wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2017 Share #1 Posted June 16, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am thinking of changing my standard B&W film from Fomapan 200 to a 100 ISO film. Both the other types of 35mm and 120 films I use are 100 ISO (Provia and Ektar Pro), so to have all my films 100 ISO makes life easy and avoid errors from wrongly set lightmeters. I was just going to change to Fomapan 100 but it is a more traditional and old fashioned looking film than the 200, which I think is excellent. The 200 looks virtually identical to Ilford FP4-Plus but when I started to use it some years ago, I was attracted by the Fomapan being 2/3 of a stop faster. Now that I have a fair number of fast LTM lenses, this is less important and a 100 ISO film would often offer more shutter speed flexibility in daylight than 200 ISO film does. For my low light and nighttime work, I tend to use digital. My alternatives are to use 125 ISO FP4-Plus and just rate it at 100 ISO. It has such wide exposure latitude that I suspect this would make no difference at all. However a friend has suggested the relatively new ADOX Silvermax 100. I have read some reviews and looked at some scanned images . It looks a little orthochromatic to me (like some of the slower Rollei films do) but of course that may be down to the development. It is supposed according to the maker's blurb, to have excellent grey gradation, which does not really appear in the photos I have seen. Has anyone tried ADOX Silvermax and if so what are your opinions? Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2017 Posted June 16, 2017 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here Anyone tried ADOX 100 Silvermax? Thoughts?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fotomas Posted June 16, 2017 Share #2 Posted June 16, 2017 I did some test shots with it. It was claimed, the aim was to make the film as similar as possible to the old Agfapan APX 100. According to my test it is really rather similar. The Agfapan has a relatively low sensitivity for red light. I prefer a higher red sensitivity, so I use other films. But the color rendering looks identically to the Agfapan. If you like the old APX 100 this is a good film for you. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share #3 Posted June 16, 2017 I did some test shots with it. It was claimed, the aim was to make the film as similar as possible to the old Agfapan APX 100. According to my test it is really rather similar. The Agfapan has a relatively low sensitivity for red light. I prefer a higher red sensitivity, so I use other films. But the color rendering looks identically to the Agfapan. If you like the old APX 100 this is a good film for you. That is very helpful and interesting. The Rollei film I was referring to as similar was 80S, which is made by a division of Agfa Belgium, who used to make the APX100, so the orthochromatic appearance is not surprising. Someone on APUG said something very similar when Silvermax was exposed at 100 ISO and said his results were much better at 200, 400 and even 800 ISO with this film, when the blocky blacks were much diminished. I think I might give it a miss and stick to what I know - FP4 Plus. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted June 16, 2017 Share #4 Posted June 16, 2017 As far as I know, APX was made in the Agfa facility in Leverkusen and not in Belgium. The film now sold as new APX is most probably Kentmere film and has nothing to do with the old APX Silvermax is referring to.Retro 80S is one of the aerial films made in Belgium that Rollei sold as normal photo-film. Since it is an aerial film it has a much higher contrast if you develop it to 80 ASA. 80 ASA is the rating for aerial use where you need a higher contrast. I use it at 32 ASA with a shortened developing time. It also has infrared capability and so an increased red sensitivity. APX 100 or Silvermax are original photo-films and totally different from Retro 80S. Anyway FP4+ wouldn't be a bad choice either.But I hardly doubt that you get a better quality / tonality from any 100 ASA film with pushing it to 800. Regards Frank 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted June 16, 2017 Share #5 Posted June 16, 2017 I've been using it, and it gives very deep blacks. https://www.flickr.com/photos/127789682@N04/34579695235/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/127789682@N04/33677668633/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/127789682@N04/33654370244/in/dateposted-public/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted June 16, 2017 Share #6 Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) I am thinking of changing my standard B&W film from Fomapan 200 to a 100 ISO film. Both the other types of 35mm and 120 films I use are 100 ISO (Provia and Ektar Pro), so to have all my films 100 ISO makes life easy and avoid errors from wrongly set lightmeters. I was just going to change to Fomapan 100 but it is a more traditional and old fashioned looking film than the 200, which I think is excellent. The 200 looks virtually identical to Ilford FP4-Plus but when I started to use it some years ago, I was attracted by the Fomapan being 2/3 of a stop faster. Now that I have a fair number of fast LTM lenses, this is less important and a 100 ISO film would often offer more shutter speed flexibility in daylight than 200 ISO film does. For my low light and nighttime work, I tend to use digital. My alternatives are to use 125 ISO FP4-Plus and just rate it at 100 ISO. It has such wide exposure latitude that I suspect this would make no difference at all. However a friend has suggested the relatively new ADOX Silvermax 100. I have read some reviews and looked at some scanned images . It looks a little orthochromatic to me (like some of the slower Rollei films do) but of course that may be down to the development. It is supposed according to the maker's blurb, to have excellent grey gradation, which does not really appear in the photos I have seen. Has anyone tried ADOX Silvermax and if so what are your opinions? Wilson Of the three 100iso 35mm films (Fuji Acros, Adox Silvermax & Delta 100) that I use regularly, Adox Silvermax is my most used emulsion after Fuji Acros. With appropriate filters and processing in Silvermax developer, you will see the extended range and the obvious but even grain structure. I wrote about it sometime ago: http://www.uklandscapephotographer.com/adox-silvermax/ Edited June 16, 2017 by honcho Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted June 16, 2017 Share #7 Posted June 16, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) A more recent example of Silvermax film processed in Silvermax developer: Leica MP CV 28mm f3.5 color-skopar 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! 8 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/273536-anyone-tried-adox-100-silvermax-thoughts/?do=findComment&comment=3296791'>More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share #8 Posted June 16, 2017 Steve, Many thanks. That is much more the look I would be aiming for. My problem is that the only developers I can use without coming out in a rash and wheezing (years of being careless and cavalier with photo chemicals, no gloves, no ventilation etc), are Caffenol and Kodak XTOL. Both of these work well with FP-4 also most labs get good results from FP-4, if I cannot be bothered to do it myself. I might get keener, if I buy a Lab-Box daylight tank. I gave my Rondinax 35U away years ago when I started to get the allergy to hydroquinone problems. I did not support Lab-Box's Kickstarter, as not a single Kickstarter I have supported to date, has come to fruition - I am a real Jonah. I am still waiting for my OWC Thunderbolt-3 dock, some 6 months after I paid $299 for it. It is always going to be released "early next month." The only thing I don't like about the Lab-Box is the absence of a thermometer like the Rondinax tank had. I have still got somewhere, the hot box I made to sit the Rondinax on, with two 50W incandescent tube picture lights in an aluminium box. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted June 16, 2017 Share #9 Posted June 16, 2017 Guess any BW-developer should do the job. You don't have to use the Silvermax developer. I used normal stuff. Unfortunately I haven't tested Caffenol yet with this film. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted June 17, 2017 Share #10 Posted June 17, 2017 The only thing I don't like about the Lab-Box is the absence of a thermometer like the Rondinax tank had. I have still got somewhere, the hot box I made to sit the Rondinax on, with two 50W incandescent tube picture lights in an aluminium box. Wilson The lab box kickstarter hit targets set after launch and a thermometer is now present, a heater is under "development" as is an automatic agitator/rotator https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2017788873/lab-box-the-first-multi-format-daylight-loading-fi/posts/1880764 This is Silvermax in XTOL 1:1 I don't see deep blacks I have 35 shots of Silvermax in XTOL on my Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=52616306%40N05&sort=date-taken-desc&view_all=1&text=silvermax%20xtol and 287 in total on Silvermax with a variety of tagged developers: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=52616306%40N05&sort=date-taken-desc&text=silvermax&view_all=1 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share #11 Posted June 17, 2017 I have just had a reply back from Adox (on a Saturday!). They think their Hydroquinone free developer Adotech III should work very well on Silverprint with very gentle grey gradation. However they don't have any development time recommendations and said I would need to experiment. It would certainly be longer than the lower silver content and finer grain CMS20-II that Adotech III was designed for. I would probably start at around 9 to 10 minutes (CMS20-II 7 to 8 minutes) in 1:9 dilution at 24º. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted June 17, 2017 Share #12 Posted June 17, 2017 I have just had a reply back from Adox (on a Saturday!). They think their Hydroquinone free developer Adotech III should work very well on Silverprint with very gentle grey gradation. However they don't have any development time recommendations and said I would need to experiment. It would certainly be longer than the lower silver content and finer grain CMS20-II that Adotech III was designed for. I would probably start at around 9 to 10 minutes (CMS20-II 7 to 8 minutes) in 1:9 dilution at 24º. Wilson Try ADXii 10mins @ 1:24 Check the data for your allergy issues first, though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 17, 2017 Author Share #13 Posted June 17, 2017 Try ADXii 10mins @ 1:24 Check the data for your allergy issues first, though. Steve, I am not willing to risk even a low HQ developer like ADXii. If I get a bad allergy attack, it can stir up my auto-immune/sero-negative type arthritis for weeks afterwards. That is rather dormant at the moment and I am quite happy for it to stay that way. Given there are zero HQ developers available, it does not seem a sensible risk to take. It has calmed down a lot from what it was 20 years ago, when I even had to put on vinyl gloves to handle freshly developed film. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted June 18, 2017 Share #14 Posted June 18, 2017 Hello Wilson, I have some fear, that since Adotech III is a rather specialized developer for the CMS 20 film, you will get extremely soft negatives, when you use it with a normal film. I would try Xtol, Caffenol or Rodinal first. There all free of hydrochinon. Otherwise I would be very interested in the results. Frank 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share #15 Posted June 18, 2017 When I was in contact with ADOX yesterday, they listed Rodinal as one of their "low HQ" developers. This was incorrect. Having read Rodinal's safety sheet, it does appear to be zero HQ, using 4-aminophenol in a solution of potassium hydroxide as its sole active agent. There is no mention of HQ at all on the safety sheet, which given German rules on chemical safety, I am sure there would have to have been if it contained any. XTOL is a pain in France as it comes as a pack of the two powders to make up 5 litres. If I am using, as I expect, a borrowed Rondinax 35U tank, which only takes 200ml, this is a lot of films and would certainly have gone "off" long before I finished it. None of my usual three photo-suppliers in France carry commercial Caffenol. So therefore Rodinal looks like it might be the best bet. It is freely available in France or direct from ADOX. Wilson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarsAC Posted June 18, 2017 Share #16 Posted June 18, 2017 I always shoot Fomapan 200 at EI100. This seems to correspond to experience made by others. What did you use to develop Foma film? Moersch also has a HQ-free Eco developer. Lars Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share #17 Posted June 18, 2017 Lars, I had the Fomapan 200 developed for me in Tetanal T-Fin Plus by Labo Photo in Lyon (very pleasant and helpful folk but work at their own pace). I am very happy with the end results but I have found for daylight, with my older cameras which often have shutters with a max of 1/500 or even less, this means I am using smaller apertures that I want with 200 ISO film, without having to bother with ND filters. I have decided to standardise therefore on 100 ISO, which is the same as the two colour films I use, Ektar and Provia. I tried Fomapan 100 expecting it to be a finer grain version of their 200 but it was not. I thought it was neither as fine grain nor as sharp as FP4-Plus and a bit disappointing. It may be who processed it for me, as I specified fine grain developer but had no response. French labs are not very good at reading instructions to push or pull processing and I have found it is safer to stick to the rated speed for the film rather than getting an: "oops sorry we did not see your instructions until after processing". If I go back to processing my own, I can experiment more. A friend has offered to sell me his spare Rondinax 35U tank and is looking it out of the attic to check its condition, i.e. are the loading guide, tape and clip still there and in good condition and is the knife still working and sharp. Wilson Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted June 18, 2017 Share #18 Posted June 18, 2017 Of the three 100iso 35mm films (Fuji Acros, Adox Silvermax & Delta 100) that I use regularly, Adox Silvermax is my most used emulsion after Fuji Acros. With appropriate filters and processing in Silvermax developer, you will see the extended range and the obvious but even grain structure. I wrote about it sometime ago: http://www.uklandscapephotographer.com/adox-silvermax/ Thanks, Steve - A good write-up. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted June 18, 2017 Share #19 Posted June 18, 2017 When I was in contact with ADOX yesterday, they listed Rodinal as one of their "low HQ" developers. This was incorrect. Having read Rodinal's safety sheet, it does appear to be zero HQ, using 4-aminophenol in a solution of potassium hydroxide as its sole active agent. There is no mention of HQ at all on the safety sheet, which given German rules on chemical safety, I am sure there would have to have been if it contained any. XTOL is a pain in France as it comes as a pack of the two powders to make up 5 litres. If I am using, as I expect, a borrowed Rondinax 35U tank, which only takes 200ml, this is a lot of films and would certainly have gone "off" long before I finished it. None of my usual three photo-suppliers in France carry commercial Caffenol. So therefore Rodinal looks like it might be the best bet. It is freely available in France or direct from ADOX. Wilson As there is a limited variety of developers available here in Malaysia, I have only used Fomapan R09 (Rodinal) for my SilverMax films. It seems to do fine (1:50 for 12-1/2min @ 20ºC). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted June 24, 2017 Share #20 Posted June 24, 2017 Hi, Wilson. I shot a roll of Silvermax 100 today. Exposed as ISO 80, developed in 1:50 R09 for 14 minutes (It's in the "I like film" thread, as it was on an EOS 1V)... https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/205842-i-like-filmopen-thread/?p=3301752 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.