I have so far also tried the Silvermax developer with Ilford FP4+ and Fuji Acros, and I am inclined to believe that the Silvermax developer is doing the trick and not necessarily the Silvermax film. Both other films show very fine grain and a large tonal range as well when done in the Silvermax developer. I am mostly shooting 120 film, therefore can't use the Silvermax film, but will definitely in the next future do some more work with FP4+ in 120 format and the Silvermax developer.
Adox Silvermax 100 - rating and developing
-
A
- Thread starter traveler_101
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Durst NEDONEG Negative Carrier
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale FS: Omega DII Lamp House with 212 bulb $25
- Started by Jon Shiu
-
Free FREE: Sears (Ricoh) KSX Super camera body - mirror locked up
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
For Sale NIKON FM10 70-210mm
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale 2 each 4x5 ground Glass
- Started by waynecrider
Forum statistics
I have so far also tried the Silvermax developer with Ilford FP4+ and Fuji Acros, and I am inclined to believe that the Silvermax developer is doing the trick and not necessarily the Silvermax film. Both other films show very fine grain and a large tonal range as well when done in the Silvermax developer. I am mostly shooting 120 film, therefore can't use the Silvermax film, but will definitely in the next future do some more work with FP4+ in 120 format and the Silvermax developer.
Silvermax 1:29, 20C, 11 minutes ... film is Ferrania's P30 Alpha
What ISO to you shoot the FP4+ and Acros? And what are your development times? I want to give it a try.
It also has (according to the MSDS) Potassium Thiocyanate in it which is a potent grain solvent. The whole formulation of the developer is a bit odd - apparently it contains Metol, Phenidone, Dimezone-S, Hydroquinone & the potassium salt of Hydroquinone Monosulfate as developing agents. The Thiocyanate usually turns up in traditional first developers for reversal processing & the Potassium Hydroquinone Monosulfate or something similar is used in the first developer in E6. It's almost as if a traditional BW reversal first developer was combined with bits of the E6 first developer & some extra bits added for fun...
I completely agree. It has no smell and doesn't feel very alkaline (slippery) on the hands. I've never used a developer like this, but I was pleased with the results. It also has no ORM-D tag for shipping.
The use of highly solvent developers with high iodide films to achieve a balance of fine grain & sharpness/ acutance has been known for a while - & I vaguely recall something to the effect that highly solvent developers revealed more surface area for the developer to work on.
The other ingredients disclosed are Potassium Carbonate, Borax, Diethylene Glycol & DTPA/ trilon.
As a starting point, I simply developed them together with the Silvermax film at the therefore recommended 1+29 dillution for 11 minutes. The developer data sheet suggests 1+24 for 8 minutes for the FP4+, but mentions no time for the Acros.
I have no densiometer, but the negatives look very similar, with the FP4+ and the Acros perhaps a tiny bit denser than the Silvermax negatives.
Almost. The print would be approximately 80x53". The aspect ratio of 3:2 would not change.
The 'viewing distance' argument, allegedly allowing to make large prints from a low resolution image does not always hold. It is of course true, that if you enlarge an image and then view the print from further away, so that the print occupies the same angle of view, it will basically look just as sharp as viewing a smaller print from a shorter distance. If you look at a 20x20 print from 20 feet away, it occupies the same angle of view as if you look at a 10x10 print from 10 feet away. The 'viewing distance' argument fails however, as soon as you walk closer to the image. It makes sense for a billboard or wherever the viewer under reasonable circumstances won't approach the image, but it does not make sense if the image is e.g. exposed hanging on a wall in a room, where it is not unlikely that the viewer will approach the image to look at a details.
My reason for using MF instead of 135 film is to prevent grain, or at least be able to use faster films and keeping the grain at the same level.
Thanks for the reply. I suppose all I am saying is that if the 80 x53 print were to be "compressed" to 24 x16 which is a large print by most standards then it should look very good at normal 24 x 16 viewing distance even in 135 format.
Not all film and developer combinations in 135 is going to give you good prints at 24 x16 but Silvermax film with Silvermax developer seems to be able to do this.
I once saw prints from 35mm slides in an outside exhibition in Birmingham, England by Yann Arthus-Bertrand and while most were slightly smaller than 80 x 53 they still looked pretty good when viewed at less than the correct viewing distance. Of course I may be more easily pleased than most
pentaxuser
Not all film and developer combinations in 135 is going to give you good prints at 24 x16 but Silvermax film with Silvermax developer seems to be able to do this.
I once saw prints from 35mm slides in an outside exhibition in Birmingham, England by Yann Arthus-Bertrand and while most were slightly smaller than 80 x 53 they still looked pretty good when viewed at less than the correct viewing distance. Of course I may be more easily pleased than most
pentaxuser
I've done a little test to check the compression that is claimed on the silvermax developer package. The goal was not to count the number of zones, but to pit it against my standard developing combination and some other combinations that should compress the tones.
The developing combination in question were:
1) silvermax developer following the guide to the letter. So 11 minutes, 1+29 dilution and standard agitation
2) the way I develop silvermax. 510-pyro, 1+150 for 12 minutes with constant agitation in a jobo and with a 2 min pre wash
3) 510-pyro 1+500 semi-stand*
4) Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand*
*Semi-stand was 1 hour starting with 1 minute of agitation at the beginning and 1 agitation at every 15 minutes thereafter. Everything was done at 20 degrees.
The scene is of a monastery that is around the corner of my home. It was a brightly lit scene with ample contrast to check the compression of the different developing techniques. The film was rated at 100 iso
The developed negatives:
I also made prints at contrast filter 2 trying to make sure that the greys in the sidewalk are more or less the same between prints. The printing times were (in the same order as above) 12, 10, 16 and 7 seconds. Starting at top left is the silvermax print, the top right print is the standard 510-pyro print, the bottom right one is the 510-pyro semi-stand and the bottom left is the Rodinal print.
The 510-pyro semi-stand negatives were clearly overdeveloped. The Rodinal negatives have the highest amount of compression at the cost of irregularities in the sky and halo's around the rooftops.
The 510-pyro print has a bit more detail in the shadow in the left hand side of the print, but the contrast is overall a bit lower then that of the silvermax print.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the negatives and the prints.
The developing combination in question were:
1) silvermax developer following the guide to the letter. So 11 minutes, 1+29 dilution and standard agitation
2) the way I develop silvermax. 510-pyro, 1+150 for 12 minutes with constant agitation in a jobo and with a 2 min pre wash
3) 510-pyro 1+500 semi-stand*
4) Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand*
*Semi-stand was 1 hour starting with 1 minute of agitation at the beginning and 1 agitation at every 15 minutes thereafter. Everything was done at 20 degrees.
The scene is of a monastery that is around the corner of my home. It was a brightly lit scene with ample contrast to check the compression of the different developing techniques. The film was rated at 100 iso
The developed negatives:
I also made prints at contrast filter 2 trying to make sure that the greys in the sidewalk are more or less the same between prints. The printing times were (in the same order as above) 12, 10, 16 and 7 seconds. Starting at top left is the silvermax print, the top right print is the standard 510-pyro print, the bottom right one is the 510-pyro semi-stand and the bottom left is the Rodinal print.
The 510-pyro semi-stand negatives were clearly overdeveloped. The Rodinal negatives have the highest amount of compression at the cost of irregularities in the sky and halo's around the rooftops.
The 510-pyro print has a bit more detail in the shadow in the left hand side of the print, but the contrast is overall a bit lower then that of the silvermax print.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the negatives and the prints.
I've done a little test to check the compression that is claimed on the silvermax developer package. The goal was not to count the number of zones, but to pit it against my standard developing combination and some other combinations that should compress the tones.
The developing combination in question were:
1) silvermax developer following the guide to the letter. So 11 minutes, 1+29 dilution and standard agitation
2) the way I develop silvermax. 510-pyro, 1+150 for 12 minutes with constant agitation in a jobo and with a 2 min pre wash
3) 510-pyro 1+500 semi-stand*
4) Rodinal 1+100 semi-stand*
*Semi-stand was 1 hour starting with 1 minute of agitation at the beginning and 1 agitation at every 15 minutes thereafter. Everything was done at 20 degrees.
The scene is of a monastery that is around the corner of my home. It was a brightly lit scene with ample contrast to check the compression of the different developing techniques. The film was rated at 100 iso
The developed negatives:
I also made prints at contrast filter 2 trying to make sure that the greys in the sidewalk are more or less the same between prints. The printing times were (in the same order as above) 12, 10, 16 and 7 seconds. Starting at top left is the silvermax print, the top right print is the standard 510-pyro print, the bottom right one is the 510-pyro semi-stand and the bottom left is the Rodinal print.
The 510-pyro semi-stand negatives were clearly overdeveloped. The Rodinal negatives have the highest amount of compression at the cost of irregularities in the sky and halo's around the rooftops.
The 510-pyro print has a bit more detail in the shadow in the left hand side of the print, but the contrast is overall a bit lower then that of the silvermax print.
I wonder what your thoughts are on the negatives and the prints.
The bigger question is whether the same results could be obtained using a developer that makes no claims for 'compensation' & simply adjusting development time. I think they can be. The major problem with your results are the wide variations in negative density between different developers - unless all the films are developed to the same CI in all the developers, all you are giving us is a set of random data points with no means of understanding them. Right now, it's a set of random development times printed on grade 2. For example, if you adjusted the Silvermax time to give the CI of the Rodinal negs, what would they look like? A great deal of the time, many of the claimed 'differences' between developers are smaller than the effect of a lack of/ poor controls in the exposure & processing.
Last edited:
i have shot one roll of Silvermax at box speed and sent to The Darkroom (who use DDX). I like the scanned results (tonality and grain structure). It is possible the clear film base gives a better scan. I would like to try some more, but develop them myself in Silvermax developer. Here are a couple shots. More here: https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=silvermax
dead tree by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
flowers by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
dead tree by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
flowers by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |