Agfa Cinerex - tests and recommendation

[zsas]

I think I have an observation re this film that many have repeated but I want to articulate as a side coversation, this film needs to be very tightly exposed and developed. Any over/under exposure and/or over/under develop will blow the highlights or lose the shadows, consequently would it make sense to suggest that this film be developed in a diluted developer because as Field has shown, +/- 30 seconds in stock (in his case Tmax 1:4) can greatly affect outcome? Developing this in say replenished Xtol (which is really like 1:1) or Tmax 1:9 might be the name of the game? I bet this film needs a specific dev time for sunlight (which I have yet to do) vs a overcast gray day, and therefore with such little wiggle room, diluted might be the only way to keep this somewhat fickle film in control (like a wild stallion)?

Mark - I love that power plant shot, I think I need a #12 for sun. Thanks for the info re Sexton, I need to pick that up! It does help contextualize what we are seeing from the sunny crew (you and Rick) and the shady crew (Field and I).

Hope more post - John (Grumpy) you get you film in that neat camera yet?

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Andy, I agree with everything except the part about over exposure. I do not find that to be too much of an issue once you get the development time down.

I haven't found the develpment time to be a problem with straight Xtol. My replenished time is 7' at 70 degrees vs about 6' for fresh undiluted. I'm perfectly content with my replenished developers, but had wanted to find a 1:1 time to share. My initial 1:1 trial was so far off I didn't have the energy to explore it, so just worked for an undiluted time for fresh to match my replenished (I was curious anyway how my stock was holding up).

I think some of the apparent finickiness of the film is from general underexposure. Once you get enough exposure, the development isn't as hard to sort out; and once you get the development sorted out, overexposure isn't a big deal (up to maybe a stop or a bit more). Highlight detail holds well, but as Richard indicated, the shadows go away very quickly.

 

[zsas]

Very great explanation! Think I have been consistently under exposing (my prior 3) until this recent roll that was spot on, I see why I believed it to be dev when it was more exposure.

Anyone prewashing? I have found it to be not needed, but I cd be wrong

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Very great explanation! Think I have been consistently under exposing (my prior 3) until this recent roll that was spot on, I see why I believed it to be dev when it was more exposure.

Anyone prewashing? I have found it to be not needed, but I cd be wrong

I did not prewash. I will say however that the bright almost iridescent orange-pink fluid I saw when dumping the HC-110 was quite beautiful!

 

[Field]

When I pre-wash it comes out out HOT pink. Unfortunately my last test roll was in a dirty tank or something (I got to check or wash more carefully when sharing a lab with inexperienced people). I can say that 6:00 at EI25 is pretty darn good. No blow outs that are out of control, shadow detail not bad (improved greatly in some areas). I'd say in the 5.75-6.00 minutes is PERFECT at EI25. A few pictures are gold as far as value range (like maybe better than my belovid Adox/Efke and not as contrasty in the middle grays, so it might print even better). Well I'm being hopefull because Adox/Efke does not grow on trees.

I need to translate my times to a more dilluted state so I can get it right in there. It appears so long as my camera meter is accurate then the pictures at proper development are going to be very good. I even got some clouds by not developing too much; wtihout a yellow filter. I still like the yellow filter affect though.

Hard to say for sure but maybe even at EI50 or EI100, the right development time might be just as good as EI25. It seems to take charge even more than exposure from what I can tell. Considering that development time can black out shadows, blow out whites, or make the picture barely there.

Unfortunately to say orange filters appear to massacure the film. You'd have to choose to do an entire roll with orange filter at a different development time. It appears the film reads it like you've lowered your EI to 12.5, instead of 25, when shooting at 25.

Part of me wants to think, ugh what a pain, but the other part clearly knows that this is EXTREMELY VASTLY CHEAPER THAN SHOOTING SLIDE FILM and only just as finiky.

 

[zsas]

Orange filter vs. no filter OM2n 28mm f3.5 lens.

Dead Link Removed

That was at 6.75 in Tmax 1:4. Clearly no filter needs even more time... so far only the yellow filter seems worth using. I'm not sure how much to increase development for EI25 filterless, but everything is vastly blown out.

Yeah that orange is really contrasty, and no filter was too weak, looks like great filters are the standard yellow #8 (K2) and Mark tried a #12, which also looked great. I suppose a 9 and 11 wd be grand too, not sure much more than the #12 wd work out as swell as those between 8 and 12?

 

[zsas]

Part of me wants to think, ugh what a pain, but the other part clearly knows that this is EXTREMELY VASTLY CHEAPER THAN SHOOTING SLIDE FILM and only just as finiky.

When life gives you lemons (err Cinerex....)

Great work Field!

 

[Kc2edh]

Wow, so glad to see some great results so far! My roll of Cinerex arrived a week or so ago and I'm looking forward to shooting some, but my bulk loader still has a little bit of Foma 100 left in it even after spooling up all the empty cartridges I had laying around. The GAS in me is saying "Go on ebay, bulk loaders are cheap just get another one!" but I'm trying my best to conserve funds and fight that urge.

I know its been mentioned a few times, but has anyone experimented with Rodinal yet?

 

[Field]

Not yet, I have some. I plan to try and transfer my Tmax times to it. The Tmax is free for me most of the year, the Rodinal is not (but it takes soooooo little of it, it is the most economical stuff I could probably use).

It might allow less development times because of the contrast Rodinal tends to produce, and there for keep shadows and highlights better. But it could hard to keep it under.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Yes, bulk loaders are SO cheap. $8-10 sometimes. I have 4-5 of them with film at any given time. Usually a slow option (Pan F or some really old film that needs to be shot slow - i.e. some HP3 at the moment from July 1963!)), then something like Tmax 100 or Fuji SS, and of course some 400 speed tri-x or HP5. And I do plan on trying some of this Cinerex with Rodinal in the next couple/few weeks....

Wow, so glad to see some great results so far! My roll of Cinerex arrived a week or so ago and I'm looking forward to shooting some, but my bulk loader still has a little bit of Foma 100 left in it even after spooling up all the empty cartridges I had laying around. The GAS in me is saying "Go on ebay, bulk loaders are cheap just get another one!" but I'm trying my best to conserve funds and fight that urge.

I know its been mentioned a few times, but has anyone experimented with Rodinal yet?

 

[Field]

What do you guys think for Rodinal development times? +3 minutes over Tmax 1:4, with 1:50? I'm going to have to do some test clips instead of entire rolls I think... I keep taking some pictures I like or care about ha!

 

[zsas]

What do you guys think for Rodinal development times? +3 minutes over Tmax 1:4, with 1:50? I'm going to have to do some test clips instead of entire rolls I think... I keep taking some pictures I like or care about ha!

I have never used Rodinal, but just looking at the math by extrapolating data from the massive dev chart, you said previous that, "I'd say in the 5.75-6.00 minutes is PERFECT at EI25.", so when I find a film that is done at 6 mins in Tmax 1:4, that same film in Rodinal 1:50 would go for 9 mins. So at a quick back of the envelope, I think you are close thinking +3 mins from your established 5.5-6 min Tmax 1:4, would be close'ish, depending on the type of day, I think I would go towards longer if the day was overcast vs shorter for a bright day. But again, never used Rodinal so I am not much help except purely theoretical. By the way I got these extrapolated numbers by looking at Adox CHS 50 in Tmax 1:4 6 mins and when dev'd in Rodinal 1:50 it said 9. Rough math....but maybe a starter point?

Have a blast, this film is sure fun! You going to yellow filter it too?

 

[Field]

I lost some confidence when I looked at other comparrisons because the times started to change a lot more... haha oh well I'll just have to do it.

 

[John Austin]

Today - I knew it was today, it had to be today, so dog Grub and I bounded along the forest track to the local post office, a room in a shed with a wooden set of pigeon holes for mail

Nothing!!! - There was nothing - There was lots of nothing, an absolute abundant cornucopia of nothing - No 5x4" DDS from Japan, no 5x4" film from my WA wholesaler, no cleaned 135mm Symmar, no repaired shutter from my 165mm Angulon, no free Olympus pen half frame camera to try for a still-film idea and no Agfa Cinerex - Just a sodding bank statement to tell me what I didn't want to know but did already - Anyway, we got a walk out of it between rain showers and dog Grub did a big poo

John

 

[Katie]

Okay - managed to spool up a roll and plan to test it today.

 

[Field]

I'm on my second processing of rodinal.... It looks to be vastly superior choice to Tmax; using it at 1:50. Will report times and maybe get some scans in the next day or so...

 

[Dennis S]

I just receive my film today so I know that it can travel outside of the USA! Some people were stating that the film works well in overcast days so in the PNW it should be a prime location for this. Will be using Rodinal as well (ooops in Canada we have to call it Blazinal)

 

[Field]

1:50 at 68* try about 8.5-9 minute area. Agitate every 3 minutes. That is my initial run and it looks not too far off. I'm going to scan later so I can tell you if it was as on as the negs look (negs look much better than all the Tmax ones).

 

[vfalendysh]

Here is what I come up with:

Those three were taken (accidentally) as ISO 400. Recently lost ISO dial plate from my OM1n and was trying to mark/match iso 50, 100 and 400 positions with other OM1n and forgot to return back to ISO 50..

Developed in Fomadon R09 / 1:100 / 60 minutes / 20c (68f), agitation for first 30 seconds, then stand for 59 1/2 min, then stop bath, kodak fixer for 8 minutes, zonal archival wash and kodak photo flo with 2-3 washes in between chemicals..

First part of the film was shoot as ISO 50 and those frame come up extremely overexposed. I tried to do my best manipulating brightens / contrast in photo editing app:

 

[John Austin]

Here is what I come up with:

Those three were taken (accidentally) as ISO 400. Recently lost ISO dial plate from my OM1n and was trying to mark/match iso 50, 100 and 400 positions with other OM1n and forgot to return back to ISO 50..

Developed in Fomadon R09 / 1:100 / 60 minutes / 20c (68f), agitation for first 30 seconds, then stand for 59 1/2 min, then stop bath, kodak fixer for 8 minutes, zonal archival wash and kodak photo flo with 2-3 washes in between chemicals..

First part of the film was shoot as ISO 50 and those frame come up extremely overexposed. I tried to do my best manipulating brightens / contrast in photo editing app:

Thanks for these tasters, I hope my roll comes with Friday's mail, and all the other things listed yesterday - Your pix make the film look nicely nasty, just what I want - The flare on the car window is perfect for my planned nasty snaps with my 1936 un-coated Retina-Xenar to be a foil the to the oh-so-perfect big prints from 10x8" negs through my 12 years older 36cm Heliar- The concern I have is that viewers may prefer the fast snapshot-doco of the naked portraits being made to the big prints themselves - But that is a chance I will take

(Next problem is where to show this work - Apart from my wife Rae's gallery near Pemberton Mountford Gallery I no longer plan to have any exhibitions in Australia - This is because my fine print sales are all going to Asia or South America with only one sale so far this year within Australia - Australians in general are too stupid and visually illiterate to understand photography)

 

[Field]

Tmax 5:45 69* .... the window is too narrow between 5:30 and 6:00... They come out decent, but Rodinal is better.

Tmax

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62226537@N02/sets/72157629672581146/



Rodinal 1:50 9 minutes 69* (agitate twice every 3 minutes) Still a bit hot, I'm going to try like 8 min.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62226537@N02/sets/72157629672581142/

 

[zsas]

Great job Field!!!! That desk photo is perfect!!!

 

[Field]

The problem is I didn't use any post editing, which should be required for any properly done negative. If you look at the other photos they are too hot in certain areas.

 

[Field]

Dwane on here sent me a print that he did studio style to play with the lack of AH layer. Well he purposely lit up a marble that turned into a magnificent glowing white dot, being held by a metal nutcracker that has tonality of metal so well done that at first you wouldn't be surprised if it was a color print. I hadn't considered what you could do with this, playing around with small intense light sources in otherwise darker areas. This is exciting. It may be able to make some rather amazing photos of people looking into doorways that are really well lit from a black room etc.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Andy that Xtol really works well with this film... I wonder why mine come out a tiny bit brown, the negetaives... hm whatever they scan fine.

This is sometimes noticed with Xtol. It is caused by the size of the silver grains. Another fine grain developing agent which does this is chlorhydroquinone used in warm tone print developer formulations in the past.