AGFA 12 or D23 , which for APX 400 on Minox

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 12, 2013

Tonight , I am going to go to buy a Minox and order APX 400. I will cut 35mm film with maket knife in to 4 pieces and use on Minox.

I always loved 4 developers , HC110, Pyro , D23 and Agfa 12. First two are expensive to ship to Istanbul . I saw the Weston , Adams catalogs and I admired first 3. Last developer is coming from moon over hernandez Picture and I loved the scan of low contrast original and how it turns in to high contrast one after print.

I do want to use curves on agfa 12 at online photo editor and heavily normalized the Picture or Do D23 do better job ?

Umut

MartinP · Aug 12, 2013

APX400, at least the 'old' version, is fairly coarse-grained. Is that the specific reason for choosing it? Otherwise almost any current 400 film would be finer and smoother toned. The Delta400 would have been my choice for a pictorial film. My apologies for not actually giving an answer, but I was surprised at the choice of film for Minox format.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 12, 2013

Its the same reason to use Leica , I like the tones and noise. I started to read a book about psychologist Arnheim and his method and he tries to explain the art. Its a good painting or cheap painting thing. Quality of image gets you. And original Minox film is APX.

miha · Aug 12, 2013

Where will you get APX 400?

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 12, 2013

I think I will buy it from APUG Classifieds , safest and cheapest place and trusted people.

AgX · Aug 12, 2013

miha said:
Where will you get APX 400?

Still available as bulk roll from Fotoimpex.

miha · Aug 12, 2013

OK. I'm asking because there is no more original APX 400 on the market (there is one exception but it's a bulk roll).

miha · Aug 12, 2013

AgX said:
Still available as bulk roll from Fotoimpex.

you were quicker...

Trask · Aug 13, 2013

Mustafa, if you're talking about a Minox sub mini, of which I have several, remember that these are all fixed aperture cameras at f/3.5 IIRC (all my Minox are far away at the moment), and max out at 1/1000 second, so you'll have to use the built in ND filter to even get close to the sunny 16 exposure for such a fast film. I know you have aesthetic reasons for using APX 400, but just be aware that you may be overexposing the film significantly if you intend to use it in normal daylight. Of course an ASA 400 film would be perfectly appropriate if you intend to shoot in low light. FYI, I have had great success with Agfa Ortho film in a Minox, developed (again my memory) in Neofin Blue. Nearly grainless.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 15, 2013

Because of the carbonate in Agfa AG-12 this developer is more active than D-23. It would probably create more grain than D-23. Using a 400 speed film in a Minox is already going to produce a lot of grain. My preference would be for the D-23. Better yet if you can get it use Ilford Perceptol.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 15, 2013

Dear Trask,

Could you please give me more information on AGFA Ortho Film ? And sourcing please.

Thank you,
Umut

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Aug 15, 2013

Dear Gerald,

Could you please confirm Perceptol is a phonidone developer , I had been developed 100 rolls of 120 AGFA Isopan with Ilford Phenidone developer but I can not remember its name. I dont like packaging of Ilford Chemicals , they are worse than medicine packaging and cheap looking.

What is the advantage of AGFA 12 over D23 if there is any ?
Umut

Ian Grant · Aug 15, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Because of the carbonate in Agfa AG-12 this developer is more active than D-23. It would probably create more grain than D-23. Using a 400 speed film in a Minox is already going to produce a lot of grain. My preference would be for the D-23. Better yet if you can get it use Ilford Perceptol.

There's so little Carbonate in Agfa 12 (6gms) and it has 25% more Sulphite, it's unlikely to be any grainier than D-23.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · Aug 15, 2013

Ian Grant said:
There's so little Carbonate in Agfa 12 (6gms) and it has 25% more Sulphite, it's unlikely to be any grainier than D-23.

Ian

It would be an interesting experiment to compare the results of both developers. Due to the small size of the Minox negatives any difference should be readily apparent.

ic-racer · Aug 15, 2013

Somewhat related thread (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Trask · Aug 16, 2013

Mustafa, my reference to Agfa Ortho in Minox format was unfair to you, because I don't think that that film in a Minox load has been available for decades. Even though Minox in Germany says it will continue to make some emulsions in Minox format, in my opinion someone who really wants to continue using an 8mm X 11mm Minox camera has to be ready to slit 35mm film or 120 film (more difficult) into Minox-width strips that you can load back into used Minox cassettes. Minox once produced a 35mm film slitter -- I have one, but they aren't common -- and there used to a few people who made and sold film slitters on eBay; looking just now I don't see any. But you should be able to find plans on the web. So getting all the stuff together can be a challenge, but once you've got the slitter and cassettes, you can shoot Minox all day long because one roll of 35mm film will give you probably 100 exposures. If I were to start slitting film today, I think I'd try some Fuji Acros (for fine grain) or maybe some low-speed film around ISO 25 or so, though often these films have higher contrast which can be problematic in such a small negative.

werra · Aug 16, 2013

I was pleasantly surprised in APX400 developed in A49. Silksmooth compared to Rodinal result.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 16, 2013

There is another possibility for a developer which contains only metol as the developing agent. This would be Haist's variant of D-76. D-76H contains only Metol, sodium sulfite and a small amount of borax. It is intended as a one-shot.

D-76H

Metol 2.5 g
Sodium sulfite 100 g
Borax 2.0 g
water to make 1.0 l

nworth · Aug 16, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
It would be an interesting experiment to compare the results of both developers. Due to the small size of the Minox negatives any difference should be readily apparent.

That would be very worthwhile. Agfa 12 also has some restrainer. It may be somewhat sharper than D-23, which can count with Minox work. Agfa 14 is another possibility - sort of a diluted Agfa 12. It should retain fine grain while giving a bit more sharpness. You mentioned D-76H, which also might be interesting diluted 1+1. So many interesting possibilities - but limited film and time.

nworth · Aug 29, 2013

I was just starting some experiments to see how developers affected Tri-X sharpness when this thread first appeared. I had not intended to include Agfa 12 or Agfa 14, but what the heck. These results are very preliminary, but they give some qualitative feel for the issue.

For this first try, I photographed a step tablet on a light table using Tri-X, Then I developed the sample rolls to about the same contrast in four different developers:

D-76(1+1) for 9.75 minutes (Massive Development Chart recommendation)
D-23 for 7.5 minutes (Massive Development Chart recommendation - pretty well matches the above)
Agfa 12 for 7 minutes (to match the above)
Agfa 14 for 8.5 minutes (to match the above).

I printed the best matched negatives at fairly high contrast and scanned them to get the results shown here.

The best overall quality and the best sharpness was shown by D-76 diluted 1+1. D-23 and Agfa 14 were very close, with Agfa 14 showing very slightly less graininess and very slightly more sharpness. Agfa 12 had the least graininess of the bunch, but sharpness was quite degraded. Agfa 12 and Agfa 14 seemed to give less film speed than D-76 or D-23. This surprised me, based on their compositions, and I will have to check it further. The development times found by experiment were a quite a bit less than what was recommended for the old Agfa films, so perhaps they give greater speed with more development and greater contrast.

Harold33 · Sep 2, 2013

nworth said:
I was just starting some experiments (...) The best overall quality and the best sharpness was shown by D-76 diluted 1+1. D-23 and Agfa 14 were very close, with Agfa 14 showing very slightly less graininess and very slightly more sharpness.

Interesting, but I think that your experiment shows the benefits of dilution, not the properties of these developers. You have to compare diluted D-76 with diluted Agfa-14 or undiluted D-76 with undiluted Agfa-14.
Agfa-14 (with 85gr. of Sulfite and some carbonate) is expected to show coarser grain and better sharpness than D-76 undiluted.

nworth · Sep 3, 2013

Harold33 said:
Interesting, but I think that your experiment shows the benefits of dilution, not the properties of these developers. You have to compare diluted D-76 with diluted Agfa-14 or undiluted D-76 with undiluted Agfa-14.
Agfa-14 (with 85gr. of Sulfite and some carbonate) is expected to show coarser grain and better sharpness than D-76 undiluted.

True. A diluted developer is often quite different from it's undiluted version. I suspect D-23 (1+1) may be quite similar to D-76 (1+1), but I haven't tried it yet. Agfa 12 (1+1 or 1+2) may also be interesting. D-76 (1+1) was used as a standard, something that I was well acquainted with. Agfa 14 was a pleasant surprise.

Harold33 · Sep 3, 2013

nworth said:
True. A diluted developer is often quite different from it's undiluted version. I suspect D-23 (1+1) may be quite similar to D-76 (1+1), but I haven't tried it yet. /QUOTE]

In my experience, D-23 diluted 1+1 is a really low contrast developer. To achieve the same contrast than with D-76 1+1, you have to agitate much. In my opinion, D-23 is very nice for medium and large format, but its low sharpness is not suitable for 35mm film.

nworth said:

Agfa 14 was a pleasant surprise.

Click to expand...

I agree: very nice.
With traditionnal films, carbonate MQ developers often give better mid-tones (and more grain) than MQ developer reliying on borates.

Gerald C Koch · Sep 4, 2013

nworth said:
In my experience, D-23 diluted 1+1 is a really low contrast developer. To achieve the same contrast than with D-76 1+1, you have to agitate much. In my opinion, D-23 is very nice for medium and large format, but its low sharpness is not suitable for 35mm film.

Comparing apples and oranges here. D-23 and D-76 are really different. The presence of hydroquinone in D-76 changes things as does the borax.

Ian Grant · Sep 4, 2013

The comparisons aren't valid because the scans aren't all sharp. That's not due to the film/developer combination.

Ian

AGFA 12 or D23 , which for APX 400 on Minox

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency