Agfa APX 100 back?

[madgardener]

I hope I don't sound like I'm being cheap because I don't think that I am. I'm just trying to be smart with my spending given my modest income and the high cost of living area I'm in. If I were simply being cheap then I would use the off brand films like Lucky and just accept the flaws as a part of using a cheaply made and sold film. However, I don't want to compromise quality so that's why I want to stay a customer of Ilford, Fuji and Kodak even though it's frustrating when prices go up because it makes one feel that there isn't much other choice.

One way to cut your costs is to use the bulk rolls of 35mm that are available. You can really pick up bulk rolls very cheaply if you get the short dated stuff. I got some short dated bulk rolls of FP4+ for $35, shipping included from Isreal a couple months ago. I got them in June and the expire date was July, but in the freezer they don't age. I'm enjoying the process of making my own rolls, I feel like I am a lot more involved in the photography process.

 

[StoneNYC]

One way to cut your costs is to use the bulk rolls of 35mm that are available. You can really pick up bulk rolls very cheaply if you get the short dated stuff. I got some short dated bulk rolls of FP4+ for $35, shipping included from Isreal a couple months ago. I got them in June and the expire date was July, but in the freezer they don't age. I'm enjoying the process of making my own rolls, I feel like I am a lot more involved in the photography process.

That doesn't work for us 120 and LF shooters...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

Speaking of film prices, yesterday I went into Freestyle to pick up more Fuji Acros in the 120 five roll pack. I was not prepared for the price increase; I thought it had already taken effect previously. Prices jumped up for 135 as well. So now I find myself once again trying to convince myself to stay with film even though the prices are at a point where it just doesn't make sense for me.

I put together 8 rolls of film for a trip using only $10.00 cash a few weeks ago. OK I cheated a bit. But I pulled it off.

One roll of film from my favorite store. That took care of my money.

Rolled four from a bulk roll (of APX-100), took one roll of Panatomic-X out of the freezer and already had 3 rolls of TMY-2 on hand.

Bulk film is a great plan, as madgardener already pointed out.

 

[StoneNYC]

I put together 8 rolls of film for a trip using only $10.00 cash a few weeks ago. OK I cheated a bit. But I pulled it off.

One roll of film from my favorite store. That took care of my money.

Rolled four from a bulk roll (of APX-100), took one roll of Panatomic-X out of the freezer and already had 3 rolls of TMY-2 on hand.

Bulk film is a great plan, as madgardener already pointed out.

You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!

Lucky


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!

Lucky

I have most of a 100-foot bulk roll of 35mm Panatomic-X in the back of the fridge. It has an expiration date of September, 1963. Two months before Jack Kennedy was assassinated.

I'm not the original owner, and I have no idea how it was stored over those years. Except that the person I directly got it from told me it had been kept outside in a rural barn along with some long unused old darkroom equipment. Given that, I suppose keeping it in a fridge now is probably a bit silly.

I did once spool up a 12-frame roll for some non-scientific testing. Except for some light-struck edges, it exposed and developed out just fine. The edges probably meant that the metal can was not completely sealed light-tight over the years.

Those old slow speed b&w films sometimes seem like they can last forever.

Ken

 

[Roger Cole]

You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!

Lucky


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Pan-X was ASA 32. TMY-2 is ISO 400. They wouldn't be remotely interchangeable. Sure, if you had sufficient studio light for the Pan-X that you could, as needed, tone down for TMY you could do it, but a better comparison would be Pan F+, APX 25 if it were still around, Efke 25 (ditto) or even the new tech 100 speed films, TMX, Delta 100 or Acros.

 

[StoneNYC]

Pan-X was ASA 32. TMY-2 is ISO 400. They wouldn't be remotely interchangeable. Sure, if you had sufficient studio light for the Pan-X that you could, as needed, tone down for TMY you could do it, but a better comparison would be Pan F+, APX 25 if it were still around, Efke 25 (ditto) or even the new tech 100 speed films, TMX, Delta 100 or Acros.

Fair enough, I wasn't talking grain though I just meant overall look and my personal ability to expose them right


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Burk]

You still have Panatomic-X!! I love that film! I've only been able to shoot a few rolls but I would use that over TMY-2 any day!

Lucky


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

When you use it one roll at a time, it lasts a while...

 

[StoneNYC]

When you use it one roll at a time, it lasts a while...

Well I've only ever owned 4 and I'm on my last one... Lol


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

If I were simply being cheap then I would use the off brand films like Lucky and just accept the flaws as a part of using a cheaply made and sold film.

I've used Lucky colour films, especially the Super New 100, and didn't find any flaws. It was my favourite film for muted, almost pastel colours. Lucky discontinued all colour films last year.

 

[marcmarc]

Thanks for the suggestion of bulk loading 135. I have actually thought about it a year or so ago but I didn't follow up with it. Now might be a good time to do so. I'll do a search for which loader is most recommended (I forgot) again and pick one up.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Erwin Puts described APX 100 as a classical acutance film and Delta 100, T-Max 100 and Acros as high tech films:

http://web.archive.org/web/20051017...hotosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html

Once I developed some APX 100 semi-stand in FX-2 and I agree,it can give edge effects more than the high tech films.

 

[wblynch]

I wonder if the new AGFA APX-100 and the new ADOX CHS-II 100 are the same exact film?

The timing of their availabilities is certainly coincidental.

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

I wonder if the new AGFA APX-100 and the new ADOX CHS-II 100 are the same exact film?

The timing of their availabilities is certainly coincidental.

No they are not. I think I stated earlier in this (or in another) thread that we do not manufacture the new AgfaPhoto APX.

Mirko

 

[wblynch]

No they are not. I think I stated earlier in this (or in another) thread that we do not manufacture the new AgfaPhoto APX.

Mirko

Even Better! That means two new black and white films for us !!

 

[StoneNYC]

Even Better! That means two new black and white films for us !!

Or two competing films at the same ASA with not enough customers willing to move from Delta100, Tmax100, FP4+(125 close enough), FOMA100, Acros100, etc etc... however with the idea that the new ADOX stuff will come in all sorts of formats... if it comes in 4x5, 70mm, 120 and 127 formats... that would be a huge draw, if it came in 220 I might switch from ilford and fuji for the 100 range... but that's just me... (except night exposures... unless this film can match Acros100 on that... ). Especially if it's all reasonably and competitively priced.

 

[clayne]

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Integrate the different mediums into the collection. For some it may also be a switch back to what they might have predominantly used before.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Or two competing films at the same ASA with not enough customers willing to move from Delta100, Tmax100, FP4+(125 close enough), FOMA100, Acros100, etc etc... however with the idea that the new ADOX stuff will come in all sorts of formats... if it comes in 4x5, 70mm, 120 and 127 formats... that would be a huge draw, if it came in 220 I might switch from ilford and fuji for the 100 range... but that's just me... (except night exposures... unless this film can match Acros100 on that... ). Especially if it's all reasonably and competitively priced.

As long as you're going as far as 70mm, 127 and 220 then why not shoot the moon and make millions of us older camera folks happy and run 620 too. There are tons of 630 cameras out there and I, for one, would buy 620. I've got some honey cameras in 620 that are fantastic. My Kodak Medalist will match any 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 camera made today. The Kodak Monitor 620, Kodak Reflex I & II, Kodak Duo, and the Chevron are just a few Kodak's. Plus, there are thousands of other 620 cameras out there. It cost no more to make 620 film than it does to make 120 and it always pissed me off that since Kodak created the "bastard" size they didn't keep a small stock available. Maybe that's the kind of thinking that got kodak into trouble in the first place? When Kodak stopped the 616/116/620 production I boycotted them and never bought a roll of B&W Kodak film for many years. Of course I must confess that I still continued to use Vericolor 160 for weddings. So I guess that makes me a hypocrite! JohnW

 

[lxdude]

It's all about whether they can sell enough to make it worth doing. I was buying 116, 616, 620 and 828 long after all cameras that took those sizes were out of production. But I only used the cameras occasionally, and that's the issue. So I could understand it when they went- I was glad they were around as long as they were. Lots of companies (especially these days) do not support old products even if they could do it without losing money. They don't want to bother with it.
There are numerous threads here on APUG about respooling 120 onto 620 cores, easily found through using the search box. Some people have even modified 620 cameras to take 120 film, which would probably vary a lot in difficulty depending on the camera model.

 

[StoneNYC]

As long as you're going as far as 70mm, 127 and 220 then why not shoot the moon and make millions of us older camera folks happy and run 620 too. There are tons of 630 cameras out there and I, for one, would buy 620. I've got some honey cameras in 620 that are fantastic. My Kodak Medalist will match any 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 camera made today. The Kodak Monitor 620, Kodak Reflex I & II, Kodak Duo, and the Chevron are just a few Kodak's. Plus, there are thousands of other 620 cameras out there. It cost no more to make 620 film than it does to make 120 and it always pissed me off that since Kodak created the "bastard" size they didn't keep a small stock available. Maybe that's the kind of thinking that got kodak into trouble in the first place? When Kodak stopped the 616/116/620 production I boycotted them and never bought a roll of B&W Kodak film for many years. Of course I must confess that I still continued to use Vericolor 160 for weddings. So I guess that makes me a hypocrite! JohnW

620 can easily be respooled from 120, not as much need for that, in fact, I had a bunch of 620 that I took off and put on 120 spools because I don't own any 620 cameras HAHA, sorry if that's a dig in that we could have traded, but it really is easy to re-spool the 620 stuff, as long as you have one 620 spool you're good.

 

[StoneNYC]

It's all about whether they can sell enough to make it worth doing. I was buying 116, 616, 620 and 828 long after all cameras that took those sizes were out of production. But I only used the cameras occasionally, and that's the issue. So I could understand it when they went- I was glad they were around as long as they were. Lots of companies (especially these days) do not support old products even if they could do it without losing money. They don't want to bother with it.
There are numerous threads here on APUG about respooling 120 onto 620 cores, easily found through using the search box. Some people have even modified 620 cameras to take 120 film, which would probably vary a lot in difficulty depending on the camera model.

yea, the 70mm is good for 116/616 as well, and 828 can just be respooled from 35mm and same with 620 as you said respooled from fresh 120. 127 on the other hand... I love my Yashika44, really want it to last a while, I did buy into the Ilford ULF run so I'll have 22 rolls of 127 to shoot this year all fresh HP5+ but it would be nice not to have to roll it myself, or at least have fresh backing paper, right now I'm working off 4 rolls of fresh backing paper, and 6 rolls of really brittle scraped up backing paper, and I don't do well with cutting my own backing paper, so that's out...

Anyway, just a dream

PS I have one roll of 828... I think it's Kodachrome II ... lol

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well guys, 620 is my main beef. Oh it would be nice to haul out my beautiful Kodak 3A and shoot those huge negatives again (many folks here don't even know what I'm talking about). Just like having a roll film 4x5. Or the 616/116 , but I realize there is a film size slitting problem there. Not with 620! Same film width, paper backing etc. Only the spool is different and I'm sure some cheap Chinese plastic plant could poop those out for almost nothing. What I'm saying is is if you want to sell more film in a dwindling market then sell more damn film. I believe a roll of 620 film still constitutes a roll of film. It's not like the other sizes where the slitter has to be setup and paper has to be specially made. Like StoneNYC says all you have to do is re-pool! So, 620 is already made, but just on the wrong spool. I'm sorry, if I were in the film business and that businesses well being was depended on the volume of film it sold, I would be looking for every way I could do just that. Of course you don't want to create a new high-cost overhead by retooling, but with 620 you don't have to.
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEING MADE! You would not want to make 3 million rolls, but make some just to get the feel of the market. Then you could gauge your production to that. If it doesn't sell then stop spooling 620 altogether. You are nothing out since all the film and backing paper was 120 anyway. Oh, if you have some left over 620 spools just dump them on eBay 'cause they are going for as mush as a roll of film anyway.
As for me? I re-spool 620 all the time and it's no problem, but it sure would be easier just to place my order with B&H, Adorama or Freestyle. Do I think it will happen? Heck no! Why? Because these companies nowadays do not think out of the box. Then they act puzzled when things keep going downhill. Or worse yet they don't act like they care at all about the company and ride it down the hill while they milk their fat paychecks. Happens all the time and I have more than a few friends who have paid the price for that. Just my stupid opinion I guess, but I'm sticking to it! JohnW

 

[StoneNYC]

Well guys, 620 is my main beef. Oh it would be nice to haul out my beautiful Kodak 3A and shoot those huge negatives again (many folks here don't even know what I'm talking about). Just like having a roll film 4x5. Or the 616/116 , but I realize there is a film size slitting problem there. Not with 620! Same film width, paper backing etc. Only the spool is different and I'm sure some cheap Chinese plastic plant could poop those out for almost nothing. What I'm saying is is if you want to sell more film in a dwindling market then sell more damn film and I believe a roll of 629 film still constitutes a roll of film. It's not like the other sizes where the slitter has to be setup and paper has to be specially made. Like StoneNYC says all you have to do is repool! So, 620 is already made, but just on the wrong spool. I'm sorry, if I were in the film business and that businesses well being was depended on the volume of film it sold, I would be looking for every way I could do just that. Of course you don't want to create a new high-cost overhead by retooling, but with 620 you don't have to.
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEING MADE! You would not want to make 3 million rolls, but make some just to get the feel of the market. Then you could gauge your production to that. If it doesn't sell then stop spooling 620 altogether. You are noting out since all the film and backing paper was 120 anyway. Oh, if you have some left over 620 spools just dump them on eBay 'cause they are going for as mush as a roll of film anyway.
As for me? I re=spool 620 all the time and it's no problem, but it sure would be easier just to place my order with B&H, Adorama or Freestyle. Do I think it will happen? Heck no! Why, because these companies nowadays do not think out of the box. Then they act puzzled when things keep going downhill. Or worse yet they don't act like they care at all about the company and ride it down the hill while they milk their fat paychecks. Happens all the time and I have more than a few friends who have paid the price for that. Just my stupid opinion I guess, but I'm sticking to it! JohnW

Ilford just had 122 as an option in their ULF run this year, not enough people ordered it so it was the only one that didn't get ordered... I think the minimum for that was 10 rolls and only 4-6 got ordered in total, they were of course about $220-$260 per 50 foot roll, but still, if you want it bad enough, buy 10 to guarantee the order...

Also, you can buy 620 spools fresh in ... Provia 100f, Velvia 100f, E100G, Portra160, Tmax100, Tri-X Pan, and Tmax400 ... so stop your complaining... the work is already done for you.... sheesh! go buy some spools...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=620+film&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

 

[clayne]

John, just buy some spools man. The problem is easily solvable with 5 minutes in eBay.

 

[lxdude]

John, I don't want to sound unsympathetic. But as a transparency film shooter, I've seen at least 8 different color slide films completely discontinued in the last 4 years, and I face the very real possibility of every single one being gone long before I'm done with photography. If that happens, I will adjust, and hope I have color negative film for a while longer.