sheets are essential, especially in the internet age when you can make them available to download for next to nothing. In the old days, every film box used to contain one, and it even included an exposure chart in case you didn’t have a light meter.
?
But as far as the APX 100 New is concerned, something else is far more important. Since it has almost half the development time of the Kentmere 100, it can’t be that. So we urgently need new theories on what’s been packed in there.
?
My suggestion: in a secret underground casting facility beneath the North Pole, the residues of the Lucky 100 emulsion – which was subsequently refined with secret substances under a full moon – are being cast.
Seriously though, it would be nice to know what’s really in there; with a bit of openness, some things would be easier.
?
Regards, Achim
grommi
Speaking of conspiracy theories: I’m pretty sure that about a week ago, immediately after my mistake, there was a ‘new emulsion’ subpage on Agfaphoto.de, complete with a data sheet, when I was doing my research. It’s gone now.
€
I’m even more certain that the film is produced by Harman. They traditionally keep quiet there unless it concerns the Ilford brand. The manufacturer and distributor have never officially commented on the various rumours circulating about the RPX films either, and it will likely be the same with the CHM. One can probably assume that Harman requires its distribution partners to maintain silence.
€
Best regards, Reinhold
Joachim
Hello,
?
That would mean the AGFA APX 100 (new) contains ILFORD (Harmann was the founder of ILFORD). People often talk about Kentmere here on the forum.
I developed my AGFA APX 100 using Kentmere. So it would be a coincidence that my negatives turned out well.
?
Honestly, I no longer understand the manufacturers or the entire distribution chain: ‘Vertrieb’ comes from ‘vertreiben’ (to distribute). And as a company, I wouldn’t be distributing anything if I left my customers in the dark and in the lurch. And that is exactly what is happening right now. After 30 years, I’ve just developed film again. I thought I no longer understood the world. But I suppose I’m in good company here.
?
Dear manufacturers and distributors:
If you have no intention of actually making a proper profit from your products, then just leave it at that and don’t confuse the rest of this analogue fanbase with a game of hide-and-seek that your customers certainly don’t deserve. Label your products openly and transparently. That’s honest. You’ll see, it will be respected and will ensure the customer loyalty that is so important and necessary in this day and age. Anything else is just being taken for a ride.
grommi
Ilford and Kentmere are two brand names; both product lines are manufactured by Harman.
?
Kentmere doesn’t specify a Rodinal development time for ISO 100 film, though it does for many other developers, which I find ‘amusing’; the times listed on the Massivedevchart could be anything.
?
Of course, Harman can’t provide times for every conceivable and inconceivable developer either, but when it comes to the developer used by far the most people worldwide – Rodinal – I find the lack of information for a classic ISO 100 film rather ‘amusing’.
auckland
I’m currently facing the same question – perhaps there are some new insights on this now?
?
My observations in brief: the development times for all developers and formulas with the RPX100 match those of the Agfa APX100 (new) and the Kentmere 100 (the data sheets occasionally show deviations of half a minute). Only the development times for Rodinal show deviations that I cannot explain. For APX100 and Kentmere 100, times of around 10 minutes are usually recommended for Rodinal 1+50. This gives me excellent results with the APX100. However, Rollei recommends 18 minutes in the instructions for the RPX100. Now I’m unsure. I recently got negatives that were far too hard with 18 minutes (though with 3*tilting every 30 seconds). The last film, developed for 13 minutes with 1*tilting every 30 seconds, looks better. But I’m still unsure which way to go. As I said – the other development times suggest that the three films have very similar characteristics, not to say: the identical emulsion.
Can anyone explain the discrepancy in the recommendations for Rodinal? As I said – for all other developers, the ‘officially’ recommended times for APX100 (new), RPX100 and Kentmere 100 are identical, which would suggest they are made of the same material.
?
bernhardmangelsgmxde
I’m currently facing the same question – perhaps there are some new insights on this now?
€
My observations in brief: the development times for all developers and formulas with the RPX100 match those of the Agfa APX100 (new) and the Kentmere 100 (the data sheets occasionally show deviations of half a minute). Only the development times for Rodinal show deviations that I cannot explain. For APX100 and Kentmere 100, times of around 10 minutes are usually recommended for Rodinal 1+50. This gives me excellent results with the APX100. However, Rollei recommends 18 minutes in the instructions for the RPX100. Now I’m unsure. I recently got negatives that were far too hard with 18 minutes (though with 3*tilting every 30 seconds). The last film, developed for 13 minutes with 1*tilting every 30 seconds, looks better. But I’m still unsure which way to go. As I said – the other development times suggest that the three films have very similar characteristics, not to say: the identical emulsion.
Can anyone explain the discrepancy in the recommendations for Rodinal? As I said – for all other developers, the ‘officially’ recommended times for APX100 (new), RPX100 and Kentmere 100 are identical, which would suggest they use the same material.
€
The RPX data sheet specifies 16 minutes for Rodinal 1+50 (not 18)
€
Otherwise: Where does the uncertainty come from? If the negatives turn out far too hard when following the manufacturer’s (or distributor’s) instructions, the time (for your own approach, including exposure and post-processing) is too long. If the negatives improve with a different time, that other time is also better (for your own approach).
€
As for the data sheets (just generally speaking... I don’t want to check right now whether any traces of the specific issue can still be found online or have already ‘disappeared’...): It is said to have happened that users received blank negatives after strictly following a manufacturer’s (or distributor’s) recommendations. Mistakes happen.
€
Whether the films are identical – who knows? One is already happy if one and the same product remains the same or at least comparable in the medium term – it’s probably asking too much to expect that different films marketed as separate products won’t differ from one another. I’m not involved in production – from the outside, I’d say: Sure, there would be certain production-related advantages to simply putting the same film in different boxes, but I have my doubts as to whether that’s necessarily the case with Harman. If you like spicy food, or perhaps enjoy using ingredients like garlic, onions or ‘green stuff’, as a mum or dad you’ll often go to great lengths to create a real difference in the meal for just one dinner: Sure, you need more pots and spend longer in the kitchen (and, to be honest, the kids could just get on with it for once...) but the alternative is: children who kick up a fuss or eat children’s meals until you’re old... it doesn’t always work to say there aren’t any onions in the tomato sauce.
Maco, Agfa and Impex probably don’t buy such small quantities that Harman would have to say: ‘We don’t prepare a special emulsion for these three films...’ – so there’s also an incentive not to sell the same product at different prices; Ilford or Harman would be wary of that too – I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that, for contract work, they might tweak a parameter or two to deliver a similar, but not quite identical, product.
If, as an end user, you value always working with the same material – ideally sticking with the same product in the same box – you’ll have to hope that no changes, whether minor or major, are made on a whim.
grommi
There was also some back-and-forth with the RPX 400; initially, and at times in between, it differed significantly from the Kentmere 400, but it is now absolutely identical to the APX 400 New. The RPX 100 definitely used to be of a different quality to the APX 100 New and required a significantly longer development time in Rodinal, as discussed above.
Today I can say that the 400-series Kentmere, APX and RPX are now absolutely identical; as for the 100-series, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were now identical too. Distributors don’t usually update their product sheets, as this would unsettle the uninformed consumer or make them realise that things are constantly changing. I don’t know anything about the CHM, but following the recent ‘standardisations’, it would be rather unlikely that it contains anything other than Kentmere. I think there’s a deliberate intention behind this on Harman’s part, and that could be linked to Harman’s new owner. It’s a shame about the ‘original’ RPX (RIP) 400, though......
My conclusion: for orders of 10 rolls or more, I buy Kentmere online; for single 100-roll packs of APX, I buy them at the chemist’s; the RPX films no longer offer me any advantages, either in terms of price or quality.
mattes
With the Apx New, it might be worth trying out the Fujipan Arcos settings.
I’ve compared original Agfa film with the Silvermax and know for certain that I won’t be buying any Agfa New films. The Silvermax isn’t an adequate replacement for the Apx 100; with the original chemicals, it actually outperforms it. Now that my stock from the Agfa bankruptcy is running low, I’m glad that with the Silvermax there’s actually something even better to buy.
Buy this great film, it’s worth it.
Matthias
P.S.: And no, I’m not being sponsored by the host: my ‘ready to go’ set was bought and paid for in the normal way and is worth every penny of its price.
€
…
Foto-Long
Hello everyone,
the
The Agfaphoto APX-100 is interesting because you can get hold of it anywhere when travelling.
the
However, when I used ID-11, the negatives came out far too dark using the time specified on the ID-11 packaging.
the
That’s why I’ve noticed a few oddities:
the
- Information on the ID-11 packaging: the time looks as though it has been ‘altered retrospectively’; specifically, for 1+3 and 20°C, it states 13:30 mins (agitation rate 10 sec/minute)
- Old ID-11 had exactly these specifications (but back then with a different agitation rate and the original film)
- On the lupus-imaging website, specifications from 2014 indicate over 20 minutes for the above procedure
- My own tests: a time of 8:30 yields usable results
the
I would also like to develop the film in the Moersch MZB, but Mr Mörsch has not tested any times that he could give me.
The MZB data sheet still lists the old Agfa times. (Nobody needs those anymore...)
der
I’ll use up the residue of the Adox 39 today and develop the film according to the instructions in there (if there are any times listed?).
der
What experiences have you had with this film and the instructions?
der
And what actually happened to the ID-11, as that has changed over the last 20 years?
der
Thanks
mattes
Film stock is a bit like coffee.
You buy a fully automatic coffee machine for around €1,000 and then feed the little machine with coffee from old East German stocks. The best Vietnamese lowland blend – mmm, really tasty.
You could also buy a Zassenhaus hand-crank coffee grinder at a flea market for 10 DM, feed it fair-trade coffee and brew the coffee by hand. Provided you’re not too daft to turn the crank and don’t let the water boil over.
I live in the Rhine region and can still clearly remember the Agfa bankruptcy; I know too many people who were affected by it, so as a matter of principle, there are no new Agfa products.
Thanks to Mirco’s foresight in securing part of the bankruptcy estate in Leverkusen and the courage to get it up and running again, the Silvermax is a genuine replacement that even surpasses the old APX.
Andre7878
I want to give the AGFA New with Acurol N film a go.
Foto-Long
Film stock is a bit like coffee.
You buy a fully automatic coffee machine for around €1,000 and then feed the little machine with coffee from old East German stocks. The best Vietnamese lowland blend – mmm, really tasty.
You could also buy a Zassenhaus hand-crank coffee grinder for 10 DM at a flea market, feed it with fair-trade coffee and brew the coffee by hand. Provided you’re not too daft to turn the crank and don’t let the water boil over.
I live in the Rhine region and can still clearly remember the Agfa insolvency; I know too many people who were affected by it. As a matter of principle, there are no new Agfa products.
Thanks to Mirco’s foresight in securing part of the insolvency stock in Leverkusen and the courage to get things up and running again, the Silvermax offers a genuine replacement that even surpasses the old APX.
This post isn’t helping either...
Because I don’t drink coffee.
Or am I supposed to develop in coffee?
Neither the film nor the developer comes from former GDR stocks, but is brand new.
A brand-new film, and not from AGFA, but from LUPUS imaging.
A brand-new developer, from Ilford, England – not some Vietnamese knock-off.
What a load of rubbish, really, what’s the point of this?
It’s just that the times are far too long in all sorts of sources and – as someone else described above for Rodinal – result in negatives that have too much density.
A shame that no help could be offered here.
What results did the gentleman achieve with Acurol N?
Haven’t heard anything more either.
Never mind, I’ll happily carry on with development at 08:30 in ID-11 at 1+3; the results are spot on.
See you later...
