Adox Silvermax 100 - rating and developing

[traveler_101]

Anyone have any experience with this film? I have 10 rolls of it to shoot. What do you rate it? Take a look at these images pushed 3 stops - seems incredible: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/adox-silvermax-100-at-800.107371/

I do not have Silvermax developer - have D-76, XTOL or R09. Any experience using any of these on Silvermax?

 

[halfaman]

I used it once at nominal speed and developed with rodinal 1+50. Nice tones and controlled grain, results similar to me than Ilford FP4 with the same conditions.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't push film as I don't care for the results...unless empty, lifeless shadows are appealing to you. I'd shoot it at EI 50, and develop it in either D76 1+1, or Xtol 1+1.

 

[Alan9940]

I used several rolls of it years ago all developed in their Silvermax developer; I wasn't impressed. That is, I didn't see any outstanding qualities that I couldn't get with other film.

 

[subsole]

https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/42205_5_PDF-Datasheet.pdf

"Stamm" means undiluted.
The HC-110 time is for dil.b.

 

[howardpan]

I have shot it at EI 100 and developed it in Rodinal 1+50 and got satisfactory results. However, I haven’t used it enough.

 

[Agulliver]

I bought a roll off the shelf and tried it in the summer of 2017...rated it at 100ISO and developed in ID-11 stock...I think I got the times from the massive chart.

It's nice film but I didn't feel it offered anything specific for my photography that would lead to me buying more...or to buy it over my preferred medium speed panchromatic films such as Fomapan 100 and Ilford FP4+

There's absolutely nothing wrong with it and the grain is certainly finer than Fomapan 100....but I didn't find it had any "wow factor". That said, I did use ID-11 and not the special Silvermax developer.

 

[Pentode]

I have used a couple of rolls which I shot at 100 and developed in D-76 1:1.

I agree with the other assessments that it’s nice film with nice, fine grain but there was nothing about it that made it stand out to me using that developer.

 

[Agulliver]

If I had 10 rolls, I think I would experiment with pushing it at least to 400 judging by what I've seen elsewhere. It's certainly in no way a bad film. Indeed if 10 rolls landed in my lap I'd probably look at buying the Silvermax developer.

 

[traveler_101]

If I had 10 rolls, I think I would experiment with pushing it at least to 400 judging by what I've seen elsewhere. It's certainly in no way a bad film. Indeed if 10 rolls landed in my lap I'd probably look at buying the Silvermax developer.

Experimentation, right - just what I was thinking after reading these responses. It was not expensive. I bought it in Berlin partly to support ADOX and partly because I thought it might be something like Rollei Retro 80S - I shot one roll of that developed in Rodinal (R09) a couple of years ago and was amazed. I could not buy the Silvermax developer and bring it back to Norway by plane and I will not order it here. I just bought D-19 (with some strange idea of kicking up contrast) and I have R09 - I will try both and I will probably try to push the film at some point as well.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's a great film (in essence it's the real Agfapan 100 recipe with some extra silver to ensure good reversal performance like Scala) - I really like the more restrained red sensitivity & the ability to easily reversal process it - I prefer it to FP4+ & like it about equally with Delta 100. My main regret is that it's not available in 120 & sheets...

If you're not getting great results, you're likely underexposing & giving wildly excessive development (Agfa's specs always tended to be on the generous side with development times, & the given gamma for Silvermax is similarly quite high). ID-11/D-76 are just fine with it - and most of the time the claims of big pushes owe more to the claimants' inept metering techniques than anything to do with the film that's the subject of their proclamations.

 

[traveler_101]

It's a great film (in essence it's the real Agfapan 100 recipe with some extra silver to ensure good reversal performance like Scala) - I really like the more restrained red sensitivity & the ability to easily reversal process it - I prefer it to FP4+ & like it about equally with Delta 100. My main regret is that it's not available in 120 & sheets...

If you're not getting great results, you're likely underexposing & giving wildly excessive development (Agfa's specs always tended to be on the generous side with development times, & the given gamma for Silvermax is similarly quite high). ID-11/D-76 are just fine with it - and most of the time the claims of big pushes owe more to the claimants' inept metering techniques than anything to do with the film that's the subject of their proclamations.

Ok, thanks for the info and encouragement. I just mixed up D-76 two days ago and I have a roll exposed at box speed. MDC has it 1+0 @ 9 min or 1+1 @ 11 min. I don't see the need for developing in stock considering its a fine grained film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ok, thanks for the info and encouragement. I just mixed up D-76 two days ago and I have a roll exposed at box speed. MDC has it 1+0 @ 9 min or 1+1 @ 11 min. I don't see the need for developing in stock considering its a fine grained film.

9m at 1+0 in ID-11 is what Ilford give for the Agfapan emulsion Silvermax is based on (and Adox suggest the same time) - & 13m 30s for 1+1. I tend towards about 25-30% off those times given for 1+1 (Ilford's times are usually quite correct for landing 7 stops on G2, but the world outside generally doesn't exist like that!), but 11 might work better for your needs. Good luck!

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

I had a try with the Silvermax a while ago and was not at all impressed. As usual, I did a 1h stand development in Rodinal 1+100, but the film came out with quite unpleasant grain and coarse tonal values. The emulsion is said to be similar to the old Agfa APX100, but I am not really sure. APX100 worked very well with Rodinal in stand development.

I did a new attempt this week with the film and have now tried a few other developers. When pixel-peeping the scanned negatives, I feel confirmed, that Rodinal does not work very well with this film. Both ID11 (stock, 9min, 20°C) and the Silvermax developer (1+29, 11min, 20°C) give very nice negatives with smooth grain and tonal values. Using these recommended times, the negatives out of the Silvermax developer are quite a bit denser with much better tonal rendition in the shadows, but still without any blocked highlights. Increasing the time for the ID11 developer might give similar results, but from what I see right now, I would actually prefer using the Silvermax developer.

Here, the entire image developed in the Silvermax developer.


100% crop from this image (Silvermax developer):


100% crop, ID11:


100% crop, Rodinal 1+100, 1h stand development:


100% crop, Rollei Supergrain developer:


I might get to try some of the odder developers tomorrow. I have a few Spur developers and PMK here, which I would like to try.

 

[dmtnkl]

Shot one a couple of months ago at iso 160 with a nikon matrix meter and had it reversal processed at Studio 13.

I liked the results a lot. Depending on the scene and your meter you might want to rate it at iso 200 to get a bit more contrast.

 

[mard0]

I've just bought a bulkrol and finished some testing. All times are for jobo development at 20 decreed.
For negatives a got good results with 510-pyro 1:150 for 12 minutes.

I also tried positives. I got okay results using HC-110 1+15 as first developer for 11 minutes. But contrast could be a bit punchier, so this needs some more testing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I had a try with the Silvermax a while ago and was not at all impressed. As usual, I did a 1h stand development in Rodinal 1+100, but the film came out with quite unpleasant grain and coarse tonal values. The emulsion is said to be similar to the old Agfa APX100, but I am not really sure. APX100 worked very well with Rodinal in stand development.

I did a new attempt this week with the film and have now tried a few other developers. When pixel-peeping the scanned negatives, I feel confirmed, that Rodinal does not work very well with this film. Both ID11 (stock, 9min, 20°C) and the Silvermax developer (1+29, 11min, 20°C) give very nice negatives with smooth grain and tonal values. Using these recommended times, the negatives out of the Silvermax developer are quite a bit denser with much better tonal rendition in the shadows, but still without any blocked highlights. Increasing the time for the ID11 developer might give similar results, but from what I see right now, I would actually prefer using the Silvermax developer.

Here, the entire image developed in the Silvermax developer.
View attachment 203686

100% crop from this image (Silvermax developer):
View attachment 203690

100% crop, ID11:
View attachment 203687

100% crop, Rodinal 1+100, 1h stand development:
View attachment 203688

100% crop, Rollei Supergrain developer:
View attachment 203689

I might get to try some of the odder developers tomorrow. I have a few Spur developers and PMK here, which I would like to try.

Unless you specify the means of scanning, those results mean little.

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

Unless you specify the means of scanning, those results mean little.

The snippets were ment to show how different developers affect the grain. I am not sure why you think the method of scanning is relevant, but if you want to know, I scanned the negatives on a Nikon Coolscan 4000LS with all optimizations (grain reduction etc) disabled. My experience is that such scans then appear very similar to what I get when printing the negatives traditionally.

 

[Lachlan Young]

The snippets were ment to show how different developers affect the grain. I am not sure why you think the method of scanning is relevant, but if you want to know, I scanned the negatives on a Nikon Coolscan 4000LS with all optimizations (grain reduction etc) disabled. My experience is that such scans then appear very similar to what I get when printing the negatives traditionally.

I'd suggest that the grain aliasing habits of the scanner, its ability to handle denser highlights without clipping & the abilities of the scanner operator may all distort the final results & consequent claims much more so than the differences in developers - if the development times are controlled to produce the same EI.

Either way, it's clear that the Rodinal negs are significantly overdeveloped compared to the Silvermax/ ID-11 ones in terms of highlight density - and I guessed it might have been a Coolscan that was used, but for reasons far too arcane to delve into.

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

I'd suggest that the grain aliasing habits of the scanner, its ability to handle denser highlights without clipping & the abilities of the scanner operator may all distort the final results & consequent claims much more so than the differences in developers - if the development times are controlled to produce the same EI.

I have not wet printed these images yet, and I am not sure if I will, but my experience is that the visual 'look & feel' of B&W grain from the Coolscan is usually very similar to how the grain looks on an analog print directly from the negative. I have printed some of the first photos I shot on Silvermax and stand developed in Rodinal and believe me, the grain on the print looks just as ugly as here on the scan.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just out of interest, what does the 100% crop represent in terms of print size if the whole negative was enlarged at this size - 16x24 or bigger?

Thanks

 

[Anon Ymous]

Just out of interest, what does the 100% crop represent in terms of print size if the whole negative was enlarged at this size - 16x24 or bigger?

Thanks

That would depend on pixel density.

 

[Tor-Einar Jarnbjo]

Just out of interest, what does the 100% crop represent in terms of print size if the whole negative was enlarged at this size - 16x24 or bigger?

That depends on how large the crop is shown on your display device. The crop is about 7.6mm wide from the negative, or about one fifth of the total image width. As shown on my tablet, where the crop is shown about 5" wide, it will correspond almost exactly to a 16x24" print.

 

[pentaxuser]

That depends on how large the crop is shown on your display device. The crop is about 7.6mm wide from the negative, or about one fifth of the total image width. As shown on my tablet, where the crop is shown about 5" wide, it will correspond almost exactly to a 16x24" print.

Thanks. On my VDU screen the crop is about 16 inches wide by about 9 inches high. As this is about one fifth of the total image then can I multiply the image by 5 so I am looking at a complete negative enlargement of a print which is 80 x 45 inches?

Have I got this right? If so then at that size it may not have quite enough resolution for a great print but at one third the size i.e. 16 x24 I imagine it would be a very good print indeed. In fact, given the correct viewing distance for a 80 x 45 inch print, I am not sure that it wouldn't be perfectly acceptable even at that size.

Makes me wonder about the benefits of even MF compared to 135 if my conclusions are correct.

pentaxuser

 

[Trond]

I first tried Silvermax just when it came out, and I liked it so much, in combination with the Silvermax developer, that I have used it almost exclusively (when shooting 35mm ISO 100) since then. Very fine grain, and it handles high contrast situations very well. Haven't bothered trying other developers, since the Silvermax developer works so well.

Trond