Jump to content

Anyone tried ADOX 100 Silvermax? Thoughts?


wlaidlaw

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by honcho
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 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  ;)

 

21861506428_da3b3c453a_c.jpg

 

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

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...