• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Agfa Copex Rapid 50 - developer and ISO

blee1996

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
1,562
Location
SF Bay Area, California
Format
Multi Format
Hi

I recently tried one 120 roll of Agfa Copex Rapid (exposed at ISO 50) and Kodak Technical Pan (exposed at ISO 25) each in the same pot of TD-3 developer (1:1:8, 14 min at 70F). The Kodak TP looks a bit thin but very scannable, but the Copex came out almost totally transparent with very faint images. I did under-expose both a bit, due to lack of compensation for bellows extension. But I'm surprised that the negatives looks so different.

Now my question is: what kind of ISO do you guys get from Copex Rapid with your developer? I have the following other developers to try next:

1) Rodinal: 1+100 and 18 min at 68F ?
2) Adox FX-39 II: 1+19 and 9 min at 68F ?
3) Clayton F76+: 1+19 for 9 minutes at 68F ?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I used 510-pyro 1+300 1 hour stand development. It was still quite contrasty but would work for overcast or until about sunny f/11 days. I shot it at 50. Negatives weren't thin but it's pushing the brightness range.



Rodinal might work but you should consider 1+150 or 1+200 and extending time and reducing agitation.
 
I was told not to over-fix these thin emulsion films. I don't know if you did, but it could be a problem. I don't know if Copex Rapid falls into that 'thin emulsion" category or not since I've never used it.
 
John Wiegerink said:
I was told not to over-fix these thin emulsion films. I don't know if you did, but it could be a problem. I don't know if Copex Rapid falls into that 'thin emulsion" category or not since I've never used it.
Click to expand...
You can't fix away a silver image to the extent that it goes from a somewhat normal image to something unacceptably thin. It doesn't matter what kind of film it is. It just won't happen.

Underexposure is the likely main problem, underdevelopment can be a contributing factor. It's probably a combination of both. Note how the example in #2 exposed at EI50 is also significantly underexposed.
 

Have you looked at CD4-LC which is a special purpose developed formulated by @Alan Johnson for high contrast films and gives excellent results for several films?

CD4-LC low contrast developer for scanning

I have found that use of high concentrations of CD-4 reduces the contrast of microfilms [pic] and the contrast is further reduced by minimal agitation every 3 min. In combination with reduction of contrast in scanner software this enables some microfilms to be shot at box speed. The CD-4...
www.photrio.com
 
koraks,
That's what I always thought too. I was told not to overfix in a discussion about HR-50 film and nobody in the conversation disputed the statement. Being that almost everyone involved in that discussion knew more than dumb bunny me I believed it. I have always slightly over fixed instead of the reverse and never had a problem with my normal films at all. I wonder where that person got his information from?
 
koraks said:
Note how the example in #2 exposed at EI50 is also significantly underexposed.
Click to expand...

I recall it covered about 97% of the brightness range that my Epson flatbed could handle in fully manual mode. Maybe with DSLR scanning or optical printing I could expose it more without burning the highlights. Unfortunately, due to the uneven stand development, most of the highlights are from the sky on the left side of the image. I reserve this film for overcast lighting now.
 
haven't shot copex rapid in a while. but for techpan, i get the best results with either Alan's CD4-LC or straight c41 developer at 32 for 7.5 to 8 min at 70 degrees

john
 
loccdor said:
I recall it covered about 97% of the brightness range that my Epson flatbed could handle in fully manual mode.
Click to expand...
So it's strongly overdeveloped, but also underexposed. The solution, thus, is not less exposure - it's the opposite. More exposure, (much!) less development. I'd start by rating this at EI12 or so.
 
Makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register