Adox CHS 25/50/100

Zeze · 2012-03-09T11:55:36+00:00

Hallo zusammen, ich interessiere mich sehr für die o.g. beiden Filme und möchte sie erst einmal auf Kleinbild testen. Mein Standardentwickler für alles, wa...

Zeze

Hello everyone, I’m very interested in the two films mentioned above and would like to try them out on 35mm first. My go-to developer for just about everything is Kodak D76, hence my question: Which developer would you recommend for these emulsions? I keep reading about Adonal in the product descriptions. And: Is the CHS 100 a more sensitive film than, for example, the AGFA APX 100 in Rodinal? Thanks in advance for your replies :)

Olivinyl

Hi Zeze I developed the Adox CHS 100 in Rodinal/Adonal at a ratio of 1:50. 11 minutes at 20°C. I used a stop bath, but with less than 3% acid. In my opinion, the grain is roughly the same as that of the APX 100, but it appears a tiny bit more sharp on the APX. I’m going to expose the next roll at 80 ASA and develop it for just 10 minutes in Adonal 1+50. Further tests in Adonal 1+25 for 5.5 minutes and in Xtol 1+1 and 1+2 are still to come. Xtol is completely new territory for me. But I’m sure there are a few people here who can report on this combination. Adolux ATM 49 is also said to work very well with this film. Here are a few scans from the ADOX CHS 100 negative / Adonal 1+50: [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] Enlargement from the negative [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] Best regards, Oliver

Zeze

Thanks for the info and the sample photos :) I’ll just order a few ADOX films and have a bit of a experiment myself. Best regards

TiMo

The best way to find out is to give it a go! I think the film has a lovely, raw charm. I like to use it in my ‘always-with-me’ camera for snapshots. The examples below were developed using ADOX APH 09. These are unprocessed scans of the negative. Printed copies would be sharper.

Zeze

It looks great, thank you! The order will be dispatched today :)

TR

The images could just as easily have come from any other ‘classic’ black-and-white film. If I were to take Film X, perform correct exposure for the shadows and develop it for the highlights (and not resort to that strangely widespread push-processing nonsense), make a good-quality print from it, then post it online and write that ‘this is film anyway’, the film would suddenly be considered good. Yet today’s black-and-white films within their respective genres are extremely similar. Here, one should pay more attention to things like price, mechanical emulsion sensitivity and twist. PS: This is by no means intended as a criticism of ADOX film.

Wolfgg

Well, it’s not quite that simple; the final image is influenced by factors specific to the type of film, such as - The shape of the characteristic curve, which depends on the film/developer combination (a straight curve produces a very different image than one with a dip) - The spectral sensitivity of the film - The distribution of the silver bromide/silver crystals and their migration during the two wet stages (flooding and development). With scans, there’s the added factor that every scanner introduces its own gradation curve. And as long as most of us are sitting in front of uncalibrated and unprofiled screens with a completely unknown gradation curve, everyone sees something different anyway, so that film assessments or even discussions of the image effect are only possible to a very limited extent in this way. Regards, Wolfgang

thomas_l

@T.R. As for the Efkes, I don’t quite see it that way. The Efkes really do have their own distinct character, precisely because, technically speaking, they aren’t that modern. I quite like them, but that’s not why I use them as my go-to film. Otherwise, what you said is certainly true: whether you use Tri-X or HP5 doesn’t really matter.