GilbertMayer
Hello analogue fans, I read the reports on the new Silvermax from ADOX with great curiosity. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find much useful information. So I decided on the spot to order 10 rolls and the corresponding developer and carry out my own test. It’s very DIY and tailored to my day-to-day practice. But perhaps one or two of you might find something useful for your own projects. The test and the accompanying images can be found on my website. I’d just like to provide an abstract here that the film is extremely forgiving with the special developer; in other words, you get the full range of grey tones within a contrast range suitable for analogue enlargement. And that’s without any experimentation. I had an exposure of 100 ASA and conducted the development in Silvermax for 11 minutes according to the instructions. Everything worked perfectly first time round. On the first roll, I photographed zones 1–10 for reference and measured them with the light meter. The curve matches the ideal curve, except for the top two zones. As I said: this is an amateur test without a densitometer. But when it comes to 35mm photography, I tend to shoot quite carefree. So I’m very happy with this film. I hope it stays on the market for a while. Test and images at
http://www.gilbert-mayer.ch – the very first article under the image gallery. Greetings to all and get snapping!
TiMo
I’d just like to sum up by saying that this film is extremely forgiving when used with this particular developer; in other words, you get the full range of grey tones within a contrast range suitable for analogue enlargement. And that’s without any experimentation. I had an exposure of 100 ASA and developed it in Silvermax for 11 minutes, following the instructions. Everything turned out perfectly first time round.
I can only agree. A very pleasant combination for processing, yielding beautiful results.
The film in 120 format or even as sheet film... that would be brilliant!
MirkoBoeddecker
Thank you very much for your contribution.
My Silvermixe films have been sitting undeveloped on my desk for four weeks because we can’t keep up with production – which, on the other hand, is a good thing.
I’ll comment on the subject of roll and sheet films in a moment, but I’d like to start by saying that we’re currently preparing a new film to replace the discontinued CHS 100, which will be offered as a full range (scheduled for June 2013).
Silvermax is a very complex and expensive film to produce, which is currently manufactured using raw materials ‘inherited’ from Agfa.
We would have to offer it at a significantly higher price than, for example, FP4 or Kentmere, if we were to reproduce it now using newly purchased raw materials. To achieve a reasonably competitive price at the casting stage (only at the casting stage), we would also have to produce a very large quantity.
Unfortunately, however, these two requirements are mutually exclusive. Having to produce a very large quantity of a very expensive film simply does not convince any investor.
We are talking here about sums that we could under no circumstances invest on our own, and which no other market player would invest either. We are talking about the price of an entire terraced housing estate, just to hold a film in our hands.
The problem arises for all other manufacturers as well. It’s not as if new films are coming onto the market everywhere and just not with us ;-)
What’s more, given the price difference between roll and sheet films per frame, this effect would have a disproportionately greater impact compared to 35mm films, as the cost of the raw film accounts for a higher proportion of the total production costs for these two film formats.
Conclusion: We realise that customers would ideally like to have everything in every format, but given the price and competitive situation in the market, even with the best will in the world, we cannot always deliver everything exactly as the customer would like.
After all, none of you can guarantee us a minimum order quantity at the target price.
In this respect, we must analyse the risk ourselves and, if necessary, bear it or simply postpone it.
Specifically, with Silvermax, we have produced enough 35mm material to offer the film for 5–10 years (depending on its success). A lot will change within this time. Prices will not remain as they are. If the price level changes, our options change. If the film performs very well, we can certainly keep the 35mm film on the market, as we will then have reliable data to justify a corresponding investment.
If it performs poorly, the availability of the existing stock tends towards infinite ;-)
Alternatively, new technical possibilities may arise daily, enabling, for example, a smaller roll size (not currently feasible). It would be possible to produce a very small batch of an expensive film again.
The film is an absolutely excellent 35mm film, as it handles high subject contrast and thus suits typical use in a 35mm camera, where a film remains in the camera for longer and has to cope with various subject situations. It is a real asset to the market and something new.
It works straight away with its developer, delivers good results and is not too expensive.
As mentioned above, we are struggling to keep up with production.
It is worth giving the film a chance, even if it is not available as roll or pan film.
Best regards,
Mirko
TiMo
Oh no, Mirko. I didn’t mean to make you explain yet again why roll film and sheet film aren’t being produced; you’ve already done that plenty of times elsewhere.
My dig was meant more as a bit of a joke.
A replacement for CHS 100 sounds good. However, it always seemed to me that the 50 and 25 were more often sold out than the 100. I particularly appreciate the grey tones of the 50 and how straightforward it is to perform exposure and development (the 25 is apparently a bit more demanding during development). May I ask why you prefer the 100?
Best regards
GilbertMayer
Hello everyone
I’m back with an update. I also believe that Silvermax is extremely useful as a 35mm film because of its balance and forgiving nature. To quote (not verbatim) Ralph Gibson, who constantly measures and adjusts the exposure with his Leica so that he’s always ready to shoot. Nevertheless, he openly admits that exposures ranging from 100 to 1000 ISO can be found on a single roll of film, depending on the subject. He makes use of the TriX’s forgiving nature for his images. And the results are impressive. It is precisely these advantages that are even more pronounced with Silvermax. And that with 100 ASA, fine grain and a processing process that is straightforward for everyone.
Incidentally, the Silvermax images on my website were printed using a Focomat 1C, which is a rather hard-working enlarger. All were printed with a filter 2 or 3 and without additional exposure.
For larger formats, we analogue enthusiasts still have very suitable materials at our disposal. TriX can showcase its advantages without its grain becoming too distracting.
However, particularly with sheet film, I am also reliant on a cost-effective product. With these formats, I perform precise and deliberated exposures. I test the films and conduct the development with more or less contrast depending on the subject. So the Silvermax would be overkill in that case. And quite honestly, if it were more expensive than Ilford, I would hardly be able to afford it or want to buy it.
I’ll be publishing another test in the next few days, which I carried out with the Fomapan 200. Unfortunately, I’ve lost both my sheet films in one go: the Rollei Tonal and the CHS 50.
With this addendum, I simply wanted to offer my personal opinion on the question of whether the Silvermax is needed in larger formats. I don’t think so, not necessarily. And above all, I think it would be a shame not to use it as a 35mm film just because it isn’t available in other grades. I understand that you might not necessarily want to test a whole range of different grades, but in the case of Silvermax in particular, testing isn’t strictly necessary. It just works that way. (With the appropriate developers).
Enjoy, everyone who loves photography
Gilbert
MirkoBoeddecker
May I ask why you prefer the 100?
Two things:
1) We’ve sold as many of the 100 as we have of the 25 and 50 combined
2) The 100 is feasible, as it’s already available and in ongoing production. We’d have to build a 25 or 50 from scratch.
So we’re proceeding in a way that suits the market situation and what’s feasible (doing what’s feasible first and prioritising the larger market over the smaller one), without that meaning a 25 or 50 will never follow.
We’re actually already working on a low-sensitivity model, but nothing’s ready to be announced just yet.
Best regards and have fun behind the viewfinder,
Mirko
TiMo
Thanks for the explanation, Mirko. I’d always thought that the slower films were more popular. You can really be mistaken.
Hi Gilbert,
I like the Silvermax mainly because of the way it renders tones. The fact that it has such a wide exposure latitude and is straightforward to process in my own developer is a bonus, but not a deal-breaker for me. But if I like the tones, then naturally I’d be happy to have them in other formats too.
Well, ADOX is working on a CHS 100 replacement in many formats, and that’s sure to be an interesting development.
Cheers, Tim
Wolf_XL
...so for me, 'slow films' start at ISO 100... :-; I reckon there’s plenty of choice in that range. Why on earth would you still need 25 or 50 ISO film these days?? If I need fine grain, I’ll use a medium-format camera. And with standard enlargement ratios, films below 100 ISO offer hardly any advantages in that respect... Low-sensitivity films offer advantages at best in 35mm – but that’s where I refuse to use a tripod. Especially as an M-Leica looks a bit out of place on the Berlebach anyway... ;-)
In the 35mm sector, it’s the films with fine grain, like TMax 400, that are in demand, which can be pushed as far as possible.
TiMo
Why would anyone still need 25 or 50 film these days??
Hi Wolf,
Because some people preferred the look of the CHS 50 or 25 to that of the CHS 100 (or even the very nice CMS). Especially with medium format and also 35mm, I prefer slow films because I usually have a tripod with me and I like the results I get with the slower films better.
There are certainly other scenarios besides yours. And the wider the choice, the better.
Cheers, Tim
