Adox Pan 25 Pro versus Adox CHS 25 Art

[Marco B]

Hi all,

I would maybe like to give one of these ultrafine grain Adox films a try in 4x5.

Now I see that Adox has two almost similar products:

* Adox Pan 25 Pro

Which is advertised as a "panchromatic" film with a sensitivity up to 650 nm

* Adox CHS 25 Art

With a maximum sensitivity, according to graph, of about 630 nm

Now that difference seems small, but I don't know how it works out. I am tempted to go for the Pan 25 Pro, but can anyone actually comment on the differences from experience? Also in terms of processing and other film characteristics. Is one more difficult to process? Or has a harder contrast, more finicky with exposure? What would be the "easiest" film for someone has who has never shot superfine grain (orthochromatic) film?

Last questions: I also wondered what the (technical) reason is why superfine grain films like these can not be produced as true panchromatic films? Can anyone comment on that as well?

Marco

 

[Marco B]

Well, after talking to another APUG member, I can now partly answer my own (last) question. There is actually no physical reason why superfine grain films can not be produced as true panchromatic films. The reason these films aren't, has probably more to do with technical and economical reason. They are single layered films, versus the modern multi-coated BW films, and producing a panchromatic version of these films is probably simply more complex and thus costly.

 

[richard 330]

Have used the 25 Art in 120 size. A very thin film with extreme curling! But does deliever nice greys/midtones.

 

[3e8]

I have used the CHS art 25 in 4x5, developed with xtol, rodinal, and pyrocat-HD. With the xtol, I used tray development, and found that the emulsion is very soft, and scratches easily, but as long as I only did 2 or 3 sheets at a time, the negatives were very nice and easy to print.

With pyrocat-HD, I only tried once, using tray development, and found that the entire negative developed a substantial general stain. This was my first try with pyrocat-HD though, so I can't say that it can't work well, but just that my technique might need adjustment.

With Rodinal, I developed at 1+50 in dip and dunk tanks, agitating every minute. I found that these negatives were very contrasty and therefor harder to print. Once again, this may just be a case where my technique needs to be adjusted and I overagitated.

The negatives I developed with xtol were very nice, good tonality, very sharp, and easy to print.

One weakness of the CHS 25 that I found is that the film isn't red sensitive enough to easily use a red filter. I found that it was about an 8-stop correction for the red filter. The extended sensitivity of the panchromatic should help with that to some degree.

Cheers,
Bryan

 

[Solarize]

I have not used either, but can confirm that CHS50 in 120 is incredibly fine grained, and has fantastic highlight tonality in X-tol replenished. 4x5 must be something else!

I cut the negs into sleeves and flatten under a stack of books for several days - so no problems when it comes to scanning or printing.

 

[elekm]

Also, take a look at the Rollei ATP film. It requires its own developer. The film is very easy to handle. Just pay attention to the development sheet instructions. No prewash, for example, and final wash is just five minutes.

Grain is nearly nonexistent. It's not a direct replacement for Kodak Technical Pan, but it comes close.

Tones are good, although highlights can get blown in high-contrast situations.

EDIT: I see that the discussion is about 4x5. I was referring to the 120 and 35mm product.

 

[Marco B]

I have not used either, but can confirm that CHS50 in 120 is incredibly fine grained, and has fantastic highlight tonality in X-tol replenished. 4x5 must be something else!

Thanks for posting a sample. That definitely looks nice. I was slightly worried about the tonality of these films, as there are some references to "document film" type characteristics with high contrast, but this sample has great tonality.

 

[Marco B]

I cut the negs into sleeves and flatten under a stack of books for several days - so no problems when it comes to scanning or printing.

Strangly, according to the ADOX site, the rollfilm variant of CHS 50 Art is on a PET base, while the 35mm and 4x5 are triacetate. Isn't PET supposed to be a very strong and stable (and thus non-curly), film base?

I certainly have never seen any curling with my Kodak 4x5 negs, which are also on PET (Kodak calls it ESTAR).

 

[Solarize]

Strangly, according to the ADOX site, the rollfilm variant of CHS 50 Art is on a PET base, while the 35mm and 4x5 are triacetate. Isn't PET supposed to be a very strong and stable (and thus non-curly), film base?

I certainly have never seen any curling with my Kodak 4x5 negs, which are also on PET (Kodak calls it ESTAR).

Well I haven't noticed much by way of curling (with limited experience of this film), and certainly not more than other films. I'm not one for the science behind it either, but I routinely flatten the negative/sleeves just as a precaution - mainly because I prefer a glassless neg carrier, and for scanning, get really fed up with newton rings and flatness issues. Curling really shouldn't be an issue.... with 35mm perhaps, but I've not tried it so can't comment.

I tried CHS50 for the first time in Italy (that shot is from my first roll), and processed all of the film in X-tol. Fine grain is not something I particularly crave, but it is very sharp with this emulsion... tonality is far more important for me, and I was very impressed and suprised with the results, especially for higher key scenes. I'm certainly going to add it to my camera bag, alsongside the regular FP4, HP5 and Delta 3200.

Ciaran

 

[Solarize]

Thanks for posting a sample. That definitely looks nice. I was slightly worried about the tonality of these films, as there are some references to "document film" type characteristics with high contrast, but this sample has great tonality.

Well I've not experienced those extreme contrast characteristics - but I was carefull not to overdevelop, and opted for Xtol over the much harsher Rodinal. I do think this is a film for testing, and treating properly. It could well be that I got lucky first time around!

Ciaran

 

[Marco B]

Thanks for the further comments. I think it also had a lot to do with the subject you were shooting. Such a mountain stream, closed in by the natural rock faces grown over with plants, is bound to give some nice soft light under the right conditions.

 

[cmacd123]

Strangly, according to the ADOX site, the rollfilm variant of CHS 50 Art is on a PET base, while the 35mm and 4x5 are triacetate.

The ADOX CHS 25 a got a few months ago, and have not tested has a sticker "New Clear Polyester base" I also just shot some recently purchased Efke KB100 and was surprised that it also seems to be on a Poly base, curled like a birthday streamer. - Rumor I heard is that the EFKE folks don't make their own film base but buy it from ORWO ( http://www.filmotec.de/ ) and they in turn have phased out making triacetate base.
Perhaps the folks from adox.de/ will clarify.

 

[Alienguru]

AFAIK ADOX CHS 25 has an old-style, silver rich emulsion, and the "PAN" is supposed to be with a little bit more modern (according to the fotoimpex.de site) emulsion (probably meaning it relies on color dye sensitization)

 

[Marco B]

AFAIK ADOX CHS 25 has an old-style, silver rich emulsion, and the "PAN" is supposed to be with a little bit more modern (according to the fotoimpex.de site) emulsion (probably meaning it relies on color dye sensitization)

Thanks for the info, but don't all films currently available films to some extent depend on dye sensitization for their spectral sensitivity? I wasn't aware any currently available films aren't, but than, I am no expert in this field at all. I just learned dye sensitization plays a role in emulsions through APUG...