Problematic Adox Shots

Disphotic

Disphotic

Messages
167
Name
Lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
Despite shooting HP5 for years I've defected to Adox CHS 100 recently due to the much lower cost for a bulk roll. Not massively pleased with the results though, tonaly ok but images seem quite soft. I've gone through my whole workflow and not been able to work out what the cause is. The most convincing explanation I've heard is it takes longer for the chems to penetrate Adox emulsion, so it tends to benefit from longer development times, although I've got no official info to back this up.

If anyone has any experience with this film and has any suggestions for the cause please fire away. Or if you can recommend an alternative cheapo black and white film, preferably one avaliable in bulk rolls. If not feel free to critique the photos in otherways.

All shot on a Canon FTb - 50/1.4 and deved in Agfa Rodinal at 1+25 and scanned on an Epson V500 Photo


Nunhead by Lewis K. Bush, on Flickr


Nunhead by Lewis K. Bush, on Flickr


Nunhead by Lewis K. Bush, on Flickr


Nunhead by Lewis K. Bush, on Flickr
 
Its difficult to tell how 'sharp' these are due to the size of the images but they look ok at this size. However, they do look underexposed from what I can see and the shadow detail is lost. That could also be due to under development. I can't help ou with cheap film. I did use legacy pro 100 but that isn't around any more and I am currently trying out a few others to see which ones I like!
 
Hey, thanks for the reply. Shadow detail is there in the neg, its just been 'printed' i.e post-proccessed like that. I tend to do to my scans roughly what I'd do to a print. They've also been sharpened quite a bit more than I like to try and compensate for the softness. I'll see if I can find one of the original scans.

Here's a larger version of one for now: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/5739354651_f42a147028_o.jpg

Let me know if you come across anything new thats worth knowing about, I've tried all the obvious ones but nothing seems to get the right balance of cost vs quality.
 
No problems with sharpness there. Photos usually need sharpening post scanning, especially from flatbeds, they always come out a little soft. I don't think there is anything to worry about!
 
I have had the same problems when using adox 100, they all seem underexposed. As for sharpness I havent noticed anything wrong with that side of things!
 
menthel said:
No problems with sharpness there. Photos usually need sharpening post scanning, especially from flatbeds, they always come out a little soft. I don't think there is anything to worry about!
Click to expand...

The same problem is present in wet prints of the negs as well as in the scans. Anyway compared to scans of other films treated exactly the same way there is still a huge lack of sharpness in the Adox, e.g this shot on HP5 at 400 but otherwise treated identically.


Geneva by Lewis K. Bush, on Flickr

large: http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5179/5469606858_d730283ee6_o.jpg

Anyway its not a big deal, it just puts me off using Adox regulary because if I decide to wet print something shot on it later it looks crap.
 
Again, it's difficult to tell at these sizes. Full size pictures are the only way to really tell! These 1000 odd longest side will generally look sharp anyway. It can hide a multitude of sins that can be seen in larger pictures. Sorry not to be of more help!
 
No worries, thanks anyway.

You'll just have to take my word for it that they aren't right. I've consulted so many sources to try and determine the cause of the problem, its really irritating. I just thought I'd post them in case someone here had encountered something similar.

Anyway consider this a conventional image critique thread henceforth.
 
I don't understand your problem
Adox is a single coated thin emulsion film, that needs a compensating beutler type developer to give maximum shadow detail and high actuance.
The very best is probably dilute Neofin Blue with low agitation. The film is inherently fine grain and does not respond well to fine grain developers especially solvent types.
It is quite unlike modern films and most of the processing rules we learn today need to be forgotten.

In the 50'sI was using it to produce 3 meter square prints from Rollei negs.
 
Last edited:
Well Terry you've told me more than anyone else has in several months, so it sounds like you've understood my problem pretty well. Thanks I'll look into that.
 
Disphotic said:
Well Terry you've told me more than anyone else has in several months, so it sounds like you've understood my problem pretty well. Thanks I'll look into that.
Click to expand...

Neofin Blue is available in two sorts. in sealed glass vials of undiluted chemical from Tetenhal ( I use this one but is more expensive.)
It is also available as a two part dry mix. Or you can even find the formula on the web and make it up your self. The chemicals are cheap and basic.

Once the chemicals are diluted they will not keep, as they oxidize very readily.
But in the vial or as two parts they keep for ages.

People might tell you that low agitation is not necessary to achieve the compensating effect. This is probably true on modern multi-coated films. But with single coated film normal agitation refreshes the developer in the highlight areas too quickly.


(Your rodinal should work but you lose about 2/3 of a stop, and it seems to have a slight solvent effect on the grain.( less good) I am told it works best diluted to 100 or 200 with this film.)
 
Last edited:
OP, just to point out you may be better off asking these types of questions at somewhere like APUG or FADU. The amount of experience in those forums may be aboe to get you even more help than here. What you are asking is actually rather more specialised than most of the enthusiastic amateurs here can help with.
 
Terry: Great, thanks, will have to check it out and see if it balances out economy wise since that was the main reason for the move to Adox anyway. I did try stand proccessing it for about an hour at something like 1-100 in Rodinal and got somewhat better results, a bit of a faff to do though.

Jim: Thanks but apparently not ↑
 
Disphotic said:
Terry: Great, thanks, will have to check it out and see if it balances out economy wise since that was the main reason for the move to Adox anyway. I did try stand proccessing it for about an hour at something like 1-100 in Rodinal and got somewhat better results, a bit of a faff to do though.

Jim: Thanks but apparently not ↑
Click to expand...

Hence the "most" in my post! ;)

Only trying to help.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, the suggestion from Jim was pretty valid - the members on TP that are likely to be able to give you an answer, are very probably also going to be members on APUG / FADU as well - however, there are quite a large number of denizens of APUG/FADU that wouldn't be seen dead contributing to any forum that sullies its hands with digital. So - while you'll get answers here, you MAY get it a little quicker on the other places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top