Agfa APX 400/27

[seawolf66]

I got a couple of rolls of agfa APX 400/27 which I will shooting at EI-100/21

Since I only use at this time ID-11 Ilford film developer- for all my films , well I took a look at what Ilford said to process this film at !

Agfa APX 100 EI-100/21 stock solution for 9 mins !

NOW

Agfa APX-400 EI-400/27 stock solution for 10 mins ?

whats wrong here or is it just my mis understanding of some thing Here?

and no I do not have or use at this time Rodinal 1+25 or Rodinal special or studional lqd 1+5 or refinal or atomal FF either

thanks for your time :

 

[Anon Ymous]

:confused:

Why shoot a 400 ISO film at 100? What's the point? Even if you think that it will lack shadow detail at 400, shoot it at 200 and it will be more than ok for shadows. Unless you've lost the fact that APX 100 and 400 are two different films.

 

[PhotoJim]

Agreed. The only reason to process APX400 for shooting at EI 100 is because you've shot it at 100 incorrectly (which can happen). I would not recommend shooting it at 100 at all.

If you are out of 100-speed film, shoot it at 400 or a little below (maybe 320 for extra shadow detail) and process normally.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I got a couple of rolls of agfa APX 400/27 which I will shooting at EI-100/21

Since I only use at this time ID-11 Ilford film developer- for all my films , well I took a look at what Ilford said to process this film at !

Agfa APX 100 EI-100/21 stock solution for 9 mins !

NOW

Agfa APX-400 EI-400/27 stock solution for 10 mins ?

whats wrong here or is it just my mis understanding of some thing Here?

:

You are showing the times for two different Agfa films. APX 100 and APX 400 are entirely different films, that have different characteristics and different developing times. There is nothing wrong.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I got a couple of rolls of agfa APX 400/27 which I will shooting at EI-100/21

Since I only use at this time ID-11 Ilford film developer- for all my films , well I took a look at what Ilford said to process this film at !

Agfa APX 100 EI-100/21 stock solution for 9 mins !

NOW

Agfa APX-400 EI-400/27 stock solution for 10 mins ?

whats wrong here or is it just my mis understanding of some thing Here?

and no I do not have or use at this time Rodinal 1+25 or Rodinal special or studional lqd 1+5 or refinal or atomal FF either

thanks for your time :

If you have yet to use the 400APX (I notice you use future tense) - shoot it at or close to 400ASA - Agfa were always close with their claimed and actual film speeds.

APX100 & APX400 are different films - hence the different developing times.

APX400 works well in ID11 (1+1)

Have fun

Martin

 

[seawolf66]

Martin: But only one minute ???

 

[pentaxuser]

I have used APX400 at 400 and could see no problem with shadow detail at all. In fact based on the way the negs and prints came out and as others have said I think this film may be closer to its ISO speed than others. Unless there is an advantage in shooting at 100 and I can think of none then I'd stick to 400 where there are advantages such as greater speed and with this film, excellent shadow detail.

I should just add that mine was developed in DDX but I see no reason why ID11 shouldn't give full box speed.

pentaxuser

 

[ozphoto]

I too have used APX400, rated at 400, and have had no problems with shadow detail. Nice tight grain structure, wonderful results!

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Martin: But only one minute ???

I don't understand photographic emulsions enough to understand why film X as 100ASA & film Y at 400ASA have similar development times.

However, if you study the film development charts you will see there is a (almost) logical progression between exposure and development time – BUT – only for that emulsion.

Look at another 2 alternative films – say Ilford Delta 400 and Delta 100.
In neat ID11 Delta 100 takes 8.5mins & Delta400 = 9.5mins – Ilford Film Processing Chart - http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216122447.pdf

It is almost universally true that slower films take a shorter development time than faster films but the differences in development times are sometime smaller than you would perhaps think.

As I said at the start of my reply, I don’t understand it but I do trust others (who hopefully know a heck of a lot more about it than me – which I know is not hard ) to know what they are doing and give us safe reliable development times.

Martin

 

[railwayman3]

Martin,

I think that you are trying to see patterns and links where none exist. I suppose here is a certain apparent relationship between films of a similar speed and their developing times, but it doesn't really mean anything useful.

Every make/brand/speed of film has an emulsion with different characteristics...e.g. Agfa 100 is not the same formulation as Agfa 400, and it's that, not the different developing times, which give each their different speeds and characteristics.

The manufacturer gives their suggested speed rating for the particular film, and the basic developing times in various developers, which should give a reasonable result as a starting point. The user can then "fine-tune" these to suit their metering and general working methods, or a particular effect which they desire.

In general it's best to use each film for its designed purpose, (at least as a starting point).....for a simple example, low ASA for maximum sharpness, or high ASA to freeze action in poor light.

Having said that, alteration of developing times (and different developers)
can alter the usable speed of a film....a common example would be extending development of a faster film to allow it to be used at an effectively higher sensitivity than its "box" value. But there will then also cause other changes from use of the manufacturer's basic recommendations, perhaps in grain or contrast of the negatives.

 

[seawolf66]

Thank you all for the information and guideance :