Adox CMS20 II with Adotech is amazing

[Odot]

I just developed my first roll and love the results. Shot with my F100 and a G lens (think it was my 28mm)

https://imgur.com/a/qvOej

 

[pentaxuser]

Opinions on this film and developer combination in the past have been very mixed to say the least. Most seemed to have poured "cold water|" on the idea that it matches even MF let alone LF.I have seen articles, probably produced by Adox that suggest that in the right conditions which I think are good light and no fast movement then a 135 neg can get close to the resolution only found in 4x5 negs Maybe this is an exaggeration which does the combination no favours as it actually allows the confirmed "unbelievers" to play on the natural scepticism of others who have doubts that there is any way a 135 negative can ever match a 4x5

Your shots look fine but might look as good if you had used Pan F or Delta 100. What does appear to be the case is that it is not the film for movement. I base this on the blurred hands.

What I have never seen is a direct detailed comparison of the same scene taken on say 135, MF and LF . Clearly if a 135 negative in say a landscape shot gives as good a print at say 12x16 or 16x20 as MF or LF then this film and developer concept might be a great way to avoid the route of having to have MF or LF.

pentaxuser

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

ADOX CMS20 II is a variable ISO film; one ISO/EI across the entire roll with no variation, and Adox development to suit.
Only very, very careful exposure and tripod use with a very high quality lens will attenuate the qualities of this film. The samples provided are a bit muggy and imprecise in exposure. Comparisons have been made with Ilford's venerable PAN F+ 50 but I don't think either is superior to the other; having used both I would happily load up either knowing exactly what to expect with refined technique, with ADOX CMS20 II requiring a bit more technical care based on prevailing conditions.

I don't really think 35mm will match MF in resolving capacity (the point has been debated endlessly for eons!), but MF certainly can match and exceed LF — this has been done often enough. In any case, it is about the quality of the image, the subject and interpretation, rather than the format, which is a final consideration. I use 35mm with ultra-wide angle lenses because the equivalent is not available in MF or LF or is impractical to use (in the case of LF).

 

[pentaxuser]

I think that my real and practical point would be that unless you intend to enlarge to beyond what a 135 neg such as D400 can be enlarged to without loss of resolution then as has been said Adox CMS20 with the specialist Adotech developer is (a) more expensive (b) needs more carefully exposure and (c) is problematic in terms of its very low speed for a lot of scenes and a lot of light conditions in northen latitudes.

However my comment is in fact giving a viewpoint about the combination that the OP has not asked for. If he has given all of the above some thought and still chosen his combination then that's fine.

pentaxuser