ADOX CHS 100 II in 120 format available again!

[Sal Santamaura]

We are listening, Sal . We've got a lot of requests for more film types in 120 from our customers.
We will do our best.
But the situation in our industry is currently very complex and challenging. And not all is in our hands, as we are also dependent on suppliers.
And the situation is also very dynamic, so plans you made two months ago for example, could be totally destroyed next month because essential supplies stopped.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.

OK, I'm going to interpret that reply as follows, and don't expect (but would be pleasantly surprised to receive) confirmation from ADOX.

The spectral response of HR-50 / Scala 50 on ADOX datasheets looks like a smoothed, stylized version of the one for AVIPHOT Pan 20

https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/06/AVIPHOT-PAN20.pdf

which I assume is pre-exposed by ADOX in the process it refers to as "Speed Boost." Given that both HR-50 and Scala 50 are "sold out" at FOTOIMPEX (although there's still some in the store in Berlin), AGFA is probably unable or unwilling to continue supplying AVIPHOT Pan 20 to ADOX. So I'll be content with CMS 20II when it is on offer in 120.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Thanks ADOX!
I could not resist :

View attachment 356103

Considering classic type (non-T-Grain, non Delta-Grain) emulsions CHS 100 II is my favourite in the ISO 100/21° range. I prefer it to FP4+, Kentmere 100 and Fomapan 100 because of its better sharpness and resolution, and I like its specific spectral sensitivity very much.
Another advantage I highly appreciate is its excellent price-performance ratio. You really get very good value.

My favourite developer for CHS 100 II is FX-39 II. It delivers excellent sharpness and resolution with CHS 100 II. And it is very flexible, because by changing the dilution and agitation rhythm you can perfectly change the characteristic curve of the film according to the subject contrast and your needs. It also has a very good storage life.

Best regards,
Henning

+1 for CHS+FX. I used it last summer for the first time. I preferred the result over 1+50 Rodinal.
The weather today unfortunately didn't allow me to go out and shoot a first roll of CHS in 120.

 

[Team ADOX]

OK, I'm going to interpret that reply as follows, and don't expect (but would be pleasantly surprised to receive) confirmation from ADOX.

You get the confirmation that your interpretation is not correct .
All the speculation here on photrio is a waste of time, as the situation in the industry is much more dynamic and complex than you think. And most of the relevant factors are not known by the members here anyway.
We will continue our established information policy: If we have a new product finished and ready for market introduction and shipments, we will inform you here.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.

 

[JWMster]

Just following up to post I ordered 10 rolls from Fotoimpex: With all the Adox CHS II 4X5 still calling me, I've always liked to test and trial with smaller formats. Plan to use Karl's PC512-B (XTOL-like) for developing and see how it does with a non-Ilford film.

 

[NedL]

And the containers can be used long-term, for more films.

+1 I use them to carry all my non-Adox 120 film too. Very handy.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

You get the confirmation that your interpretation is not correct ...

That's positive. Thank you. It means there's still a possibility that we'll see HR-50 / Scala 50 in 120. It means I will go to the effort of shooting one of my remaining 35mm rolls of Scala 50 and developing it in my remaining FX-39 II (which is still lighter in color than tea ) to get a sense of how those results look when printed. I already know that the film, when developed in your Scala reversal kit, provides outstanding results I'd very much enjoy in medium format. My Bronica RF 645 cameras/lenses, Rollei medium format projector and stockpile of HAMA 1161 slide mounts stand ready when ADOX is.

...All the speculation here on photrio is a waste of time, as the situation in the industry is much more dynamic and complex than you think. And most of the relevant factors are not known by the members here anyway...

Most certainly true about things like the incredible waste of time that was the HARMAN Phoenix speculation thread. In this case, however, it's led to you providing useful feedback. Thank you again!

 

[Ernst-Jan]

You get the confirmation that your interpretation is not correct .
All the speculation here on photrio is a waste of time

That is actually also how I interpreted it/what I read between the lines. Glad to know that that isn't the case.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

That is actually also how I interpreted it/what I read between the lines. Glad to know that that isn't the case.

Thanks for chiming in, Ernst-Jan. I'm glad not to be the only one who interpreted ADOX's response that way. Perhaps the thing out of ADOX's control is a supply of confectioning material for making 120 rolls. Or labor to do the work. But there we go again with more speculation. I suppose we'll just have to wait patiently.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

When I see the word 'confectioning' I think of 35mm cassettes made of marzipan. I'd buy those. Of course, I'd come on to the forum to complain that marzipan wasn't yet available in 220...

I've had my email from the Postman, so I'm like Lou Reed, waiting for my man. He's bringing CHS100ii and a few rolls of Color Mission.


(It came! They left out the marzipan though.. )

 

[Dustin McAmera]

How is Adox's plastic pot for 120 different from the plastic pot that a 35mm cassette comes in? It gives physical protection, and it seems to be air- and watertight.

 

[MattKing]

Do you care explaining further? I do understand the demand could be lesser than for 120. (Then again the question arises, at which point the deman is enough. Even if less cameras can deal with 220 than with 120, they are still in the tens of thousands out there.) But why is the technical challenge so high? You glue paper at the end an beginning of the film strip and roll it on the same core and the same manner as with 120. I understand a technological assembly line is more complex than when I do it in the kitchen, but still, is that such a big change?

The minimum order quantities for the highly specialized paper from the manufacturers capable of making and printing the leaders and trailers are prohibitively high - many years of inventory (and the associated capital) at a time.
And whereas the high speed machines that are used for assembly of 120 spools, film and backing paper permit reasonable efficiencies and economies of scale, it would be so expensive to manufacture replacements for the broken and/or worn out 220 machines that used to stand beside the 120 machines, that it would take many, many years for the film manufacturers to earn any return on the necessary investment.
When Harman/Ilford looked at doing this at least ten years ago, the repair or replacement costs for their machine - estimated at 300,000 pounds at that time - plus the huge capital outlay required for the minimum order from the paper manufacturer/printer, meant that there was no way they could justify that choice.
220 volumes are not high. 120 volumes are only high enough because the machines are paid for and still working well.
Doing the assembly in a less automated manner results in relatively huge per roll costs.

 

[Craig]

Do you care explaining further? I do understand the demand could be lesser than for 120. (Then again the question arises, at which point the deman is enough. Even if less cameras can deal with 220 than with 120, they are still in the tens of thousands out there.)

I remember Simon Galley from Ilford saying that the biggest users of 220 were wedding photographers. For the most part, that end of the photo business has gone almost entirely digital. Even in the all-film days, the demand for 220 was much less than 120.
Now, making 220 would simply cannibalize 120 sales. 220 wouldn't make the film sales pie any bigger, it would simply split it between 120 and 220.

 

[koraks]

Those engineers at Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ilford, etc. must all have been idiots I guess. They packed the films in those airtight wrappers for absolutely no reason.

Firstly, there's a different way of expressing your doubts about something than implying people are 'idiots'. Kindly refrain from such statements in the future and make your point in a respectful manner instead.

Secondly, what might play a role is the combination of packaging. When I buy a pack of Portra, it's a cardboard box with the film in individual foil wrappers inside. The wrapper is the hermetically sealed packaging. I understand Adox have now opted for a plastic tub that closes hermetically as well, but can potentially be reused. I do wonder, however, how well the reuse and recycling of that packaging is managed in practice (which is in our hands as photographers), and if the environmental impact as such of the much heavier plastic tubs is really less than of the very thin/flimsy single-use foil packaging.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

This is certainly a valid topic. The pots are made from common thermoplastics, and should be easily recycled with plastic bottles, especially since they are likely to be clean; an easily-peeled label helps. But recycling authorities (here, anyway) are often conservative and say 'nothing but bottles'.

In the context of the amount of plastic we are still using, I suspect film containers are a small problem. I have a box for empty Adox pots; I'm not the most active film user in the world; I may have dozens of them; certainly not hundreds. It would be great if there were a channel to return them to Adox, but I imagine it would amount to a lot of effort for not much actual plastic; I buy my Adox film by internet/mail; if I were buying it in a physical store you might imagine a bin by the counter to return pots, which could be picked up now and then by a delivery guy; but it's harder to justify mailing my few empties to Germany.
In any case, for a product that really needs to be and look pristine, even slightly-worn containers wouldn't be welcome back.
If the beer- and winemakers won't reuse bottles, we can't expect Adox to.

I have reused Adox pots for (i) carrying film of other brands that came in a multi-pack box; I wouldn't usually take a whole box of five out with me. Also (ii) carrying exposed films of any brand; and (iii) containing rolls that I have taken out of their packaging and cut down to 127 size. I have also used them for non-photo purposes: (iv) containing drill bits etc., and (v) containing a small amount of my own tea when visiting people whose choice of tea I don't trust (I drink weak tea; for coffee I need a bigger container). When I worked at a university, a lot of people had stuff they kept in little reused containers, and if I'd left my empty Adox pots in the canteen with a 'help yourself' sign they'd have gone to a good home.

I think (polystyrene?) spools are a bigger problem, because they aren't much use for anything.

I have arrived for a visit wearing contact lenses but without the little case they live in overnight, and used a 35mm film-pot as an emergency measure. I don't use any bodily accessory that needs a pot of 120 size; YMMV.

 

[Prest_400]

I second the thick skin that customer facing people in manufacturers and more have to do sometime. Nodding to Mirko: They brought CHS100II in 120. Thank you! Yet after a long challenging project with the spooling machines; not even that and... We write about: where is 220? why is it coming/not coming wrapped? Why is it not ISO25 to substitute Efke, etc.

Secondly, what might play a role is the combination of packaging. When I buy a pack of Portra, it's a cardboard box with the film in individual foil wrappers inside. The wrapper is the hermetically sealed packaging. I understand Adox have now opted for a plastic tub that closes hermetically as well, but can potentially be reused. I do wonder, however, how well the reuse and recycling of that packaging is managed in practice (which is in our hands as photographers), and if the environmental impact as such of the much heavier plastic tubs is really less than of the very thin/flimsy single-use foil packaging.

Paraphrasing ADOX's response about a very changing market & supply situation comes to mind, I don't have the direct reference to that post.
I also recall they specified not providing film boxed, as it is an additional costly step. I would htink that the larger manufacturers do wrapping because they have it in place, whereas ADOX started from different bits.
The only point that I see as advantage for wrapped film is protection from humidity and environment (freezing, tropical weather, etc) and is more compact if carrying a lot of rolls in travel -- but in that case one can leave the wrapping and pots behind home.

Back to the film, I look forward to get quite a bit when the sun is back during spring together with more film goodies. Also much appreciated that the price is moderate.
Are there references about the use of CHS100II and XT3 combined? I am standardising on this developer as it has the ascorbate type (XTOL) qualities which is great for general use and maximises film performance (grain-speed).
Henning provides this good FX39 reference, and given the "Orthopan" sensititazion this films seems quite interesting, as well as taking the place of Acros for general use.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Adox is finishing the containers for 120 film they still have and will later on - when the machine is fixed - switch to wrapped rolls. At least, that what's written in the post of 14-5

Stand der Rollfilm-Produktion

 

[Dustin McAmera]

I won't give any containers away then: and I now feel totally smug about having kept my little boxful of them. Thanks!

 

[hasselbladuser]

That's faster than shipping to the Netherlands

Not much Faster, I ordered 20 rolls on the 14th of December and they arrived today (18th of December). Usually I receive Fotoimpex stuff in 3 days, but that is when I order on mondays or tuesdays.
I never used ADOX CHS 100 before and I am curious to see how it will work out compared to FP4+

 

[hasselbladuser]

Adox is finishing the containers for 120 film they still have and will later on - when the machine is fixed - switch to wrapped rolls. At least, that what's written in the post of 14-5

Stand der Rollfilm-Produktion

It is funny, I just received mine and thought that this might even be cheaper than a wrap and a box. The lid is very flimsy though two out of twenty were already broken on arrival.
I bought these plastic cannisters years ago (and also used the ones from Fomapan320) to prevent light leaks in case the film is not rollen tightly on the spool, or the seal breaks. I numbered them so I also know which film was exposed first without writing on the film paper itself.

 

[hasselbladuser]

You get the confirmation that your interpretation is not correct .
All the speculation here on photrio is a waste of time, as the situation in the industry is much more dynamic and complex than you think. And most of the relevant factors are not known by the members here anyway.
We will continue our established information policy: If we have a new product finished and ready for market introduction and shipments, we will inform you here.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.

That is the best way Team Adox! I am glad that I can now support ADOX with buying film for my MF camera's.

 

[retina_restoration]

I got ten rolls of CHS 100 II (120 format) for Christmas and have exposed and developed two rolls, using one of my favorites: Barry Thornton's 2-Bath developer (An improved version of Divided D-23). What a superb film CHS 100II is. If you're a fan of the Tri-X look, then this may just be your film. Spectacular tonal separation throughout the scale, superb acutance, though I found I had to expose at 40 ASA to get the shadow detail I wanted.
Camera: Hasselblad 500C/M, standard 80mm Planar.

Thank you, Mirko/Adox - this is a fantastic film and I will be purchasing more of it soon. Let's hope some of the US suppliers get some as well.

 

[Hassasin]

@retina_restoration Awesome shot.

 

[retina_restoration]

@retina_restoration Awesome shot.

Thank you.

 

[dokko]

@retina_restoration Awesome shot.

agreed - fantastic photo, really like it!!

 

[retina_restoration]

agreed - fantastic photo, really like it!!

Thanks very much.