MirkoBoeddecker
[size=3]
[/size][size=3][ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [/size]
[size=3]With Fotokemika no longer a partner, we have lost not only many specialist products but also the basis for a wide range of 100 ASA films.[/size]
[size=3]Fortunately, we had already been working on alternatives in advance, one of which could now be implemented so promptly that we are managing an almost seamless transition:[/size]
[size=3]
CHS 100 II is already in the emulsion stage and is expected in the first formats for May/June.[/size]
[size=3]One of the reasons why production of CHS 100 had to be discontinued in 2012 was the discontinuation of production of the sensitising colorants.
We have tried to make the new CHS 100 as close as possible to the original.
It has the following characteristics:[/size]
- [size=3]A stable, classic emulsion system without flat crystals, tried and tested for decades[/size]
- [size=3]Sensitisation similar to that of CHS 100[/size]
- [size=3]A single-layer emulsion (single-layer system)[/size]
- [size=3]The same base as the CHS 100 (PET) with the option of developing the film in reverse[/size]
- [size=3]A special coating to virtually eliminate light piping[/size]
- [size=3]An AHU for improved sharpness[/size] [size=3](Anti-halation layer between emulsion and base)[/size]
- [size=3]Full format coverage from 35mm through roll films to extra-large sheet films [/size]
- [size=3]A cascade coating using the latest technology, which avoids all the problems encountered in earlier CHS 100 productions at Fotokemika.[/size]
[size=3]The new CHS 100 II is ‘Made in Germany’ and therefore part of the ‘Premium Line’.
Best regards,
Mirko[/size]
HenningH
It’s all wonderful, but...
[size=3]The same base as the CHS 100 (PET) with the option to develop the film as a reversal film[/size]
[size=3]A special coating to virtually eliminate light piping[/size]
Is reversal processing really so desirable that all new films should be capable of it?
Why not just use a normal coloured base and save yourself problems that can be almost completely eliminated?
Best regards
Henning
MirkoBoeddecker
Why not just use a standard coloured backing film?
Because nowadays,
standard PET and triacetate have become almost unaffordable luxuries ;)
Besides, PET has many advantages and we’ve got the light-piping issue with the new film almost completely under control.
On triacetate, the film would be 25% more expensive.
There’s also the option of slide development. PET is also easier to scan, and that’s an important factor these days.
Best regards,
Mirko
wosis123
Hi Mirko,
I really like how active you are and how you’re bringing out new films. But how does the CHS100 II differ from the Silvermax? Aren’t you just competing with yourselves?
Best regards,
Hendrik
Olivinyl
[color=#282828]Post copied from here:
http://forum.fotoimpex.de/index.php?showtopic=2966
[/colo
[color=#282828]Hello everyone,
I’m really looking forward to seeing what the new CHS 100 can do.
When will the first rolls of CHS 100 II in 35mm be available? I’d love to give it a go.
Is the CHS II meant to replace the CHS I or become the successor to the APX?
I somehow feel that the Silvermax is the APX replacement, or am I completely wrong?
What can the CHS II do better than the CHS I, or what are the advantages?
Scratch sensitivity? I didn’t have any problems with that on the old one.
Mirko, please provide more information.
There’s a mistake on the ADOX website
CHS II product description, penultimate line:
..and thus part of the
Premium Line
Just a quick, up-to-date request for help regarding the ADOX CHS 100 I:
http://forum.fotoimpex.de/index.php?showtopic=2967
Best regards, Oliver [/colo
MirkoBoeddecker
So:
- The CHS 100 II is the successor to the CHS 100 I, not the Silvermax
- The Silvermax, with its higher silver content, is something special and, for example, is simply unbeatable as a sheet film
- The CHS 100 II therefore differs from the Silvermax in that everything that sets the Silvermax apart as a 100-speed film (from other 100-speed films) is absent in the CHS 100 II
- The CHS 100 I and II are therefore good 100-speed films for all applications, available in a wide range of formats and at an attractive price.
We no longer have any CHS 100 by the metre in stock.
Kind regards,
Mirko
SxDx
The "old" CHS was also advertised as having a particularly high silver content (quotes from one of your catalogues... "[the] silver content... is unrivalled in the ADOX CHS" or "high-silver single-layer emulsion")
Does that mean, in terms of silver content, that Silvermax > CHS II > the rest of the world, or is the CHS II ‘worse’ than the CHS in this respect?
wosis123
...and isn't the Silvermax suitable for all applications???
Or is the only difference that the Silvermax is only available in 135???
KlausWehner
Hello everyone,
In my view, the discussion here is narrowing down to just one single aspect: the silver content.
But that alone is not enough to fully assess the quality and performance of a film.
Quality is always the result of a combination of a great many factors.
Silver is, of course, a significant cost factor in film production – but it is just one among many.
The Silvermax has a higher silver load than the old (legendary) APX 100.
Nevertheless, no one would claim that the old APX 100 is a poor film simply because it lacks silver.
A silver content higher than necessary offers no further quality benefits. Any excess silver is simply leached out of the emulsion during fixing.
Many quality parameters cannot be measured and recorded so easily. That is why they elude direct observation.
The silver content, on the other hand, is easy to measure in every respect.
That is why it is used as an indicator of a film’s quality.
In my subjective opinion, the Silvermax is currently the best film in its class. The fact that it is also available at a moderate price makes it irresistible.
Due to its high silver content, it is also ideally suited for reversal processing into black-and-white slides.
The old Efke films were also well suited (due to their high silver content) for developing into black-and-white slides.
Unfortunately, however, the emulsion layer was not hardened, there were often very significant differences between batches, and the production technology no longer corresponded to the current state of the art.
This prevented this film from being widely used as a black-and-white slide film (although I personally have used it time and again as a transparency).
I very much hope that these issues can be resolved with the new CHS II – and that sheet film and roll films will then also be available as black-and-white slide film.
I will report back as soon as I have had my first experiences with the new material.
Best regards
Klaus
Morte
Guys,
It seems to me that some of you here haven’t read anything at all about the characteristics of the CHS 100, let alone tested it.
The CHS 100 was an orthopanchromatic film.
The Silvermax, as a modified successor to the APX, is a panchromatic film.
Both films have completely different characteristics. For example, in terms of colour conversion to grey tones, their distribution on the tone curve, and contrast.
I haven’t used the Silvermax yet, but I’ve used the APX very often. The same goes for the CHS 100 and its siblings, the CHS 50 and 25.
These two types of film each have their own distinct character and are/were good in their own way. That is why I welcome the fact that a successor is now being provided.
Otherwise, I wonder what the point of this nit-picking is. Who benefits from measuring the silver content to the nearest milligram and similar things?
Try out the films and enjoy the images they produce. That’s all that matters in photography, isn’t it?
SxDx
That’s not the point; I use CHS/Efke myself in all formats and speeds – it’s practically the only black-and-white film I’ve ever used regularly.
But if, on the one hand, it’s said... that they want to bring out the CHS II as the successor to the CHS in all formats, right up to large sheet films, and that the CHS already had a particularly high silver content...
on the other hand, it’s said that “the Silvermax, with its increased silver content [...] is simply unaffordable as a sheet film”, then I just wonder whether the emulsion of the CHS II is even remotely comparable to that of the “original”?
Of course, the silver content isn’t everything, but if it has no bearing on the normal image quality (when developed as a negative), a bit too much fuss is being made about it.
Actually, I just want to know whether I should expect the CHS II to be a completely different/new film (which would be fine if I like it), or whether it corresponds more or less exactly to the CHS.
wosis123
I don’t want to get bogged down in the details either.
But I am interested in how the two films differ. In my humble opinion, it makes little sense for our host to release two similar films that would then cannibalise each other’s market share; in my view, the development costs are far too high for that!
piu58
> releasing two similar films onto the market
One shouldn’t assume that Silvermax was ‘released onto the market’. It appeared far too suddenly for that. Perhaps some Scala master rolls turned up somewhere; that would fit the characteristics well. Scala is based on APX 100, but contains more silver to achieve the higher densities required for slides.
Gast
Guys,
It seems to me that some of you here haven’t read anything at all about the characteristics of the CHS 100, let alone tested it.
The CHS 100 was an orthopanchromatic film.
The Silvermax, as a modified successor to the APX, is a panchromatic film.
Both films have completely different characteristics. For example, in terms of colour conversion to greyscale, their distribution on the tone curve, and contrast.
I haven’t used the Silvermax yet, but I’ve used the APX very often. The same goes for the CHS 100 and its siblings, the CHS 50 and 25.
These two film types each have their own distinct character and are/were good in their own way. That’s why I welcome the fact that a successor is now being provided.
Otherwise, I’m wondering what the point of this nit-picking is. Who benefits from measuring the silver content down to the milligram and similar things?
Try out the films and enjoy the images they produce. That’s all that matters in photography, isn’t it?
Thanks, Morte!
Why not wait until the film is on the market first? Otherwise, this will just turn into another pointless debate.
SxDx
It’s not really about criticising a film before I’ve even tried it. On the contrary – if I like it and the price is reasonable, I’ll buy it simply because it’ll be one of the few classic 100-speed films that I can use in all formats, from 35mm to 8x10". I don’t like FP4 or Fomapan, for example.
My main concern is what I can expect from the film. Has it been brought as close as possible to the CHS (perhaps even a product that is barely distinguishable in terms of image quality), or has the ‘catchy’ name simply been carried over to signal that a new, classically formulated 100-speed film is coming onto the market? I’d be happy with either, but far more so with the former.
AchimBauer
It’s all wonderful, but...
[size=3]The same base as the CHS 100 (PET) with the option to develop the film as a reversal film[/size]
[size=3]A special coating to virtually eliminate light piping[/size]
Is reversal processing really so desirable that all new films should be capable of it?
Why not just use a normal coloured base and save yourself problems that can be almost completely eliminated?
Best regards
Henning
AchimBauer
Oops, something went wrong there,
so here’s the text for the quote.
I think there’s another reason for PET: if you look at the datasheet for the old CHS, the base thickness is the same for both 35mm and roll film, unlike films from other suppliers where the triacetate base varies in thickness.
That means two formats for the price of one. I suppose that’s the price you pay for a small production run.
Regards, Achim
CPD
[size=3]
[/size]
- [size=3]Full format coverage, from 35mm to roll films and extra-large sheet films [/size]
[/list]
Hopefully! Being constantly limited to 35mm film is a real pain. As far as I know, I’m not the only one who feels that way.
Ciao!
MirkoBoeddecker
Does that mean, in terms of silver content, that Silvermax > CHS II > the rest of the world, or is CHS II ‘worse’ than CHS in this respect?
No, it’s not that simple. Everything has to be considered in context.
There are, for example, emulsion systems that achieve high opacity with very little silver.
These include the flat-crystal films. If you were to add more silver to these films to make them “better”, they would very quickly become worse (too steep).
Other emulsion systems have poorer coverage and require more silver just to reach DMax. There is then also a greater scope for “over-saturation”.
Microfilms manage “practically without silver” and also deliver astonishing results.
It also depends on the speed and grain size. Generally speaking (if one does not switch between flat-crystal and classic emulsions in one’s analysis), the requirement for silver increases with speed.
With Silvermax, we have a lot of silver in it because we believe there is still something beyond the measurement curves.
Strictly speaking, according to the measurement curve, TMAX 100 is the gold standard. No other film is more perfect.
However, many artists instinctively (and much to the annoyance of the gentlemen in white coats in the former research laboratories of the former industry) stubbornly continue to favour the variants that are comparatively blessed with more silver. Even within the range of a single supplier.
Terms such as ‘melt’, ‘grey values’, ‘creaminess’ etc. are then used to describe it.
You can’t measure that, only feel it.
What you can measure with Silvermax is the extended printing range. In that respect, it has actually beaten the Max.
The CHS 100 II requires slightly less silver than the CHS 100. Of course, it is a different film.
That is why it is called the “II”.
Fotokemika no longer exists. No one could replicate exactly what went on there in such a short space of time. A completely new development is also no longer possible today.
MirkoBoeddecker
Let’s hope so! Being constantly limited to 35mm film is a right pain
Funding partners, step forward! Come on over, everyone! Anyone who wants to can get on board, put the millions on the table, and then we’ll make all types of emulsion in all formats together!
Otherwise: Think again about what ‘constantly’ is supposed to mean.
Mirko
