ADOX CMS 20

[chrism]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For XP2 or a Tmax film the development is set no matter what the lab does, C41 process is what it is, no opinions, no 'I've never had a problem with...'.

 

Steve

 

I think we would all have a problem if we developed TMax films in C-41 chemicals!

[250swb]

Yes quite so, try BW400CN instead, that will work.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

Yes quite so, try BW400CN instead, that will work.

 

Steve

 

+1

[honcho]

BW400CN was discontinued in August. As far as I'm aware only remaining stock is available.

[MarkP]

BW400CN was discontinued in August. As far as I'm aware only remaining stock is available.

 

Theres still a fair amount about - I've just bought and stored 40 rolls

[hilmersen]

CMS-20, exposed at 12.5 is my favourite film.  Love it!  It is very forgiving and has a huge range.  I cannot think of any other film that handles snow as well as this film.  While you are at it, buy some silvermax - also a very nice film.  Yes, it is true that you will not be able to use its full resolution if you are scanning - but you will get a tonality that is to die for.   

My post processing in lr is usually to darken the highlights.

I use the dedicated developer - but after developing at least 20 of these I can say that my hit rate is way higher than with tri-x and hc-110.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, hilmersen said:

CMS-20, exposed at 12.5 is my favourite film.  Love it!  It is very forgiving and has a huge range.  I cannot think of any other film that handles snow as well as this film.  While you are at it, buy some silvermax - also a very nice film.  Yes, it is true that you will not be able to use its full resolution if you are scanning - but you will get a tonality that is to die for.   

My post processing in lr is usually to darken the highlights.

I use the dedicated developer - but after developing at least 20 of these I can say that my hit rate is way higher than with tri-x and hc-110.

I agree it is a superb film but since the original post the Adox medium format machine has broken down and the 35mm is now called CMS20 II. But I don't mean to pick at points, with the Adotech IV developer CMS20 II gives medium format quality with a wide latitude for what is essentially a copy film. Snow and the inherent contrast range is superbly rendered. I rate it at 6 ISO and at 1+14 for Adotech develop it for 10.5 minutes, but I meter for mid-tones.

I'd just started using the original CMS20 seven or eight years ago in medium format and developing in Pyro 510 and it was a dream, until the Adox roll film machine broke down. But I'm glad it's now available in 35mm, definitely my favourite film at the moment. I may try it again in Pyro 510 but the Adotech developer is hard to beat.

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

I agree it is a superb film but since the original post the Adox medium format machine has broken down and the 35mm is now called CMS20 II. But I don't mean to pick at points, with the Adotech IV developer CMS20 II gives medium format quality with a wide latitude for what is essentially a copy film. Snow and the inherent contrast range is superbly rendered. I rate it at 6 ISO and at 1+14 for Adotech develop it for 10.5 minutes, but I meter for mid-tones.

I'd just started using the original CMS20 seven or eight years ago in medium format and developing in Pyro 510 and it was a dream, until the Adox roll film machine broke down. But I'm glad it's now available in 35mm, definitely my favourite film at the moment. I may try it again in Pyro 510 but the Adotech developer is hard to beat.

I've just received a bottle of Jay De Fer's 510 from Silverprint.  They probably still have some in stock if you're looking.

[250swb]

8 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

I've just received a bottle of Jay De Fer's 510 from Silverprint.  They probably still have some in stock if you're looking.

Thanks, just ordered. I'm very happy see Silverprint stocking 510, anything to take the faff out of mixing my own again.

[Ornello]

On 8/30/2014 at 7:20 PM, TheGodParticle/Hari said:

My backwards journey into photography has finally reached the shores of film

 

A film camera is being acquired (M6 or M7 and maybe add one a la carte MP at a later stage)

 

I did buy 10 rolls of ADOX CMS 20 - this film is the primary reason I'm foraying into the analogue world and I do understand it's not the easiest of the lot to start with

 

Question is - since I don't have a film background, what lenses would you guys typically use for this film? I know the development process does play a role too but would you go for the current high contrast APO ASPH lenses or rather the more classic lenses with low/medium contrast?

 

I intend the use the SA21/3.4 + canon 35/1.8 LTM + 75/1.4 + 90 pre-ASPH + 135/4 combo

 

Also, any good processing labs you can recommend? I'm 45 min south of Frankfurt am Main, don't mind posting long distance and having to wait for awhile. I want postcard sized prints, poster sized prints as well as scans onto a DVD/BRay disc

 

Thank you for the help,

Hari

That is a 'copy' film, with inherently high contrast. I would avoid it. For all-round use, I would recommend sticking with HP5+ and FP4+, processed in ID11/D76 1+1 or Ilfosol 3  1+14. Very slow films (even Pan-F +) are difficult to use in general, with limited latitude and strict development requirements. I used Adox KB14 (ASA 20) back in the late 1960s, but was never very satisfied with it.  You're going about this all backwards: the materials should be chosen based on what kind of photographs you want to make. If you don't have a darkroom and want to scan, use Ilford XP2 Super. It will scan satisfactorily. Fast conventional B+W films will not.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Ornello

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

That is a 'copy' film, with inherently high contrast. I would avoid it.

It only has inherently high contrast if you use it for copying, but supposing you knew how to process it you'd find it has a full tonal range and it's possible to get ultra fine grain medium format quality negatives from 35mm. If that is the aim why wouldn't somebody use it? 

[Ornello]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

It only has inherently high contrast if you use it for copying, but supposing you knew how to process it you'd find it has a full tonal range and it's possible to get ultra fine grain medium format quality negatives from 35mm. If that is the aim why wouldn't somebody use it? 

No, it has inherently high contrast because that's what it was designed for. Don't you understand what 'inherent' means? You can use special developers to reduce the contrast, but that is a ticklish proposition. I tried using Kodak Technical Pan back in the 1980s (with Technidol liquid developer ), but never got satisfactory results. Ultra-fine grain films are inherently high contrast because all the grains are similar in size (very small) and that makes them develop all at the same time. Conventional films have a range of grain sizes, as they must, to produce a nice range of tones. T-Max films (100 and 400)  suffer from the same problem, to some extent. They must be very accurately developed, or else they are way too contrasty. Kodak Panatomic-X film was not the finest grain that Kodak could make: it was actually grainier than Adox KB14, but it was far easier to get a nice tonal range from it than from KB14. If you don't know exactly what you are doing, it will be very frustrating. Most people don't understand how film works, and this can lead to disappointment.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Ornello

[robert_parker]

I've just happened in to this thread and I don't know if you might find these photos relevant, all are taken with CMS20ii 35mm exposed at about iso 12, developed in Adotech developer and scanned by Ag Photographic here in the UK.  They were taken on a very sunny day in Trier, Germany and Luxembourg.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[250swb]

7 hours ago, Ornello said:

 Most people don't understand how film works, and this can lead to disappointment.

I guess in this case you are the disappointed one. But while you totally failed at processing CMS20 there are plenty of people who can process it to have a full tonal range and very, very fine grain, have a look at these examples

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Adox CMS20 II

and other than intended by the artist count how many have out of control high contrast. My guess is that you were doing something fundamentally wrong in processing the film, there are some tricks, but rather than find out how to do it all you now want to say is that it can't be done, and that is your arrogance showing through.

[Ornello]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

I guess in this case you are the disappointed one. But while you totally failed at processing CMS20 there are plenty of people who can process it to have a full tonal range and very, very fine grain, have a look at these examples

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Adox CMS20 II

and other than intended by the artist count how many have out of control high contrast. My guess is that you were doing something fundamentally wrong in processing the film, there are some tricks, but rather than find out how to do it all you now want to say is that it can't be done, and that is your arrogance showing through.

It was Kodak Technical Pan, not the Adox CMS20. I used the proper developer (Technidol) made by Kodak. No matter which agitation routine I tried, I kept getting uneven development (streaks and bubbles). I never experience streaks with 'regular' films and developers.  There seemed to be some sort of wetting agent in the developer, because I saw some sudsing. I suspect this was the problem.

https://www.photography-forums.com/threads/techpan-worth-it-in-something-other-than-technidol.91708/

"Technidol also appears to have a wetting agent in it. Kodak had a lot of trouble from uneven development when Technical Pan was first put on the market, the formulation of Technidol was developed to reduce those problems."

Others have reported similar difficulties:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/sheet-film-frustration-uneven-development.36159/print

"What is your developer/film combo. Some combinations will produce uneven development in just about all settings (the worst probably being the old Technidol/Tech Pan combo)".

My point ("Most people don't understand how film works, and this can lead to disappointment.") was that starting out with a copy film is not the easiest or best way to learn how to shoot and develop B&W film.

From what people in photo forums have reported, it seems that agitation is often improperly done (over or under, inconsistent, etc.). 

This may be of help:

https://www.photography-forums.com/threads/techpan-and-panf-t-grain.92560/

Edited December 22, 2021 by Ornello

[250swb]

6 hours ago, Ornello said:

 

This may be of help:

https://www.photography-forums.com/threads/techpan-and-panf-t-grain.92560/

I'm not sure why you want to conflate Technical Pan with CMS20 but I don't need you to tell me how to process CMS20 or by your extension to the subject Technical Pan.

Yes there are things that are essential to success, and I'm talking about CMS20 here. The first is the ISO rating, it should be in the region of 6 ISO, definitely not 20 ISO. It should be processed in a suitable developer, I previously favoured 510 Pyro but more recently the Adotech IV developer has overtaken this for ultimate quality. Temperature should start out at 23c but then can naturally drop over the processing period (maybe 10 to 12 minutes) unless the drop would be rapid. And then the agitation should be a single gentle swirl and a tilt in the tank once a minute and not an inversion or anything constant or violent. And the last thing is that fixing the film for anything over 1 minute (I fix for 45 seconds) will start to bleach the negative, which brings us back to the myth of high contrast, everything up to that point can be done correctly but then people think fixing the negative is just the usual routine and it isn't.

[Ornello]

Technical Pan was derived from Kodak High Contrast Copy film. It required a special developer (Technidol) to achieve something like normal tones. In this, it is the same as the Adox CMS 20 with Adotech IV. I am not trying to tell you how to process that film. All I am saying is that the OP would be better off starting with conventional materials. The quality of today's materials is so good that it would astonish a worker of the 1950s.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Ornello

[250swb]

24 minutes ago, Ornello said:

Technical Pan was derived from Kodak High Contrast Copy film. It required a special developer (Technidol) to achieve something like normal tones. In this, it is the same as the Adox CMS 20 with Adotech IV. I am not trying to tell you how to process that film. All I am saying is that the OP would be better off starting with conventional materials. The quality of today's materials is so good that it would astonish a worker of the 1950s.

And exactly which of 'todays' materials will surpass CMS20? Given it is easily available and with a developer that is intended for it, how is that unconventional? I mean if you use XP2 you'd most probably use a C41 to develop it, is that unconventional as a specific combination?

The conversation started with CMS20, but as usual you interject and say you know better. But this is a common internet trope, it's in the vein of 'mine is better than yours' where people who have nothing to say or contribute to the subject tell everybody else they should be doing something else. I know you know a lot about film developing, but maybe sometimes if you can't contribute to the discussion don't try and make it about something else to suit you. Unless you are a novice on the internet you'll have seen the many times people parachute into a discussion about one lens to say their lens is 'better' without any experience of the lens being discussed, it's a lonely cry to be heard.

[Ornello]

21 minutes ago, 250swb said:

And exactly which of 'todays' materials will surpass CMS20? Given it is easily available and with a developer that is intended for it, how is that unconventional? I mean if you use XP2 you'd most probably use a C41 to develop it, is that unconventional as a specific combination?

The conversation started with CMS20, but as usual you interject and say you know better. But this is a common internet trope, it's in the vein of 'mine is better than yours' where people who have nothing to say or contribute to the subject tell everybody else they should be doing something else. I know you know a lot about film developing, but maybe sometimes if you can't contribute to the discussion don't try and make it about something else to suit you. Unless you are a novice on the internet you'll have seen the many times people parachute into a discussion about one lens to say their lens is 'better' without any experience of the lens being discussed, it's a lonely cry to be heard.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I said today's materials are so good that they would astonish a worker of the 1950s.

"Technical Pan was derived from Kodak High Contrast Copy film. It required a special developer (Technidol) to achieve something like normal tones. In this, it is the same as the Adox CMS 20 with Adotech IV. I am not trying to tell you how to process that film. All I am saying is that the OP would be better off starting with conventional materials. The quality of today's materials is so good that it would astonish a worker of the 1950s."

In other words, the motivation for using an EI 6 material to get excellent quality results simply doesn't exist. Is that clear enough for you? Yes, I do know better. I have been doing this for 55 years. I have tried just about every film and paper out there during that time, so I know what is good and what isn't. Adox CMS20 is a high-contrast copy film that requires a special developer, and that is why it is 'unconventional'. Ilford Delta 100 (and several other films) would astonish anyone who uses it for the first time.

Quit misquoting me and distorting what I say.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Ornello

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

On 8/31/2014 at 3:14 AM, 250swb said:

If I were you I'd put the Adox in the fridge and save it for later. Not just because it needs a dedicated developer (which you use at home), but ideally when starting it is far, far, better to use a very common film where you can compare your experiences (successes and failures) with the majority of other people. Secondary to this is the implied quest for ultimate quality, which is a refined job in 35mm that requires experience at every stage from exposure to printing.

 

So I'd suggest some Delta 100 or FP4, a medium speed film that can be processed either by yourself or a lab. Lenses can be any lens, because if you process the film yourself you can alter the characteristics of the film in the way you expose and develop the negative and this can mask any inherent traits of the lens. Indeed any lab can do the same thing (accidentally) if their development regime happens to make the negatives flatter or more contrasty than you may want, but you have no control over this.

 

Steve

See this post! You posted it! This is perfectly consistent with my advice.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Ornello