Adotex CMS 20 II Developing Problems and Tips

[AgX]

All you have done is said no to everything, ...

I got not slightest idea what caused of all the aggression against me.

I did nothing what you blame me for. All I said you can read above. Whereas it is you who came up with a distinctive idea.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm not sure if the format was mentioned. Is this 35mm? As mentioned earlier in this thread, I've been using this film in 4x5, and have not noticed any issues, whatsoever. New box arrived yesterday, and I'm champing at the bit to crack it open.

 

[pentaxuser]

It would be nice to get a response from 250swb on whether he contacted Adox and if so, what response, if any, he got from Adox

I've asked twice now but to be fair he doesn't seem to have visited us since my second request. Hopefully he will see it and respond

The problem like a lot of others we tackle is that currently we have 2 members who appear to have the same issue but others who have not had any issue

What we don't know is how many others who are not members have the same or similar problems. The problem seems to be intermittent even on the same film so there are lots of unknowns. That's why a response from Adox may be helpful but of course the question needs to have been asked for this to happen

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Well this problem seems to have "died the death" as the saying goes. The OP hasn't visited since July 25 and 250swb who took up the cause has not responded to my request to say if he contacted ADOX

I never know what to make of such threads that seem to end suddenly as if it has fallen off a cliff but with no conclusions.

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

That so far we only got one "positive" statement, which later even has been weakened to me confirms how tricky the OP's case is.
The OP's artefact even is more complicated than 250swb's one as showing even crossed streaks.


Our imagination is asked for. As said I am clueless so far.

 

[250swb]

It would be nice to get a response from 250swb on whether he contacted Adox and if so, what response, if any, he got from Adox

I've asked twice now but to be fair he doesn't seem to have visited us since my second request. Hopefully he will see it and respond



pentaxuser

Sorry, I didn't realise I'd been ordered to do something. I didn't return because as usual on a forum if the 'big hitters' don't have a clue anybody else's opinion is degraded for fear of being right. No I haven't contacted Adox because as I said I had this problem with the first few films from a batch and in the next batch it didn't reappear, so call me lazy.

 

[AgX]

I didn't return because as usual on a forum if the 'big hitters' don't have a clue anybody else's opinion is degraded for fear of being right.

Is that so here? Of the multiposters here, I know of one who during my time only once kind of admitted to be wrong, the rest of us is prepared to stand corrected. But being clueless oneself does not mean that one necessarily accepts any explanation just for that, even if one does not find it convincing.

I am a curious fellow, and I would really like to understand what happened here to the film.

 

[4r36]

Hello everybody, I'm sorry if I disappeared for so long. I didn't look again at this thread because, as @AgX said, the case is tricky and people are clueless, unfortunately. Plus, I recalled it was Mirko from Adox who replied to me, when instead it was actually AgX himself. Don't ask me why

Now I have unfortunately another problem with this film, which does not have to do with the development but with the price. Fotoimpex now sells a roll for almost 10 euros (before it was 5,4 euros or so). This means that if one wants to buy the dedicated developer together with 5-6 rolls (so as no to waste any of it), the total price is more than 60 euros. Very expensive.

I complained about this with Fotoimpex and they replied the reason is a huge increase of the cost of the raw materials...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd say 10 Euro a roll isn't out of line with other premium film products -- Kodak Tri-X and T-Max or Ilford FP4+, HP5+, and Delta, and Fuji Acros II are around that same price. The special developer has always seemed a little high to me, which is why I developed the original CMS 20 in the same low contrast version of Caffenol I used for Imagelink and Copex Rapid microfilm stocks.

 

[4r36]

I'd say 10 Euro a roll isn't out of line with other premium film products -- Kodak Tri-X and T-Max or Ilford FP4+, HP5+, and Delta, and Fuji Acros II are around that same price. The special developer has always seemed a little high to me, which is why I developed the original CMS 20 in the same low contrast version of Caffenol I used for Imagelink and Copex Rapid microfilm stocks.

You're right Donald. 10 euros is still in line with some other premium films. The problem is if one wants to buy it with the dedicated developer. I'm worried I would loose its special features by developing it with my usual developers, i.e., Rodinal and Xtol. I might try Caffenol if you tell me that it pairs well.

 

[Donald Qualls]

You specifically need one of the low contrast variants -- I originally created my own Caffenol LC+C by cutting the amounts of both coffee and ascorbic acid in half compared to regular Caffenol C, after reading that many other low contrast developers did the same. I coupled that with reduced agitation -- five inversions every third minute -- and extended development to restore normal contrast and got very good results with the original CMS 20. There are now published low contrast Caffenol variants that use slightly different proportions for specific document films, but I used the same formula for Imagelink, Copex Rapid, and CMS 20.

 

[aparat]

The commercially available Adotech IV seems to do a good job with this film. Here's a curve of the 24C development, per Adox's own instructions. Despite the recommendation, you get low speed (around ISO 7) and high contrast (CI=0.85). I am currently researching alternatives, i.e., dilute conventional developers. Stay tuned.

adoxCMS20IITestPlots.Adotech by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

 

[Scott J.]

Fotoimpex now sells a roll for almost 10 euros (before it was 5,4 euros or so).

Macodirect still shows the 135 format for 5.99 Euros, which includes VAT. It might be that they're selling off remaining stock at the older price and will increase the price when they get resupplied by Adox.

 

[Donald Qualls]

you get low speed (around ISO 7) and high contrast (CI=0.85).

I don't have curves, and the film has changed, but with Caffenol LC+C I had good shadow detail at EI 25 and while contrast was strong, it wasn't excessive. I should also note, however, that I get box speed from Fomapan 400 with good shadows and had good shadows on 5222 (Double X) exposed at EI 400 -- which I attribute to metering methods.

 

[aparat]

I don't have curves, and the film has changed, but with Caffenol LC+C I had good shadow detail at EI 25 and while contrast was strong, it wasn't excessive. I should also note, however, that I get box speed from Fomapan 400 with good shadows and had good shadows on 5222 (Double X) exposed at EI 400 -- which I attribute to metering methods.

That's fantastic. Of course, it's possible to get great results at different EI. I am not denying it at all. I am just showing the data I obtained in my tests. I think it's important for each photographer to come up with their own tests and determine what works for them. I found the Adotech IV developer to be nothing special, compared to dilute D76 and F76 Plus. I will present my data when the tests are complete. Having said that, it's great that Adox offers Adotech IV to go along with the CMS II emulsion. It's an easy developer to worth with.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well the Adotech developer's main advantage if not its only advantage compared to other low contrast developers seems to be its speed i.e. 20 is available If this isn't in fact available then I wonder what the benefit is?

pentaxuser

 

[aparat]

Well the Adotech developer's main advantage if not its only advantage compared to other low contrast developers seems to be its speed i.e. 20 is available If this isn't in fact available then I wonder what the benefit is?

pentaxuser

Well, I haven't been able to get near ISO 20 with Adotech IV. I am consistently getting around ISO 8, following Adox's recommendations as closely as I can. I am sure one can make beautiful photographs exposing at EI 20. I am not denying that.

Its advantage is that it is commercially available and easy to mix. It takes a lot of guesswork out of the process. Otherwise, one would have to test a custom dilution of, say D76, or use one of the Caffenol (or other) variants to get similar results.

 

[4r36]

Very interesting guys, thanks a lot.

 

[250swb]

Well the Adotech developer's main advantage if not its only advantage compared to other low contrast developers seems to be its speed i.e. 20 is available If this isn't in fact available then I wonder what the benefit is?

pentaxuser

I think it's misleading to talk about low contrast developers. CMS20 is high contrast copy film and exposing it at 20 ISO isn't enough exposure for it to start registering mid tones, so using it at 20 ISO and using a low contrast developer is a waste of time, it remains a copy film, there are no mid tones to develop. What exposing it at (say) 6 ISO does is over expose the film to create mid tones and then the compensating action of Adotech 'pulls' the film to create the range of normal tones. A similar thing can be done by using known compensating developers to control the highlights but in my experience none are as reliable as Adotech.

 

[Donald Qualls]

using it at 20 ISO and using a low contrast developer is a waste of time, it remains a copy film, there are no mid tones to develop.

I've got negatives that disagree with this claim -- from original CMS 20 as well as from 1990s vintage Imagelink and Fuji HR microfilms, and from Copex Rapid.

Definitely some considerable gradation, and the extended red sensitivity helps pull clouds out of the sky at an exposure that doesn't completely lose the conifer foliage.

Original Adox CMS 20 at EI 25, developed in my Caffenol LC+C; shot with my Pentax Spotmatic SP and Super Takumar 50/1.4.

 

[250swb]

I've got negatives that disagree with this claim -- from original CMS 20 as well as from 1990s vintage Imagelink and Fuji HR microfilms, and from Copex Rapid.

View attachment 330419View attachment 330420

Definitely some considerable gradation, and the extended red sensitivity helps pull clouds out of the sky at an exposure that doesn't completely lose the conifer foliage.

Original Adox CMS 20 at EI 25, developed in my Caffenol LC+C; shot with my Pentax Spotmatic SP and Super Takumar 50/1.4.

I was trying to make a point about low contrast developers, so the idea that a weak solution of D76 will somehow allow box speed and a full range of tones. But as I went on to say proper compensating developers (such as Caffenol since you mention it) can be successful. Using the compensating effects of Caffenol, 510 Pyro, etc. CMS20 (either the original or Mk II) can somewhat reliable with mid tones under all lighting conditions (not just sunny days) by rating it lower than 20 ISO. When I was using the original CMS20 and before Adotech IV was invented I rated it at 6 ISO according to the recommendations of ADOX for using it as a pictorial film. But back then it was still a 'variable' film depending on conditions even when using the regular compensating developers. I'm all for being contrary to manufacturers recommendations if I can see a better way, but I want to use CMS20 as a film that is as good in a deep dark forest as it is on the top of a sunny hill with images on the same roll. And that is the difference between somewhat variable results with Caffenol and 510 Pyro and fully reliable results with Adotech IV.

 

[Radost]

What improved my development by a lot is very short fixing With neutral fixer. When you get CMS20 right it has unmatched look and definition.But with perfect lenses/aperture\

 

[Donald Qualls]

the difference between somewhat variable results with Caffenol and 510 Pyro and fully reliable results with Adotech IV.

The roll those negatives are on has a fairly broad range of lighting. It was shot in 2006, so I don't recall exact exposures, but I'm pretty sure I got down to "wide open, 1/30" on at least a couple frames. Shadows were good and so were highlights. As you say, this may be because Caffenol LC+C is a compensating developer (I also used reduced agitation, ever 3rd minute, which enhances compensation).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Andrew for the video. At EI 10 I don't think I could see enough of an improvement with Adotech IV to make the price difference worthwhile and others with the exception of Donald's experience seem to back up your findings

Frankly with a tripod there may be little point in striving for 20/25 when there is really no reason to bother. You might as well lower the EI to say 5/6

An EI of 20/25 comes into its own if you use the 120 or 135 and want to take pics handheld as with a wider angle lens your shutter speeds at say f8 and respective DoF, especially with 135 make handholding possible

However I am still not sure if an increase in EI to 20/25 gives Adotech IV enough of an edge over what you could get at that EI in the kind of developers you used alongside Adotach IV

Oh and yes before anyone says that this is not a film for hand-holding so my point is largely irrelevant, I'll just say that I recognise that all other things being equal this film gives of its very best on a tripod

pentaxuser