Another option would be to use sodium ascorbate instead of ascorbic acid -- though that's likely to require adjusting time if you don't have a pH meter, since you've removed most of the acidity from the solution that way.
Agfa Copex Rapid advice please
-
A
- Thread starter Auer
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Transposing Frames for stereo photography, 45x107mm ("châssis alterneur")
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale Transposing Frames for stereo photography, 6x13cm ("châssis alterneur")
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale Transposing Frames for stereo photography, 7x16cm and 7x17cm ("châssis alterneur")
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale Antique Mackenstein 6.5x9cm contact printing frame (France)
- Started by Manual Camera
Forum statistics
Ok, adding an extra 0.5g of washing soda made a very noticeable improvement in CMS 20. Still probably a bit on the thin side compared to other film, but pretty close to 'normal' I'd say. It'd be nice if it improved the grain slightly too!
Has anyone developed Copex rapid in Adox Adotech IV?
I have had good results with CMS 20 II and Adotech IV and that developer is available. I want to shoot in 120 and am interested in trying copex rapid since it is available in 120, but the Spur developers are not available. So I am wondering if anyone can comment on development times with Adotech IV and results since it should be similar to the spur developer.
I have had good results with CMS 20 II and Adotech IV and that developer is available. I want to shoot in 120 and am interested in trying copex rapid since it is available in 120, but the Spur developers are not available. So I am wondering if anyone can comment on development times with Adotech IV and results since it should be similar to the spur developer.
Why would I when I have the ingredients on hand to mix H&W Control and/or get fine results with Caffenol LC+C?
Alright, in my LC+C experimentation so far, Copex is definitely easier to deal with than CMS, with only very slightly grainier results.
The biggest problem with both of them is edge effect. Definitely worse with CMS than Copex, but present in both. Anyone have any idea how to reduce that? Here's a relevant CMS example:
If anyone cares, here are two 100% crops. The first is CMS, the second is Copex. Resolution of the full image is approximately 3200dpi. Take them as illustrative of detail only - they're not really comparable in terms of contrast, etc! (CMS definitely shows higher contrast developed this way, incidentally.)
The biggest problem with both of them is edge effect. Definitely worse with CMS than Copex, but present in both. Anyone have any idea how to reduce that? Here's a relevant CMS example:
If anyone cares, here are two 100% crops. The first is CMS, the second is Copex. Resolution of the full image is approximately 3200dpi. Take them as illustrative of detail only - they're not really comparable in terms of contrast, etc! (CMS definitely shows higher contrast developed this way, incidentally.)
That looks like a variation on Mackie lines. I'd start by increasing agitation and commensurately reducing development time. If you're agitating every 3rd minute (as I've done with LC+C or high dilution Parodinal), changing to every 1 minute and reducing time by about 30% as a starting point should greatly reduce that edge overdevelopment.
So, I used a roll of Copex to do a sharpness comparison between two lenses yesterday. Something went wrong with my advance mechanism after the main bit was over, but I wasn't sure how screwed up everything was, so I decided to try out HC-110 instead of Caffenol LC+C. I messed with the Massive Dev recipe a bit - used a 1:90 dilution at 24c (I have no way to cool down my solution to 20c) for 12 minutes, with one inversion per minute. The results were surprisingly good!
- No edge effect
- Slightly lower grain
- A bit denser
- Shadows definitely required more of a boost, but were totally acceptable after said boost.
I'm guessing Caffenol is still the way to go, and that my process just needs work, but if I had to choose between the two based on my current experience, I'd go with HC-110. Here are some relevant shots:
The first two are Caffenol devs, both on grey days. Not really fair, since my HC-110 roll was in sunny weather, but what can you do. Note the heavy edge effect on the first shot. I had better luck with the roll that the second shot came from, but it was still noticeable in some frames.
One from the HC-110 roll:
Now for some 100% crops. Note that my setup is really not ideal, especially since the NEX-7 I use imparts its own noise, even at ISO 100. These are all equivalent 4154dpi (5888px on the long edge - forgive me if I have the math wrong). No sharpening, etc.
I also decided to go a bit nuts on the scanning with a frame from the HC-110 roll, using an extension tube to stitch together an 8114dpi shot (11500px on the long edge). Again, not scientific at all, since I didn't even shoot at the same shutter speed. It's also extremely difficult to get everything level and in focus at that level of magnification. Still, even though I'm sure I could do a better job with more patience and better gear, I feel that this is the first time I've really been able to "see what this film can do" in terms of resolution. Also no sharpening here.
You really do get an improvement in detail with the higher-res scan, too. On the left is the single-shot, 4154dpi scan uprezed to match the larger one:
Now, in the end, we come back to the question of whether these films actually come anywhere near the megapixel counts they claim. The answer, obviously, is a big 'no.' A qualified one, though. Looking at this image next to one from an A7RIV, with both simulating a 6-foot print size, the A7RIV's is clearly more detailed. The Copex shot, however, is more subjectively pleasant to look at, given its more 'organic' quality. Still, if I had the money and all I cared about were making huge prints, that 61mp digital camera would be the obvious choice as far as convenience goes.
Having said that, this setup cost me less than $100 total. And I think Copex makes a great normal-use high-res film, considering you can shoot it 2.5x faster than CMS 20. The only real problem with it is that light-piping is a genuine concern, which makes it tricky for travel if you want to get it hand-inspected at security.
- No edge effect
- Slightly lower grain
- A bit denser
- Shadows definitely required more of a boost, but were totally acceptable after said boost.
I'm guessing Caffenol is still the way to go, and that my process just needs work, but if I had to choose between the two based on my current experience, I'd go with HC-110. Here are some relevant shots:
The first two are Caffenol devs, both on grey days. Not really fair, since my HC-110 roll was in sunny weather, but what can you do. Note the heavy edge effect on the first shot. I had better luck with the roll that the second shot came from, but it was still noticeable in some frames.
One from the HC-110 roll:
Now for some 100% crops. Note that my setup is really not ideal, especially since the NEX-7 I use imparts its own noise, even at ISO 100. These are all equivalent 4154dpi (5888px on the long edge - forgive me if I have the math wrong). No sharpening, etc.
I also decided to go a bit nuts on the scanning with a frame from the HC-110 roll, using an extension tube to stitch together an 8114dpi shot (11500px on the long edge). Again, not scientific at all, since I didn't even shoot at the same shutter speed. It's also extremely difficult to get everything level and in focus at that level of magnification. Still, even though I'm sure I could do a better job with more patience and better gear, I feel that this is the first time I've really been able to "see what this film can do" in terms of resolution. Also no sharpening here.
You really do get an improvement in detail with the higher-res scan, too. On the left is the single-shot, 4154dpi scan uprezed to match the larger one:
Now, in the end, we come back to the question of whether these films actually come anywhere near the megapixel counts they claim. The answer, obviously, is a big 'no.' A qualified one, though. Looking at this image next to one from an A7RIV, with both simulating a 6-foot print size, the A7RIV's is clearly more detailed. The Copex shot, however, is more subjectively pleasant to look at, given its more 'organic' quality. Still, if I had the money and all I cared about were making huge prints, that 61mp digital camera would be the obvious choice as far as convenience goes.
Having said that, this setup cost me less than $100 total. And I think Copex makes a great normal-use high-res film, considering you can shoot it 2.5x faster than CMS 20. The only real problem with it is that light-piping is a genuine concern, which makes it tricky for travel if you want to get it hand-inspected at security.
I've liked Copex Rapid since the first time I tried it. It's more forgiving than most microfilm stocks, but still has (most of) the resolution those stocks would give, and isn't any harder to work with than CMS20.
Another developer you might try is Rodinal 1:100 with agitation every third minute. No grain softening, but Copex Rapid doesn't really need it (since you have to have some serious scan resolution or enlarging lens quality to see the grain at all). Cheap and easy, too. With a better scanning setup, your lens would be the limiting factor on your resolution -- at least until you get to a drum scanner or above 200 megapixels from a 35 mm frame.
And you can get Copex Rapid in 120...
Another developer you might try is Rodinal 1:100 with agitation every third minute. No grain softening, but Copex Rapid doesn't really need it (since you have to have some serious scan resolution or enlarging lens quality to see the grain at all). Cheap and easy, too. With a better scanning setup, your lens would be the limiting factor on your resolution -- at least until you get to a drum scanner or above 200 megapixels from a 35 mm frame.
And you can get Copex Rapid in 120...
I've been sitting on 4 rolls of the stuff ever since I sent my GS645 off to get CLA'd. Very excited to try it, but none of my other 120 cameras have lenses that would really do it justice!
Yeah, it'd be kind of a waste to shoot it in a Holga, or even a triplet or Tessar type. It really wants a double Gauss or newer design. I plan to put mine through my RB67 with Sekor C lenses. Of course, the other place it shines is in one of the better 16 mm cameras (it makes a 10x14 frame look like 24x36 with Tri-X) or a Minox.
For those that do not want to mix from scratch Photographer's Formulary sells POTA and modified POTA aka Delagi #8. I think that would also work with Agfa Copex Rapid. Not as cheep as mix your own but easy.
1-萘酚好像是一种彩显成色剂，在显影过程中会和彩显剂（CD-1）显影产生的副产物结合生成染料，配方里的六硝基苯并咪唑应该是抗灰雾剂，N，N-二乙基羟胺不知道是什么用途。
最后的结果应该是一层银盐影像和彩色影像的叠加，但是1-萘酚似乎是蓝色成色剂，不知道是否会对可变反差放大产生影响？
No, it doesn't have a flux capacitor. the 1st part sounds like benzo 1.4.
If you are interested in AFGA Copex Rapid in Microfilm, try "Oral Radiation- 7th edition, Chapter 5 pg; 63-83 Film Imagining. The book is sold for about 30 years and the developing is the same. I bought one the other day for 5.00. Stay with P values High Contrast the M is for phenidone and is low contrast duplicate film production... I will post my test photos soon of my first experience with my 50.00 Retina Reflex Camera and Rollei AFGA Copex Rapid microfilm. I am a total noob.
Hey Donald, have you tried Mister plumber, "bleach & developer". Walmart Mister Plumber drain opener for 1.39 chems are 1310-58-3 hydroquione KOH = to NaOH for high contrast developing. I am working on Macro Composing and pretty excited about the possible steep learning curve on this whole project ....with my 50.00 Retina Reflex Camera.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,749
- Format
- 35mm
Years ago the unblinkingeye website had a suggestion of using dilute Microphen. I used that with TP, 5069 and Imagelink HQ. I may have used it with the Agfa stock too. This is convenient because I always have Microphen on hand.
That's almost a lith developer. Exactly the opposite of what you need to get pictorial results from a microfilm-derived emulsion.
-
- Tower Photo Art
- Deleted
I found that an ordinary stand development could tame most of the contrast of Agfa Copex Rapid, if it is being shot in soft to medium lighting conditions. Rated at 50 and used a 1 hour 1+300 510-pyro stand.
In completely soft light, it filled 80% of an Epson flatbed's histogram:
With a touch of directional light mixed in, it filled just under 100%:
It is not a film I would ever want to use under clear-sky direct sunlight, there are just others that are way more appropriate for that. But I found it amazing to use on overcast days.
In terms of tonality, I prefer Ferrania P30, rated at 80 and developed in the exact same way. That film can handle harsher light better, while still being quite contrasty.
In completely soft light, it filled 80% of an Epson flatbed's histogram:
With a touch of directional light mixed in, it filled just under 100%:
It is not a film I would ever want to use under clear-sky direct sunlight, there are just others that are way more appropriate for that. But I found it amazing to use on overcast days.
In terms of tonality, I prefer Ferrania P30, rated at 80 and developed in the exact same way. That film can handle harsher light better, while still being quite contrasty.
Plaubel Makina 67 • Nikkor 1:2.8 80mm
Agfa Copex Rapid ACR 50 ISO film in Caffenol CLCN 16.5min @ 20°C
Scanned with Plustek OpticFilm 120 at 2400dpi with Silverfast AI Studio 9
Praha • Česko
Caffenol CLCN
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.
No I don't think so. I just put down a little bit the highlights and raised a little the shadows.
Pretty interesting result here. I tried it out with Adox HR-Dev just to see what would happen. It did a MUCH better job with shadows than my HC-110 method did, but grain was a bit fatter and detail a teensy bit lower. However, the real weirdness is apparent right away:
It's been posterized! I'm sure you all know the actual term for this effect and what causes it, but I've certainly never seen it before in my limited experience. Kinda cool?
It's been posterized! I'm sure you all know the actual term for this effect and what causes it, but I've certainly never seen it before in my limited experience. Kinda cool?
I have used a lot ADOX CMS20 for Minox 8x11. It was said that it is repacked Agfa Copex. If it is true you have to try recommended by Adox developer. The results are excellent!
This is not true. CMSII is Afga Gevaert Copex HDP and Agfa Copex Rapid is Agfa Copex Rapid AHU, two different films.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |