Adox CMS II 20 tips? Experience stories?

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo · Mar 21, 2017

ChrisBCS: Depending on how you develop and how monstrous the prints are, you can make huge prints from many brands of 120 film without having any issues with grain. What kind of camera and lenses do you have? If you are not very experienced with film photography, you might actually be better off with a more traditional film with a higher exposure latitude.

And when it comes to colour filters: The Adox CMS II will behave similar to most other b&w films, but due to its very slow speed, you will soon reach exposure times outside the safe hand-held range if you also add any filter. Also, if you really want to take advantage of the film's resolution, I would be hesistant to put anything more than necessary, not even a colour filter, into the optical system.

pentaxuser · Mar 21, 2017

Can our two German contributors expand on "easily printable" and "no problem with the contrast" by saying what grade was used? I take it that it wasn't the case of needing to print on grade 1, for instance?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo · Mar 21, 2017

There is no definitive standard for the paper grade numbers. I usually print with my Durst enlarger on variocontrast paper without any colour filtering. On the Ilford grade scale (ranging from 00 to 5), this corresponds to grade 2. If I need any contrast adjustment, the negative is usually too flat, so I have to go up to grade 3 or on rare occasions grade 3½.

darkosaric · Mar 21, 2017

pentaxuser said:
Can our two German contributors expand on "easily printable" and "no problem with the contrast" by saying what grade was used? I take it that it wasn't the case of needing to print on grade 1, for instance?

I have used Fotokemika Emaks grade 2, Fomabrom normal N grade, and Ilford Multigrade without filters. I did not need to make any dodging or burning with CMS 20 negatives developed in Adotech or Technidol.

pentaxuser · Mar 21, 2017

Thanks, both, for the replies. Based on your experiences it would seem that properly exposed and processed negatives in Adotech do not suffer from excessive contrast.

pentaxuser

ChrisBCS · Mar 21, 2017

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo said:
ChrisBCS: Depending on how you develop and how monstrous the prints are, you can make huge prints from many brands of 120 film without having any issues with grain. What kind of camera and lenses do you have? If you are not very experienced with film photography, you might actually be better off with a more traditional film with a higher exposure latitude.

And when it comes to colour filters: The Adox CMS II will behave similar to most other b&w films, but due to its very slow speed, you will soon reach exposure times outside the safe hand-held range if you also add any filter. Also, if you really want to take advantage of the film's resolution, I would be hesistant to put anything more than necessary, not even a colour filter, into the optical system.

Thank you! My experience with film photography is twelve years old (as in, I haven't done it in more than a decade). I have not been in a darkroom since college, and even then it was not very frequently. I was working on film most during my high school years. I've been shooting digital since, and am just now returning to full analog. I have put together a V system with a Hasselblad 500 C (1967) and a 1975-vintage 80mm planar. My long term goal is final prints with sizes that require using the enlarger on the darkroom wall. One of the myriad reasons I am getting back into film is the size capability.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 21, 2017

If you can mix your own and wish to experiment you could try either H&W Control developer (Bluefire HR) or Perfection XR-1. Both were designed for use with microfilm to produce a continuous tone negative. They would certainly produce better results than using a conventional developer.

Alan Johnson · Mar 21, 2017

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Post 19 gives some results. In the past I used a few rolls but it seems a bit like hard work.

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo · Mar 22, 2017

ChrisBCS said:
Thank you! My experience with film photography is twelve years old (as in, I haven't done it in more than a decade). I have not been in a darkroom since college, and even then it was not very frequently. I was working on film most during my high school years. I've been shooting digital since, and am just now returning to full analog. I have put together a V system with a Hasselblad 500 C (1967) and a 1975-vintage 80mm planar. My long term goal is final prints with sizes that require using the enlarger on the darkroom wall. One of the myriad reasons I am getting back into film is the size capability.

I don't want to ruin your enthusiasm, but I think that you might be overestimating whatever you call 'size capability' here. I assume that you mean the 80mm Zeiss planar, and even though it is a more than decent lens, it is not really top-notch when it comes to sharpness and contrast and I would be very surprised if you are able to distinguish prints from Fuji Acros (or many other 'regular' films) or Adox CMS II of images taken with this lens based on sharpness and resolution alone.

If it is inevitable for you to prevent grain (or image noise in general) at any cost, why don't you use a DSLR instead?

ChrisBCS · Mar 28, 2017

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo said:
I don't want to ruin your enthusiasm, but I think that you might be overestimating whatever you call 'size capability' here. I assume that you mean the 80mm Zeiss planar, and even though it is a more than decent lens, it is not really top-notch when it comes to sharpness and contrast and I would be very surprised if you are able to distinguish prints from Fuji Acros (or many other 'regular' films) or Adox CMS II of images taken with this lens based on sharpness and resolution alone.

Good to know! Thanks!

If it is inevitable for you to prevent grain (or image noise in general) at any cost, why don't you use a DSLR instead?

See my intro thread.

piu58 · Dec 30, 2017

Dear photographers,
I know that is an old thread. But I have something to contribute to the CM 20 / Orthopan UR films (which is Agfa High Definition Pan, a document film).

From time to time I tried to get a normal contrasty negative form it, without the usage of the very good but expansive Adotech developer. Now I found a solution. It consists of mixing Rodinal with a tiny amount of fixing solutions. I explained (in German) how and why it works:
https://aphog.de/forum/index.php/Th...CMS-20-weichklopfen-mit-Hausmitteln-Wirklich/

The recipe:
- 3 ml of ready to use fixingsolution. I used Adofix Plus 1+4
- a tiny amount of NaOH which can be got form drain cleaner. It serves for neutralizing the acid in the fix. If you use neutral fixer, you don't need that.
- water to 500 ml, 20 deg Celsius
- 7 ml Rodinal

Expose for 6-12 ASA. Develop 15 mins with continuous agitation. You get negatives which are easy to print. In comparison to Adotech you sacrifice one stop and get a slightly higher contrast of 0.75 instead of around 0.65.

The image shows a comparison of the characteristic curves of the film i Adotech (thought having 12 ASA) with my Rodinal formula (thought having 6 ASA).

darkosaric · Dec 30, 2017

Moin Uwe,

Interesting approach, I will try it next year .

Regards,
Darko

Pioneer · Dec 31, 2017

piu58 said:
Dear photographers,
I know that is an old thread. But I have something to contribute to the CM 20 / Orthopan UR films (which is Agfa High Definition Pan, a document film).

From time to time I tried to get a normal contrasty negative form it, without the usage of the very good but expansive Adotech developer. Now I found a solution. It consists of mixing Rodinal with a tiny amount of fixing solutions. I explained (in German) how and why it works:
https://aphog.de/forum/index.php/Th...CMS-20-weichklopfen-mit-Hausmitteln-Wirklich/

The recipe:
- 3 ml of ready to use fixingsolution. I used Adofix Plus 1+4
- a tiny amount of NaOH which can be got form drain cleaner. It serves for neutralizing the acid in the fix. If you use neutral fixer, you don't need that.
- water to 500 ml, 20 deg Celsius
- 7 ml Rodinal

Expose for 6-12 ASA. Develop 15 mins with continuous agitation. You get negatives which are easy to print. In comparison to Adotech you sacrifice one stop and get a slightly higher contrast of 0.75 instead of around 0.65.

The image shows a comparison of the characteristic curves of the film i Adotech (thought having 12 ASA) with my Rodinal formula (thought having 6 ASA).View attachment 192661

Interesting. I'll give this a try.

Pat Erson · Jan 1, 2018

Gerald C Koch said:
If you can mix your own and wish to experiment you could try either H&W Control developer (Bluefire HR) or Perfection XR-1.

Gerald would you please share some of your knowledge on Perfection XR-1? The info I found online is rather confusing (for me anyway!)

ITKI · Jan 5, 2018

ChrisBCS said:
Any cautions, notes, difficulties, etc. you'd like to pass on would be amazing.

This is how Adox (35mm) CMS II looked over here developed in Diafine @ 22°C / 3:3.

Ignore the vignetting, this stems from an improper lens shade,
but as you can see it's very very contrasty (Acros gets very contrasty as well but that's a story for a different thread).

I decided to shoot this film and develop it in Diafine after seing the remarkable results here and here
this is the first version of the CMS film though so things might have changed now - would love to see others' results with CMS (II) in Diafine.

Cheers.

locutus · Jan 5, 2018

With what colour filter did you shoot that? i guess you used a deep orange or red filter to keep the definition in the sky?

trendland · Jan 5, 2018

Gerald C Koch said:
I have never had any luck using microfilms for general purpose photography. You are faced with the twin demons; untamable contrast and the lack of any exposure latitude. I have the formulas for over a dozen special purpose developers said to work with these films, in my estimation none provided acceptable results. One thing that might be tried in order to get a bit more negative density is a direct sulfur toner such as Kodak T-8. Such toners are routinely used to provide archival stability for microfilm. As a plus they also act as an intensifier.

I would agree with your statement regarding tonals.
From own experience I can also follow what you mentioned about alternate developers.
I can't say if I have over one dozent formulas (it seams to me it is nearly a dozent) but with little more research - as you obviously have made - you are also right concerning this (many formulations)
With different dillution methods and different two part/ three part conceptions - it is a quite interisting experience.
My intention was just to avoid the expensive modern (recomanded) developers.
But Gerald (you may beat me for this following I have to state) these "microfilms" in modern use (in post cold war period) - are to use for photographical issues via gradation diffraction/to bend the gradation from special designed devellopers.
Todays chemist can't reinvent the wheel - of cause.
And to whom I am telling this - sure you are well knowing all issues about.
And with older formulations from different kind it should work also - but my experience is same as yours.
In regard of nice tonals one would merily
blunt ones theeth. ......!
Because it is the wrong approach.
Microfilms aren't designed to use in photographical way's - but from special devellopers it is POSSIBLE.
The wrong approach is if your focus is to tonals - just forget it - you will never be thrilled from these films.
Therefore you may find a resolution (from small grain - compared with extreme sharpness) - you can't find with many other emulsions.

with regards

ITKI · Jan 5, 2018

locutus said:
With what colour filter did you shoot that? i guess you used a deep orange or red filter to keep the definition in the sky?

Y-52

trendland · Jan 5, 2018

howardpan said:
I have developed it successfully with Perceptol 1+10 semi-stand for 60 minutes.
I believe my EI was 12, but my shadows could have benefited from a lower EI.
Be sure to fix for less time (read the instructions).
It is a very delicate film; thinner and more susceptible to damage from "rough" handling.

I did it in the same way. If you can live with a tonal range from this film, most others are bored from - I would give you following hint : To have the smalest grain you may reach PULL WITH PERCEPTOL !
Of course you can't follow a speed boat race then - but if your tripod is nice why not shot a High resolution landscape ?
The impact with landscape is much to often on/with tonals. But there is no law not to proceed alternate.
THEN YOU WILL HAVE E.I. ISO 6 - 8 and you should shorten perceptol developing time 1/3 (not the 1/2 - but make your own experience).
with regards

trendland · Jan 5, 2018

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo said:
I don't want to ruin your enthusiasm, but I think that you might be overestimating whatever you call 'size capability' here. I assume that you mean the 80mm Zeiss planar, and even though it is a more than decent lens, it is not really top-notch when it comes to sharpness and contrast and I would be very surprised if you are able to distinguish prints from Fuji Acros (or many other 'regular' films) or Adox CMS II of images taken with this lens based on sharpness and resolution alone.

If it is inevitable for you to prevent grain (or image noise in general) at any cost, why don't you use a DSLR instead?

I would not blame this 80 C T*/planar so much.
Look at the new Zeiss Lenses / they have best characteristics with open lens - year!
Therefore the 1975 Planar can't reach the same (with open lens).
But haven't we all learned to use 5,6/8 ?
.....

with regards

locutus · Jan 5, 2018

ITKI said:
Y-52

Thanks!

I guess that kinda confirms to stick to just light yellow filtration and nothing to strong...

piu58 · Jan 6, 2018

Today I made a few shots with CM2 and my Rodinal-Fix formula. I exposed for 9 ASA. I show you a print form one of the negatives. Paper is Ilford multigrade without filtering. As you can see, the print may be slightly less contrasty. But it is far away from other trials with standard developers.
I did not use a tripod and used my lens rather wide open. Apparently it has field curvature, which can be seen in the edges.

ITKI · Jan 6, 2018

..looking rather good @piu58 - thanks for sharing!

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 6, 2018

After reading many references to this film, I've come to the conclusion, it's best use is for low contrast subjects in flat lighting. It seems this film really shines at accentuating textural detail in those scenarios.

Andrew O'Neill · May 8, 2019

Got good results in Caffenol LC (although high base + fox), and POTA (very clear film base) with sheet film version. Semi-stand. Going to give Perfection XR-1 a go next... My intentions are to use this film for normal to low contrast scenes.

Adox CMS II 20 tips? Experience stories?

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo

pentaxuser

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo

darkosaric

pentaxuser

ChrisBCS

Gerald C Koch

Alan Johnson

Tor-Einar Jarnbjo

ChrisBCS

piu58

darkosaric

Pioneer

Pat Erson

ITKI

locutus

trendland

ITKI

trendland

trendland

locutus

piu58

Attachments

ITKI

Old-N-Feeble

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Adox CMS II 20 tips? Experience stories?

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency