Agfa Scala 200X film

[petepictures]

Hello there analogue souls.
I just bought some B&W Agfa Scala 200X super 8mm reversal film. Made some tests developing it as a negative, and was quite happy with the results. Does anyone has more experience with the film, especially how to get a finer grain from it?
200 ASA is a lot for the tiniest film on the planet. The film is B&W reversal but I don't have the reversal kit and thus I am not getting the best of it. If anyone knows the recipe for the reversal bath, or a better negative developer for it, I would appreciate it very much.

 

[john_s]

As far as I know the emulsion is the same as APX100, the different exposure index being because of the reversal processing. So if you want to develop it as negative there are many options.

 

[Rudeofus]

Here is a long and comprehensive document about reversal development of Agfa Scala 200X. I had one expired roll given to me and didn't want to risk it, so I followed the instructions to the letter - with very nice results. You don't need much home brewing experience for running the process, but you better had a cheap supply of Rodinal by the gallon

 

[petepictures]

Here is a long and comprehensive document about reversal development of Agfa Scala 200X. I had one expired roll given to me and didn't want to risk it, so I followed the instructions to the letter - with very nice results. You don't need much home brewing experience for running the process, but you better had a cheap supply of Rodinal by the gallon

Thank you sir. So in this process there is no need of second exposure before the second developer ?

 

[Rudeofus]

Thank you sir. So in this process there is no need of second exposure before the second developer ?

Page 15 in this document states clearly:

The reversal developer used here has a built-in fogging agent: stannous chloride, SnCl2 . The amount used is a critical parameter because only small amounts can be used without creating a precipitate in the mixed solution. Using too much also reduces the potency of the developer itself and leads to uneven development in the form of cords as well as a yellowish-brown coloration. Using an insufficient amount leads to a thin slide without the required density in blacks.

 

[petepictures]

Yep, It doesn't say when can I open the lid, usually after the bleach?

 

[Europan]

I switch on light when I have the spiral in water. Water bath after clearing bath

 

[flavio81]

Thank you sir. So in this process there is no need of second exposure before the second developer ?

They use a fogging agent, as Rudeofus indicated.

But nothing should prevent you from using, instead of the fogging agent, the old method of exposing the film to light (light re-exposure).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You can also use a polysulfide toner like Kodak T-8 as a fogging developer. This is probably easier to get than stannous chloride. This will also produce a sepia image which people find pleasant.

 

[etn]

Adox just reintroduced the Scala in both 135 and Super8. They surely sell processing chemicals for it. I just had a quick look on their website but it was not too clear to me. You might want to contact them.

 

[Rudeofus]

You can also use a polysulfide toner like Kodak T-8 as a fogging developer. This is probably easier to get than stannous chloride. This will also produce a sepia image which people find pleasant.

Stannous Chloride is sold by Formulary in the US, and by Suvatlar (Zinn-II-Chlorid) in Germany (ships internationally).

 

[flavio81]

B&w inversion is an inferior way to develop film that aren't tailor made. Lots of film wasted, lots of chemistry wasted, inferior results (film planarity is an issue unless you use glass slide mounts), processing and mounting is way more expensive than printing, the film loose all his character (grain for who likes grain for example).
Let's develop negative films as they are intended to, that is as a negative.

I've been processing reversal for 10 years, these are my 2 cents.

I know you have a lot of experience with reversal (i've read some of your posts) so this post is very interesting to me. You say that is better to use film that is tailor-made for this application.

However, the Adox 200-speed reversal film on the market is just Adox CHS II 100 with a different labeling, and it has been said this week that Agfa Scala 200X was also Agfa APX 100 with a different labeling. What do you think about this? Of course, this does not contradict what you say, but perhaps there are some negative films that just work fine with reversal?

So far the only B/W film on the market (as far as i know) that is designed solely for reversal process is Fomapan R 100.

As for film planarity, i can't see how this could be inferior with reversal processed B/W negative compared with color E6 films, since for E6 films the film base thickness is supposedly the same and the materials are the same -- either acetate or Estar. What i mean is that whatever film flatness problems with slide mounts you have in color, you will have them with B/W slides and viceversa.

Perhaps the greater resolution and sharpness of B/W slides makes the problem appear worse than in E6 slides?

 

[miha]

However, the Adox 200-speed reversal film on the market is just Adox CHS II 100 with a different labeling, ?

Not quite flavio, Silvermax 100 = Adox Scala 160. Adox CHS II 100 is a different film.

 

[flavio81]

Not quite flavio, Silvermax 100 = Adox Scala 160. Adox CHS II 100 is a different film.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Rudeofus]

So far the only B/W film on the market (as far as i know) that is designed solely for reversal process is Fomapan R 100.

I am not entirely sure what this 'designed solely for reversal process' is supposed to mean. There are films with a gray film base, which obviously prevents them from being used in reversal, but other than that?

 

[flavio81]

I am not entirely sure what this 'designed solely for reversal process' is supposed to mean. There are films with a gray film base, which obviously prevents them from being used in reversal, but other than that?

It uses a different method for anti-halation that requires the use of the bleach*. If you don't use bleach** (for example when developing as a negative), then this anti-halation layer does not dissapear and the film never gets transparent. So the negative is useless. Or said in a different way, this film can't be developed as a negative.

* if i recall correctly
** use bleach for white clothes only

Why does it use this different method? I don't know, but the regular Fomapan 100 does not use it, and of course, is a negative film.

 

[Rudeofus]

It uses a different method for anti-halation that requires the use of the bleach*. If you don't use bleach** (for example when developing as a negative), then this anti-halation layer does not dissapear and the film never gets transparent. So the negative is useless. Or said in a different way, this film can't be developed as a negative.

Fomapan R 100 is a black&white film which contains a silver based antihalation layer, and this is claimed to be better than a regular, dye based antihalation layer. This fact prevents Fomapan R 100 from being developed as regular B&W negative film, but it does not prevent TMAX from being developed as reversal film. The document I linked to provides specific instructions how to process PanF, Delta 100, FP4, HP5 and Rollei IR. Heck, even Ilford maintains a PDF on their website about black&white reversal processing, and they don't even offer a special 'reversal only' film product.

 

[Rudeofus]

Rem jet or particular anti-halo layers used specifically for reversal are for controlling light scattering I suppose, or for enhancing resolution and sharpness. Some regular b&w films, if inverted, exhibit poor resolution and/or sharpness due to this fact. Fomapan 100 is particularly prone to that, with heavy ghosting and white halos around bright objects.

Obviously Fomapan 100 has some problems, or Foma wouldn't have had to change anything to make it perform well in reversal process. Is the same true for TMAX 100 or FP4?

I don't like the idea of loosing any film character due to the inversion process. I like grain and I exploit it to my advantage sometimes. With reversal I can't.

I do reversal if I want slides, and I do regular processing of I want negatives. Unless you go hybrid after development there isn't really much choice.

With reversal I only grab what's in reality, there's no room for interpretation. If I want to grab only the reality I go and shoot digital: much easier, much frendlier and with the same "no grain and perfection" that reversal gives.

Interestingly I have seen a few very large digital prints, which look very good and compare well with regular black&white prints, but when it comes to a projected 6x7 slide, there is nothing in the digital domain which comes even close. And I really doubt that reversal processed HP5 is grainless, although TBH I haven't tried this one yet.

 

[Rudeofus]

There's a lot going for negatives in black&white, but slides can still be cool once in a while.

 

[petepictures]

B&w inversion is an inferior way to develop film that aren't tailor made. Lots of film wasted, lots of chemistry wasted, inferior results (film planarity is an issue unless you use glass slide mounts), processing and mounting is way more expensive than printing, the film loose all his character (grain for who likes grain for example).
Let's develop negative films as they are intended to, that is as a negative.

I've been processing reversal for 10 years, these are my 2 cents.

Well, I am actually trying first to do the opposite, develop a reversal film as a negative, since I don't have chemistry for reversal bath. And to get the smallest grain possible from a 200ASA super 8mm film.
tough

 

[petepictures]

Page 15 in this document states clearly:

Thank you, English is not my mother language , so that "fogging agent" was not clear to me.

 

[flavio81]

Some regular b&w films, if inverted, exhibit poor resolution and/or sharpness due to this fact. Fomapan 100 is particularly prone to that, with heavy ghosting and white halos around bright objects.

Note that this also happens when using Fomapan 400 as a negative as well. What i mean is that Fomapan 400 does not have as strong anti-halation properties as other films. Perhaps Fomapan 100 as well.

From what i've read written on this topic (by Photo Engineer), halation is usually counteracted by adding particles that absorb light, and the side effect is that this reduces the speed of the film. So one needs to increase the film speed to compensate (and thus grain). Perhaps the formula for Foma 400 had older technology and thus they chose to keep grain fine and speed acceptable while suffering a penalty on anti-halation.

Other films have good anti-halation properties (i.e. Ilford Delta 100) and i would assume they would look as well when developed as a positive.

 

[BMbikerider]

I will go along with that - almost. My only experience with Foma 200 is with 2 120 rolls one I exposed at the suggested 200 iso and they had the appearance of being under exposed. The next roll I set at 125 iso and developed as normal (FX39) The result was far better and printed well. I think for me, the 100iso setting will be a touch too far.

I wasn't warned about the poor antihalation layer and the 1st frame was fogged along each edge (But not into the picture area) so loading a camera in shade should be a normal practise.

 

[flavio81]

All Fomas aren't true ISO speed. All. Foma 200 is infact more of a 100 iso.

Yes, but that wasn't my point; my point is that they have weak anti-halation properties in general, that it is not something that only happens when doing reversal development, but that it is something inherent in the film.

 

[Wallendo]

Yes, but that wasn't my point; my point is that they have weak anti-halation properties in general, that it is not something that only happens when doing reversal development, but that it is something inherent in the film.

Interestingly, Foma adds antihalation to its 120 and large format films (the developer turns a very bright green), but not to its 35mm films (no color change in the developer). This is confirmed by their data sheets.