Adox CHS 100: id-11 or rodinal?

[pierods]

Since i don't care about grain size, what developer brings out the best of CHS film?

thanks

 

[steven_e007]

Well, I've used CHS 100 in Rodinal and it worked well. I've not used ID-11 but I would have thought it would be a good combination - these are both very 'safe' choices as developers.

Since CHS is an older style emulsion, it should be more responsive to different developer dilutions and types. Maybe minimal agitation in very dilute rodinal might give more pronounced acutance compared to ID-11. I've not really put it to the test, yet.

 

[mopar_guy]

I don't know about CHS 100, but I have developed some CHS 25 in D-76 1:1 that was very nice.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

I quite like the tonality of the Adox 100 in Rodinal:

 

[pierods]

Fantastic, thanks to all!

 

[Роберт]

Adox/Efke 25-50-100 like high acutance developers because they are all single layer type films.

In order of higher acutance: (Agfa) Rodinal, (Tetenal) Neofin Blue/Blau, Beutler A+B, FX-1.

With all these type of developers you can have marvellous results. Agfa Rodinal and Tetenal Neofin Blue are commercial available. Beutler and FX-1 you have to make yourself. In fact FX-1 (G. Crawley) is a modified Beutler with a very small addition of Potassium Iodide.

 

[Axle]

Rodinal.

 

[rorye]

I really like ATM 49 for CHS, fickle but crispy.

 

[Chuck1]

So ten years later what developer for chs, is rodinal harsh regardless of dilution?

 

[retina_restoration]

So ten years later what developer for chs, is rodinal harsh regardless of dilution?

Are you asking about old CHS 100, or the current Adox film, CHS 100 II? The film has changed since it was offered in 2011.

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!) so it's not a bad idea to avoid developers that enhance inherent grain properties, IMO. I'd skip Rodinal entirely, unless you're looking for "1950s documentary grittiness" in your work.

I've found CHS 100 II responds very well to 2-bath developers like Thornton 2-Bath, standards like D-76/ID11 (basically the same developer) and PMK pyro. For even more subtle/restrained grain properties, try Xtol or one of its equivalents. 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.

 

[albireo]

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.

 

[bluechromis]

Rodinal.

Very nice. It sure reminds me of Silvermax.