Agfa Copex Rapid 50 - developer and ISO

[blee1996]

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!

 

[loccdor]

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.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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!

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.

 

[fs999]

Caffenol CLCN 16.5 min.

My photos

 

[koraks]

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.

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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!

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

 

[John Wiegerink]

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.

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?

 

[loccdor]

Note how the example in #2 exposed at EI50 is also significantly underexposed.

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.

 

[destroya]

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

 

[koraks]

I recall it covered about 97% of the brightness range that my Epson flatbed could handle in fully manual mode.

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.

 

[loccdor]

Makes sense.