APX100 in 120...what to expect?

I heard the sound of those marching to the altar of APX, and decided today to try out Agfapan APX100 in 120 for my Yashica-D (yashikor lens). I probably won't be developing this film myself yet, so my faithful local lab will process it in HC-110, or Xtol on demand. I've read that Rodinal 1:50 is a holy water for this film, but for now it's not a practical option.

I've been shooting FP4+ in 120 so far, and despite my decision in a previous post to settle on it for future work and learning, I feel the urge to try good, cheap Agfa.

So what should I expect at the bottom line? I'm shooting mostly available light, outdoors photography, and will probably be doing ordinary stuff with it like portraits, streets, buildings, and scenery. Is there anything in particular that should attract my attention? What should I look for in order to draw a comparison between FP4+ and APX100?

mhv said:

I heard the sound of those marching to the altar of APX, and decided today to try out Agfapan APX100 in 120 for my Yashica-D (yashikor lens). I probably won't be developing this film myself yet, so my faithful local lab will process it in HC-110, or Xtol on demand. I've read that Rodinal 1:50 is a holy water for this film, but for now it's not a practical option.

I've been shooting FP4+ in 120 so far, and despite my decision in a previous post to settle on it for future work and learning, I feel the urge to try good, cheap Agfa.

So what should I expect at the bottom line? I'm shooting mostly available light, outdoors photography, and will probably be doing ordinary stuff with it like portraits, streets, buildings, and scenery. Is there anything in particular that should attract my attention? What should I look for in order to draw a comparison between FP4+ and APX100?

Click to expand...

What to expect - great results

I have souped APX 100 in Rodinal (1:50 & 1:100), XTOL, D76 and D23 1:1. The D23 1:1. I stole this idea from Hey Lloyd who has an article on his web site about APX and D23

I made a series of trees in fog using APX-120 and D23 and enlarged them to 16x20. They were really sharp, fine grain with good shadow and highlight detail and a wonderful tonal range

The opening picture on my web site is one of these images.

Mike

The more I mess with it, the better things get.

I used xtol, d76, sprint, rodinal. All are just fine. Some are better (like rodinal 1+100).

It`s one of my favorite films, and I`ve had great results in XTOL.
Here`s an example http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=149684
I think I used Rodinal 1:50 here.

expect, above everything else, wonderful tonality. I just love the stuff and am gutted that there is no sheet. Some say they find APX very grainy. I find it similar to FP4 plus.

Thinner, clearer base than Ilford FP4 plus. I have used it in pyro devs, id11, aculux 2 and it is great.

Tom, how do you define tonality exactly? Is it the way the film react to different colors? I often see the term, but besides an intuititve grasp, I can't visualize what a good/bad tonality would be.

mhv said:

Tom, how do you define tonality exactly? Is it the way the film react to different colors? I often see the term, but besides an intuititve grasp, I can't visualize what a good/bad tonality would be.

Click to expand...

My thinking is that tonality (as far as B&W film) is the gradation from dark to light.

I should add that I love it so much, that I am taking 150 rolls with me to mexico in 2 weeks.

This was the first film I put through my Hasselblad when I got it last year. WOW! It was beautiful and I have continued to buy it ever since! I've only developed it in Rodinal, but I'm sure other developers will be fine.

I've been using it for years - it is my main film for painting with light.
and I develop in HC110 for 6min..

great film

Great film! I like it as well..
I thought that Agfa had discontinued 120 films? Or was that only the 4x5 film?
Not to start anything, i'm sure I am either confused or misinformed..
Love the film though!

They discontinued their sheet film. APX100 and 400 in 120 are alive and well.

APX25 was the only discontinued film; APX100 is still in production in 135 and 120.

I loaded my camera yesterday with it, and will start doing some shots!

Rumor has it that Fomapan 100 (available in sheet film) is very similar to APX 100, but I can't vouch for that.

Got my first negs back from the lab today, and I must say I am surprised. The film is much less contrasty than FP4+ but it seems that the midtones have a better separation. It's a more "objective" film, so I'll have to see what it can do in print.

Any suggestions on how to exploit these characteristics?

Hmm, I've only been looking at contact sheets, but the blacks had more punch and are richer. It's worth what it's worth, and I'll be printing some next (not this) weekend, so I might need to keep my trap shut until then.... But by comparing similar light conditions, I found FP4+ to have a greater range of values. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the notion of contrast.... ah, it's great to be a beginner with a big mouth!

In my experience, APX 100 in 120 is a fantastic film for anything that requires smooth tonalities though the mid-tones. This makes it one of my favorite films for portraiture and macro work (especially flora). It's also an excellent film for general use, but it outshines just about everything for people photography.

Freestyle is repackaging the APX 100 as their new Arista II film. Unfortunately, they're only listing it in 35mm, but if you shoot 35mm it might be worth your time to buy the film in the Arista II packaging. You'll save 50 cents per roll that way.

As was mentioned above, Fomapan 100 is a similar looking film (although it does not have quite as thin or clear of a base as the Agfa film). If you decide that you like the look of APX 100, you might want to try a few rolls of the Arista.edu Ultra 100 speed film (which is re-packaged Fomapan 100). At a savings of almost a buck a roll, it's worth considering if you'll be shooting a lot of film. Fomapan 100 and 200 are quickly becoming staple films for me.

I still keep APX 100 around for portrait sessions, but my general use films are now Efke 100 and Fomapan 100 & 200. The Efke is capable of expansion unlike almost any other film I've used, and the look of Fomapan is similar to APX but for less money. All of these films respond really well to Pyrocat-HD and to Perceptol, which are my two favorite developers. Fomapan will be available in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes shortly, so I'll have two films (Efke 100 and Fomapan) that I can use in every size from 35mm to 8x10. I only shoot APX 100 in 120.

(On another note, rumor has it that Ilford will have Perceptol back on the market this summer. Happy news for those of us who miss it.)

mhv said:

Tom, how do you define tonality exactly? Is it the way the film react to different colors? I often see the term, but besides an intuititve grasp, I can't visualize what a good/bad tonality would be.

Click to expand...

It's a good questions. For me it is the very subtle, gradual transition between tones that looks 'nice'. From my gallery, there are a number of images from APX 100, not that you can see much from web images in this regard. I agree with other comments that it is with portraits that APX100 stands out from the crowd. Skin tones are so velvety and smooth. This said, I had a single box of 5x4 sheet bought just as they (sneakily) discontinues sheet and some of the 'test' landscapes I shot whilst trying out pyrocat blew me away. This was well after I used to use the 120 in a rollfilm back and I had switched to other films also available in 120 and sheet. In this time I had improved a lot, but enlarging a properly exposed and developed APX neg once more still made me do a double take again.

The film is to me the total opposite of TMAX100, which someone describes as paradoxically 'appearing flat and too contrasty all at the same time'. I struggle to get TMAx100 to glow and look 'rich'. APX100 seems to make this a whole lot easier and unlike TMAX, naturally wants to produce imaghs that appear 3 dimensional rather than flat on a piece of paper. Sometimes TMAX has loooked good for me (Snowdonia Sunset is a rich print) but in the majority of cases it does not and it works me really hard. APX100's thin base can be a pig tho esp if it is humid. It just loves to stick up and cockle in those developing reels.

jdef said:

MHV,

I asked because all films are capable of a range of contrast and to say that one film has more contrast than another given identical processing is not the same as saying that one film is capable of greater contrast than another. To make a meaningful comparison of two films, they should be developed to a common contrast index, or gamma, or average gradient, or whatever parameter you choose. I don't mean to lecture, I'm just trying to explain my confusion. I'm sure that both films are capable of excellent results, and I wish you the best of luck with them.

Jay

Click to expand...

OK, I see what you mean. I was therefore saying that my APX100 had less contrasts than my FP4+. For me it was a rough indication because I tend to shoot in similar conditions these days.

mhv said:

Got my first negs back from the lab today, and I must say I am surprised. The film is much less contrasty than FP4+ but it seems that the midtones have a better separation. It's a more "objective" film, so I'll have to see what it can do in print.

Any suggestions on how to exploit these characteristics?

Click to expand...

This is what I have found, substantiated also by other threads I've read elsewhere. For me it's a different comparsion against FP4+ in Xtol 1:3. Maybe I just need another developer, and maybe the Pyrocat I just got will do better. My next test is the 400 speed.

Gosh only knows what your lab will do to that wonderful emulsion, but FWIW, it is my favorite and I process APX 100 in Rodinal 1:50 and sometimes stand-processed Rodinal 1:200.

jjstafford said:

Gosh only knows what your lab will do to that wonderful emulsion, but FWIW, it is my favorite and I process APX 100 in Rodinal 1:50 and sometimes stand-processed Rodinal 1:200.

Click to expand...

Well, they do deep tank developing with HC-110 or XTOL (on demand), so they're better than any drugstore there is around here, but I'm seriously considering doing my own devel, at least for the negs. Should be my birthday present to myself...

mhv said:

Well, they do deep tank developing with HC-110 or XTOL (on demand), so they're better than any drugstore there is around here, but I'm seriously considering doing my own devel, at least for the negs. Should be my birthday present to myself...

Click to expand...

Happy Birthday! Whenever it is, bring it forward to this weekend ... The cost of the equipment to process B&W film is tiny and will repay itself within a handful of rolls. Even more importantly, it allows you to fine-tune your development to get the results you want. Also of course it allows you to use developers your lab may not use: Rodinal or staining developers for example...

Cheers, Bob.