Agfa Copex Rapid advice please

Auer · Jan 3, 2023

So I have a few rolls of this rattling around a drawer, Agfa Copex Rapid 135-36. Never used the stuff before.
Was hoping to shoot it at 50 ISO.

Currently have Rodinal, HC-110, D76 and D96 available.
Will any of these work? Anyone used any of these with this film?

Sparse info at the usual dev sites, so figure I ask here.

If it doesnt seem worth it, I have no problem giving away the film, getting another developer just for this wont happen.

TIA

cmacd123 · Jan 3, 2023

Copex is a more or less standard film for Microfilming documents. often a special developer is recommended to use it for pictorial use.

Typical is this one from "Frugal Photographer" https://www.frugalphotographer.com/Bluefire-high-resolution-film.php

Europan · Jan 4, 2023

AGFA rates Copex Pan Rapid at ISO 80. When using special developer formulae for less contrast expose for ISO 40.

relistan · Jan 4, 2023

I have not shot it, but Ron E. Marks on Flickr has done some of the nicest work with it that I have seen. He rated it at 50 and developed in dilute Clayton F76+ (like a phenidone-based D76 AFAICT).

fs999 · Jan 4, 2023

I use Caffenol CL-CN with Agfa Copex Rapid at 50 ISO.

500 ml Filtered Water
5gr Anhydrous Washing Soda
1gr Vitamin C
8gr Instant coffee ("Cora")
10 slow inversions then 3 times every 3 minutes for 16.5 minutes, fixing 60 sec.

Plaubel Makina 67 • Nikkor 1:2.8 80mm
Scanned with Plustek OpticFilm 120 at 2400dpi with Silverfast AI Studio 9
Praha • Česko

Donald Qualls · Jan 4, 2023

In the past, I've shot Copex Rapid in 16 mm at EI 50 and developed in either homebrewed H&W Control or Caffenol LC+C (my own low contrast Caffenol variant; both formulae can be found on my old website via Wayback Machine -- "silent1.home.netcom.com/Dilutions & Times" I think -- can't verify, Wayback is blocked from my work network, probably because it doesn't use https).

At present, I've got a few rolls of it in 120, looking foward to incredible resolution with this film in that size. Tripod only, please...

Alan Johnson · Jan 4, 2023

I found Rodinal 1:200 15m 20C gave EI=3 with shadow detail for CMS 20 so for Copex Rapid I suggest try EI=10 in this.

Adox CMS II 20 tips? Experience stories?

Getting back into film, this is one of the first beasts I'd like to play around with for full outdoor lighting shots. 120 size. Any cautions, notes, difficulties, etc. you'd like to pass on would be amazing. Thanks!

www.photrio.com

fs999 · Jan 5, 2023

Alan Johnson said:
I found Rodinal 1:200 15m 20C gave EI=3 with shadow detail for CMS 20

Better to use Caffenol CL-CN with CMS II 20 at 20 ISO than 3...

Auer · Jan 5, 2023

Thanks all gonna give it some more thought.

I don't do caffenol so gonna work with what I got.

Donald Qualls · Jan 5, 2023

H&W Control is easy to mix if you have phenidone on hand. Doesn't keep, though, so the way I did it was make up the phenidone in a stock solution (1% or 2% in 91% isopropyl -- I'd use glycol now) and add it to the developer by volume just before use. You'll get EI 20 from CMS 20 and EI 50 from Copex Rapid. SPUR developer would work well with this microfilm stock, too.

Auer · Jan 8, 2023

I gave it a shot in D96 (Cinestill), 6 minutes of continuous agitation in a Lab-Box.
Got some soot and chalk, low contrast. Thick grainy negatives.

Other factors:

-Overcast dim light
-Possibly wonky meter on a old Canon FTb with a modern battery
-Me, being rusty with this camera.

Still, a fun test and in my mind a promising one.

1-7-2023 (25) by Eric Auer, on Flickr

Auer · Jan 8, 2023

1-7-2023 (23) by Eric Auer, on Flickr

relistan · Jan 8, 2023

Auer said:
I gave it a shot in D96 (Cinestill), 6 minutes of continuous agitation in a Lab-Box.
Got some soot and chalk, low contrast. Thick grainy negatives.

Other factors:

-Overcast dim light
-Possibly wonky meter on a old Canon FTb with a modern battery
-Me, being rusty with this camera.

Still, a fun test and in my mind a promising one.

1-7-2023 (25) by Eric Auer, on Flickr

Hey you have a starting point now. So that’s helpful. Sounds maybe like it’s both over exposed and over developed?

Auer · Jan 8, 2023

relistan said:
Hey you have a starting point now. So that’s helpful. Sounds maybe like it’s both over exposed and over developed?

Yeah, all over the place.

aparat · Jan 8, 2023

Donald Qualls said:
H&W Control is easy to mix if you have phenidone on hand. Doesn't keep, though, so the way I did it was make up the phenidone in a stock solution (1% or 2% in 91% isopropyl -- I'd use glycol now) and add it to the developer by volume just before use. You'll get EI 20 from CMS 20 and EI 50 from Copex Rapid. SPUR developer would work well with this microfilm stock, too.

That's very interesting. Do you happen to have any Copex Rapid images processed in H&W Control? And which formula for H&W and development times did you use? I'm about to start testing the film and I'm considering H&W Control. Finally, where in the US, can I buy Spur Modular UR? Thanks!

Donald Qualls · Jan 8, 2023

I have some low-res scans (my old scanner was only 1200 ppi), but they're on the computer that's waiting for a motherboard coming from China (expected between mid-January and mid-February). I can tell you I've printed from the 10x14 mm Minolta 16 frame, with various microfilms processed in Caffenol LC+C and H&W Control, and found 8x10 prints still nearly grainless (even though the sharpness was starting to fall apart).

I used this formula:

100 ml	Water
1.9 g	Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous)
0.3 g	Hydroquinone
8.7 g	Sodium Carbonate
To make 200 ml	Water
15.15 g	Sodium Sulfite
Water to make 250 ml
Mix ingredients in order listed, ensuring each is fully dissolved before adding the next. Make up your phenidone as a stock solution, 1 g/L strength in 91% or stronger isopropyl alcohol (available at pharmacies), in which that little phenidone will pretty readily dissolve and will keep for years, then add one part phenidone stock for each 12 parts of developer stock solution at time of dilution. Use one part stock to fifteen parts water; do not attempt to store or reuse the working solution, as once diluted it has a working life of only hours, at most.

My recorded time and EI for Copex Rapid was 14 minutes, agitating only every 3rd minute, and EI 80. If you prefer to agitate every minute, you'd cut the time to around 10-11 minutes, and reduce EI to no 64 or even 50.

Edit: Ugh, the formatting is badly broken above, you may need to scroll a long way to the right to see the rest of the pasted table.

aparat · Jan 8, 2023

Donald Qualls said:
Edit: Ugh, the formatting is badly broken above, you may need to scroll a long way to the right to see the rest of the pasted table.

Thanks! That's very helpful. Sorry about your computer! That's a similar formula to the one I have. I am beginning to think that it makes very little sense testing the film in H&W Control, as very few people are willing to mix their own developers. I'd much rather test it in something like XTOL or D76, since the "designated" developer, Spur Modular UR, is not available for sale in the U.S.

What is the advantage of using Copex Rapid over, say, ILFORD PAN F Plus?

MattKing · Jan 8, 2023

Donald Qualls said:
Edit: Ugh, the formatting is badly broken above, you may need to scroll a long way to the right to see the rest of the pasted table.

I think I've wrestled the formatting into presentability. Can you please check to make sure that I didn't inadvertently change the substance.

Donald Qualls · Jan 9, 2023

MattKing said:
I think I've wrestled the formatting into presentability. Can you please check to make sure that I didn't inadvertently change the substance.

Thanks, Matt, that looks good.

aparat said:
I am beginning to think that it makes very little sense testing the film in H&W Control, as very few people are willing to mix their own developers. I'd much rather test it in something like XTOL or D76, since the "designated" developer, Spur Modular UR, is not available for sale in the U.S.

What is the advantage of using Copex Rapid over, say, ILFORD PAN F Plus?

The problem is that development in conventional developers will produce "high contrast" images -- the straight-line portion of the H&D curve will be too steep, and there will be too little exposure difference between Value I and Value X on the negatives so produced. The point of the low concentration phenidone-only developers like H&W Control, SPUR, and POTA is to provide a useful slope to the curve, allowing the film to record a useful scene brightness range. I have gotten reasonable results with Parodinal at 1:200; I'll try to post that development time when I'm back at home and can get to the Wayback Machine (it's blocked from my work network).

At the least, I'd suggest testing the film in one of the low-contrast variants of Caffenol -- that uses supermarket chemicals (instant coffee, vitamin C, and washing soda), so is within easy reach even for those who don't want to keep "chemicals" in the house. IIRC I've gotten good tonality and EI 50 or so in my own Caffenol LC+C (which has roundly half the concentration of coffee and ascorbate as common Caffenol).

The main advantage of Copex Rapid over Pan F+ is resolution: Copex Rapid is a monodispersed high resolution emulsion, and has both finger grain and higher resolution (in lp/mm) than Pan F+. Not to mention being available natively in 16 mm unperfed, making it more convenient for Minolta and Yashica format 16 mm cameras. The big disadvantage in that comparison is that Copex Rapid needs "special" developers to give a useful (for our needs) H&D slope.

aparat · Jan 9, 2023

Donald Qualls said:
Thanks, Matt, that looks good.

The problem is that development in conventional developers will produce "high contrast" images -- the straight-line portion of the H&D curve will be too steep, and there will be too little exposure difference between Value I and Value X on the negatives so produced. The point of the low concentration phenidone-only developers like H&W Control, SPUR, and POTA is to provide a useful slope to the curve, allowing the film to record a useful scene brightness range. I have gotten reasonable results with Parodinal at 1:200; I'll try to post that development time when I'm back at home and can get to the Wayback Machine (it's blocked from my work network).

At the least, I'd suggest testing the film in one of the low-contrast variants of Caffenol -- that uses supermarket chemicals (instant coffee, vitamin C, and washing soda), so is within easy reach even for those who don't want to keep "chemicals" in the house. IIRC I've gotten good tonality and EI 50 or so in my own Caffenol LC+C (which has roundly half the concentration of coffee and ascorbate as common Caffenol).

The main advantage of Copex Rapid over Pan F+ is resolution: Copex Rapid is a monodispersed high resolution emulsion, and has both finger grain and higher resolution (in lp/mm) than Pan F+. Not to mention being available natively in 16 mm unperfed, making it more convenient for Minolta and Yashica format 16 mm cameras. The big disadvantage in that comparison is that Copex Rapid needs "special" developers to give a useful (for our needs) H&D slope.

This is very helpful, thanks! I understand that your own Caffenol worked nicely, but I'd rather use something that is "specifically" designed for document films, and since you mention POTA (and H&W Control), I already have the chemicals needed for it, so that's what I think I am going to use. Don't worry about the times, as the purpose of a film test is to figure out the times . It's not ideal, since relatively few people mix their own developers, but it is what it is, I guess.

I am still questioning (to myself) the point of testing a document film as a pictorial film. Forcing a film not designed to give a pictorial curve into getting one seems like an exercise in futility to me. I do get that it can be done, but it seems like a rather esoteric use case. Already few people see the benefit of film tests and characteristic curve analysis, how many are going to even look at the results of a document-film-forced-to-look-like-a-pictorial-film test? I need to think about this some more, unless you can convince me that it's a good idea.

Sorry to harp on this, but I need to be certain before I start testing it.

Donald Qualls · Jan 9, 2023

Adox hasn't seemed to have any trouble selling their CMS 20, which is a document film repurposed for pictorial use and needs special developer. Copex Rapid itself has been in regular used (under various rebrands) in 35 mm, 120, and 4x5 for several years (used to be sold as Gigabit Film, IIRC). Submini shooters (Minolta/Kiev and Minox especially) have used microfilm stocks for many years as well; with those tiny frames, you can really see the difference over Pan F+ or Panatomic X.

Even the long-gone, lamented Technical Pan was derived from a document film and needed special developer.

These are no more of a niche produce than Delta 3200 and T-Max P3200.

BTW, my Caffenol LC+C, with reduced developing agent concentrations, was patterned after a general rule I read about low contrast developers like POTA, and created specifically for Fuji and Imagelink microfilms, also used on CMS 20 and on Copex Rapid.

Alan Johnson · Jan 9, 2023

I had a good result with Bill Troop's TD -LC 103 for the Adox CM20 II

Adox CMS20 developer

Hello Alan, More testing has shown that this version of H&W Control gives blotchy skies when used with Adox CMS 20 II, it is NOT recommended with this film. From my notes , the good large optical prints I made from CMS 20 in 2006 were developed in Adotech developer. The films that appear did...

www.photrio.com

A concentrate keeps if air is excluded from the container.
There are other ways of avoiding streaking with phenidone, like presoak or adding isopropanol to the working solution but I never tried them, eg with H&W Control.

aparat · Jan 9, 2023

Donald Qualls said:
Adox hasn't seemed to have any trouble selling their CMS 20, which is a document film repurposed for pictorial use and needs special developer. Copex Rapid itself has been in regular used (under various rebrands) in 35 mm, 120, and 4x5 for several years (used to be sold as Gigabit Film, IIRC). Submini shooters (Minolta/Kiev and Minox especially) have used microfilm stocks for many years as well; with those tiny frames, you can really see the difference over Pan F+ or Panatomic X.

Even the long-gone, lamented Technical Pan was derived from a document film and needed special developer.

These are no more of a niche produce than Delta 3200 and T-Max P3200.

BTW, my Caffenol LC+C, with reduced developing agent concentrations, was patterned after a general rule I read about low contrast developers like POTA, and created specifically for Fuji and Imagelink microfilms, also used on CMS 20 and on Copex Rapid.

Thanks. This helps. Of course, I do believe that it can be done. That's not the point. My point is that I want to run a comprehensive film test that would give photographers a set of generalizable analyses. If I use a rare, DIY developer, then very few people will benefit from the test. Ideally, I'd like to use a general-purpose developer or, at the very least, a developer people can buy. Otherwise, my test will be useless to most people. Those who already mix their own brew (like you), do not need a film test to tell them anything because they have, most likely, already figured out what to do, and how to do it, to get the results they want. By the way, I wonder how many of the people who bought CMS 20, used Caffenol LC+C? I don't deny that it can give beautiful results. I am only saying that it is an esoteric method, and, as such, of limited use to the broader community. I think POTA is, so far, looking like the best choice. It's not ideal (for reasons I mentioned above), but perhaps it will have to do.

Donald Qualls · Jan 9, 2023

When CMS 20 was introduced originally, Adox offered a specific developer for it, and that was the only one they recommended. I looked at the price of that developer, and decided it wasn't going to be that different from the microfilms I'd already used -- and I was right. Most likely that film would give EI 12 or so in POTA (known speed losing developer), likely EI 25-32 in H&W Control (never tried it). I recall at the time seeing about as many reports from folks using something homebrewed as using the Adox special stuff, but that's been more than fifteen years, I could be recalling incorrectly.

relistan · Jan 9, 2023

Ruediger Hartung has done beautiful work with ADOX CMS 20 II in POTA at EI 6-12 and recommends a carbonate pre-soak to remove the anti-halation layer that causes streaking. Here’s one of his shots with more info attached:

Agfa Copex Rapid advice please

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency