Adox CMS 20 ii developed in Rodinal 1:500

[Alan Johnson]

Apologies for my posts above re use of H&W Control developer for CMS 20, in fact my more recent tests indicated that it produces blotchy skies with this film. IMO now, H&W Control is not recommended with CMS 20.

 

[trendland]

Apologies for my posts above re use of H&W Control developer for CMS 20, in fact my more recent tests indicated that it produces blotchy skies with this film. IMO now, H&W Control is not recommended with CMS 20.

....let me ask : "blotchy skies" you mentioned in regards of highlights?
That should be true with H&W!
CMS 20 is from my interpretation not a good film for photography!
Because of TONALS.,.!

THAT IS THE CONCERN WITH ALL MICROFILMS IN GENERAL!

But never mind - it is working fine because of special developers!
The principle wich is responcible for is a so called contrast- difraction!
Try the special developer from ADOX and your problem is solved!!

with regards

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I had been under the impression that in the past Kodak Technical Pan was used with good results alongside a dedicated developer.

 

[trendland]

I had been under the impression that in the past Kodak Technical Pan was used with good results alongside a dedicated developer.

That's also the impression of mine Tom! All the recipes we know since decades seams to be much
enough for films of Tech.Pan Type!
But (just from my point) there is a real difference to Agfa Copex!
The next real difference is to CMS20! Sometimes I got the idea CMS 20 is not from human design!

It has to come out of Area51 and is full with Alien Technology!!!!
Therefore the strongest recomandation to use ADOX Alien developer!
Alien confortable priced - but expensive for simple humans....!

with regards

PS : Technical Pan is much different to New mircro films - was it Steve Anchel who has
biten his theeth with first mirofilm like (midt 70s) developer formulations?

Be sure Mirco from ADOX is not allowed to tell us the secrets of his AREA51 SOUP!
But it is realy the best for CMS20 and will handle the contrast problem with highlighted areas
a good point better as any other conventional low contrast soup [and thats no voodoo its is true ] beside max. resolution!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Apologies for my posts above re use of H&W Control developer for CMS 20, in fact my more recent tests indicated that it produces blotchy skies with this film. IMO now, H&W Control is not recommended with CMS 20.

All those developers in your link don't work?

 

[trendland]

All those developers in your link don't work?

I for myself did understand Alan Johnson in that way : The alternative low contrast developers
did work (in theory AND practice) but not 100% perfectly with CMS20 Andrew!!!

I am well knowing that problem in regards of max. resolution! Not possible to reach max.
resolution without ADOX developer! It is the best (special designed for) but I also know
there are some other parameters (wich can be good - but wich can't be best for example
pyro type developers = quite good in regards of lc - but resolution is suffering!
But that's for many not the point perhaps because lens is not able to bring enough potential
for the need of ADOX soup in regard of resolution.... it is a special theme Andrew!
Most would state : Negs are looking very good - thil the day the will inspect negs with new lens
Leica/Zeiss niveau AND ADOX soup! The last isue with special highest resolution developers
(for example the Spur chemestry at the beginning with "post tech.pan " ) is a workflow
(development) PE would be much impressed of!!!
with regards

PS : I for example don't care much about agitation recomandation (do anybody realy care about?)
with CMS20 it changed dramatically (otherwise you waste your money and can use APX100)
....quite a good film - the Agfa - but a best example for a cheaper photography!

 

[Alan Johnson]

Hi Andrew, I assume you refer to this link in post 6:
https://frugalphotographer.com/info-formulary-general.htm
The only one I tested with CMS 20 II was H&W Control, IDK about the others.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you Alan. Thank you trendland.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Both Caffenol LC and POTA worked well. I prefer the POTA developed negative. Much cleaner. Caffenol negative had excessive base fog, which is unacceptable for alt printing. I developed in trays. Semi stand.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm going to give Perfection XR-1 a shot as well...

 

[kingbuzzie]

Both Caffenol LC and POTA worked well. I prefer the POTA developed negative. Much cleaner. Caffenol negative had excessive base fog, which is unacceptable for alt printing. I developed in trays. Semi stand.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall doing a stand development with caffenol.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I could be wrong, but I don't recall doing a stand development with caffenol.

Caffenol LC (low contrast). I did semi-stand, not stand. Constant agitation for the first 30 seconds. Then lifting sides of tray once every 3 minutes.
I posted two images. One was developed in Caffenol LC https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/adox-cms-20ii-in-pota.165434/page-2