Agfa Copex HDP 10...any thoughts?

[Athiril]

Spurred by a recent thread here on unperfed 35mm for use in 828 cameras, I bought a 100 ft roll of this, expired 2008. Initial results were quite disappointing. I rated at ISO 12, developed in DD-X (not sure what else to use). Took the development time down from 7 to 5 minutes looking to decrease contrast.

I would say most were way overexposed and unusable. Contrast was very high but in the less overexposed ones, there was potential there. But the strangest thing was that most were very blurry...which is the most puzzling aspect. The only thing I could think would be the film itself was not being held flat by the pressure plate, but I don't see how that is possible.

Could I have exposed the wrong side of the film? Anything? Anyone?

I finally got it wind through the AE-1 by using scotch tape on the drive spool, though it left weird marks along the film, I can at least answer it's not blurry so to speak, it easily went over 100 lp/mm wide open on my Canon FD 28mm f/2.8

I had set the AE-1 meter to ISO 50, and processed for 14 minutes in H&W Control 1+16


If you view the full size image you can see it resolves the holes in the vent on the building which the entire vent has less width than a brick.

 

[Hatchetman]

Again, looks like it has potential. Any thoughts on if you could print possibly these negatives. No way in hell could I print the any of the ones I had. Way too contrasty.

 

[georg16nik]

Again, looks like it has potential. Any thoughts on if you could print possibly these negatives. No way in hell could I print the any of the ones I had. Way too contrasty.

“Way too contrasty.” - You need the right developer and some experience with these beasts.
Copex Rapid and its cousin HDP13 (Adox CMS20) are great films. I've done various optical enlargements from 35mm and medium format.
In fact, the other day I opened my last box Emaks (“normal” grade) and did a straight print from CMS20 with condenser enlarger, no preflash, no filters, just expose, develop, stop, fix, wash, dry...; done!

 

[Hatchetman]

You need the right developer

Yes! What do you use?

 

[georg16nik]

For Copex Rapid and CMS20 - Adotech / Spur, and sometimes Rodinal or Tetenal Dokumol (my main print developer in the recent years).

 

[Hatchetman]

For Copex Rapid and CMS20 - Adotech / Spur, and sometimes Rodinal or Tetenal Dokumol (my main print developer in the recent years).

OK, can you suggest a starting point with Rodinal?

 

[georg16nik]

OK, can you suggest a starting point with Rodinal?

Sure, for Copex Rapid shoot a test strip @ ISO 25, presoak in water @ 18°C / 64°F for 1 minute (slow inv. every 10 sec) then Rodinal 1:50 @ 18°C / 64°F for 12min, slow inv. every 2 minutes.
Depending on light, subject matter, contrast etc.. you can go even lower with the temp (16°C) and increase time, so Rodinal won't loose speed.

 

[Hatchetman]

OK. I will give it a try.

 

[georg16nik]

Looking at your photo samples you posted earlier, it might be that your camera pressure plate is off.

 

[Athiril]

Again, looks like it has potential. Any thoughts on if you could print possibly these negatives. No way in hell could I print the any of the ones I had. Way too contrasty.

This looks and handles better at ISO 50 in H&W Control than Adox CMS 20 does at ISO 20 in Adotech II.

As far as I can tell the difference between Copex HDP 10 and 13 is the thickness of the film base. The one we have is pan sensitive as well as far as I can tell, I'm not sure if they are different emulsions or not. Also what we have is not Copex Rapid as far as I can tell as well. What we have should also be the same as current Kodak ImageLink HQ.

This what I'd expect a grade 2 straight print to look like, I also metered too much of the sky in my shot, I was just using the inbuilt AE-1 meter. Incident metering, or metering not including the sky in the frame would be better.

The base density is 0.26, this may be due to the marks caused by the tape, so normal base may be thinner. I measured a part of the sky, which is averaged altogether in one spot, but the densest reading I could get was 1.3.

It's more printable than CMS 20, and I do think it's workable at this speed.

 

[georg16nik]

This looks and handles better at ISO 50 in H&W Control than Adox CMS 20 does at ISO 20 in Adotech II.

As far as I can tell the difference between Copex HDP 10 and 13 is the thickness of the film base. The one we have is pan sensitive as well as far as I can tell, I'm not sure if they are different emulsions or not. Also what we have is not Copex Rapid as far as I can tell as well. What we have should also be the same as current Kodak ImageLink HQ...

Kodak ImageLink HQ, as far as I know is made by AGFA (Agfa-Gevaert) for a few years now - OEM agreements between Kodak and AGFA are nothing new...

The difference between Copex HDP 10 and 13 is not only the thickness of the film base.
Try them out with and without filters, in various developers, light settings, etc..; do some optical enlargements and you will “see the light”

 

[AgX]

Is this verified? Did Kodak sell a microfilm stock made by Agfa?

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

 

[Murray Kelly]

Could one equate Imagelink FS as Agfa Copex Rapid (EI 50+-) and being like say, Bluefire? Then maybe Imagelink HQ would be similar to if not the same as the ISO 20 films of the slower group. Not sure exactly where Techpan and Rollei Rero 80s fit in but I'd put them in the faster group.

All this may be a pointer as to how to handle these films.

SPUR had Imagespeed but I can't find it at the moment. That is/was for the Imagelink HQ specifically. Pricey, tho.

To see what can be done with Imagelink one should look at https://www.flickr.com/photos/minoxfans/ and take heart that pictorial is certainly part of these film's nomenclature. Unfortunately I cannot access my own Flickr photostream and upload from there but I will try from here at home. Something called Pintrest is blocking me.

It is Imagelink HQ 16mm taken with a Kiev 303 and my notes say it was souped in Rodinal Special 1:80 stand 1 hr. Taped to the scanner glass hence the rings.

 

[AgX]

SPUR had Imagespeed but I can't find it at the moment. That is/was for the Imagelink HQ specifically. Pricey.

The SPUR website is a mess. Sad enough. Also they seem to have stopped putting effort on the high-resolution field.

 

[Ashfaque]

SPUR's website is a mess for me too (since I don't speak German). But I manage to decipher the followings:

For Agfa Copex, Copex Rapid, Adox CHS 20, 20 II, Rollei ATP 1.1, and other similar high res. films: you need to use SPUR Modular New developer. They all use the same second developer - i.e., Part B of SPUR Modular New developer, but vary in the first dveleoper - sometimes Part A1 and in others Part A2.

For,
Agfa Copex Rapid, SPUR DSX films: Part A1 + Part B
Agfa HDP13, Adox CMS20, CMS 20 II, Rollei ATP1.1, Spur UR films: Part A2 + Part B
See Maco's SPUR developer list for information: http://www.macodirect.de/blackwhite-film-developer-c-765_772.html?filter_id=31&sort=3a

If I understand correctly, there used to be a Part C in the older version of 'SPUR Modular' developer. But it is no longer there in the new version now called SPUR Modular New developer. http://spur-photo.com/wp-content/uploads/Data-Sheet-SPUR-Modular-UR-New.pdf See the English section for more PDF files

Bests,

Ashfaque

 

[Athiril]

Alright got camera and battery, need to find where my lens adapters are, will be able to get back on this again

 

[Hatchetman]

I tried ISO 50 Rodinal 1+300 12 minutes, total failure. this is on the back burner for a while.

 

[Athiril]

H&W Control 1+17, 14 min, EOS10QD and dinted Mamiya Sekor 55mm f/1.8 @ f/8

When I get some other lens adapters and can use a wider lens, I'll take this out for a spin for some landscapes or nature or something, the potential is incredible.

 

[Hatchetman]

Looks good! Rated at 50?

 

[Athiril]

25 to 50.

I think I'll like 25 with a shorter time better.