CHS 100 II has more conspicuous grain than most other 100 speed films, (I was surprised to find that its grain is larger and more coarse than Fomapan 100!)
I find that to get the best results from CHS 100 II, it must be rated at 40 ASA (or lower, depending on circumstances). If you rate it at "box speed", you will get very contrasty results with significant loss of shadow information. At least that has been my experience.
I've just finished testing a batch of 5 rolls of CHS 100 II in 35mm, all of them developed in Adox D76 1:1. I wanted to contribute to this thread by saying I am in
complete agreement with
@retina_restoration here. In my workflow, this is the grainiest 32-50 EI film I've used in recent years.
I would be even more extreme than retina, perhaps: this is not in Foma 100's class. I am seeing similar grain to what I get with Kentmere 400 in D23 1:1, and something almost approaching Foma 400 in D23. I am pretty shocked. Foma 100, and Kentmere 100, for those who are familiar with them, are much finer grained.
I was, in another thread, lamenting the demise of Adox Silvermax, a wonderful - wonderful - film which I had used extensively when available, processed in its own developer. Somebody commented CHS II was largely comparable. While the (beautiful) spectral response and the general tonality of CHS II reminds me a lot of Silvermax, Silvermax was much finer grained and I routinely exposed it at 80 or 100 (same camera/lens/metering method) with excellent shadow density.
On the plus side, CHS II dries extremely clean. Using the same washing procedure, same brand of distilled water, same amount of Photoflo, same drying rack I'm using for all my 35mm processing, I'm getting spotless negatives. Probably something to do with the PET support.
Either way, I'll probably try it in medium format next, though it's sadly out of stock at Fotoimpex.