CHS II 100 issue

[dmtnkl]

Sometime last year i started to develop black and white slides at home. As the supply of Silvermax and Scala 160 started to dwindle, CHS 100 II picked up my attention. I thought that since it is coated on a clear base, it would be a good idea to try it out and evaluate if i would like to continue using it in the future. So i bought two rolls, i think it was around March ~ April.

In November i decided to finally give it a try. I took the first roll out of the fridge and noticed something peculiar as i tried to load it in my camera. It looked like a uniform layer of powder/dust on the film's base. Furthermore, a distinct mark seems to appear at an interval of ~1cm. I then checked the second roll and it was also like that. A couple of days later i dropped by the store in Berlin and i was given 3 replacement rolls. To my surprise, they appear to have the same issue.

I would like to know if anyone else has seen something like this before. Is it something normal or does it look like a manufacturing defect?

 

[lantau]

I'd have to check tonight if I have any in the fridge, or if mine is all frozen.

I wouldn't have noticed before, though I haven't used any new ones, coated by Adox themselves, yet.

I still have a roll, or two, of the orginal coatings, and two new rolls, which I added to an order a while back.

I hope I'll remember. Feel free to dm me.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I would like to know if anyone else has seen something like this before. Is it something normal or does it look like a manufacturing defect?

I bought three rolls recently and the one I've exposed so far shows this effect. I'll process the film and find out...

 

[Nitroplait]

I have 4 rolls with Exp: 08/2023 bought a year ago or so from Fotoimpex - haven't exposed any yet.
They have been kept in room temp and I checked the film base surface just now. I can confirm that the same phenomenon as illustrated is affecting my rolls.
I don't know what to make of it, but the "residue" seems to wipe off with a little moisture on a microfiber cloth, so I hope it just washes off during processing (and don't leave anything on the film pressure plate in the camera).
Thanks for the heads-up.
I will make a mental note of not using this film in my Barnack Leica where I can't access the pressure plate for cleaning.

 

[woodlandSerenade]

I exposed and processed a roll of CHS 100 II a month or two ago with a similar surface finish. I can’t say I noticed any issues after processing, but I will check the negatives this evening.

 

[K-G]

About a year ago I experienced a similar patern on some CHS 100 II rolls. I contacted Fotoimpex in Berlin, and they forwarded my message to ADOX. This is what they answered
concerning this question ( I also had some other questions ). :

"The first is the appearance of the film's back (you called it impurity): the current production if CHS 100 shows this effect.
This does not affect the images, as this is on the other side than the emulsion, and dissapears during development of the film."

It seemed to be correct as I didn't have any problems with the development. I hope it will be so for you to.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Nitroplait]

About a year ago I experienced a similar patern on some CHS 100 II rolls. I contacted Fotoimpex in Berlin, and they forwarded my message to ADOX. This is what they answered
concerning this question ( I also had some other questions ). :

"The first is the appearance of the film's back (you called it impurity): the current production if CHS 100 shows this effect.
This does not affect the images, as this is on the other side than the emulsion, and dissapears during development of the film."

It seemed to be correct as I didn't have any problems with the development. I hope it will be so for you to.

Karl-Gustaf

Would have been nice to know if "it" deposits on the film pressure plate and maybe to know what "it" is.
My purchase of 4 rolls will probably just be a one-off anyway, so I won't bother asking.

 

[K-G]

Would have been nice to know if "it" deposits on the film pressure plate and maybe to know what "it" is.
My purchase of 4 rolls will probably just be a one-off anyway, so I won't bother asking.

I have not seen any deposits or other marks on the pressure plate.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Karl-Gustaf,

About a year ago I experienced a similar patern on some CHS 100 II rolls. I contacted Fotoimpex in Berlin, and they forwarded my message to ADOX. This is what they answered
concerning this question ( I also had some other questions ). :
"The first is the appearance of the film's back (you called it impurity): the current production if CHS 100 shows this effect.
This does not affect the images, as this is on the other side than the emulsion, and dissapears during development of the film."

It seemed to be correct as I didn't have any problems with the development. I hope it will be so for you to.
Karl-Gustaf

same here: I have shot several dozens rolls of the current production CHS 100 II 135 so far without any problems.

I have not seen any deposits or other marks on the pressure plate.
Karl-Gustaf

+1, same here, no problems at all.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[dmtnkl]

"The first is the appearance of the film's back (you called it impurity): the current production if CHS 100 shows this effect.
This does not affect the images, as this is on the other side than the emulsion, and dissapears during development of the film."

Does it go away with every developer out there? It would be informative to know what this deposit is, and which part of the developing process discards it.

 

[dmtnkl]

I have shot several dozens rolls of the current production CHS 100 II 135 so far without any problems.

Would you happen to have any slides developed? How do they look during projection where even the smallest artifacts (dust particles etc) tend to show up.

 

[Henning Serger]

Does it go away with every developer out there?

So far I have used several developers and the films were fine after processing in all cases.

Would you happen to have any slides developed? How do they look during projection where even the smallest artifacts (dust particles etc) tend to show up.

I did some tests in the Scala reversal process by Photo Studio 13. But so far I haven't finished my tests in the new ADOX SCALA reversal kit.
The results of the PS 13 runs were inferior both to ADOX SCALA 50 results by PS 13, and SCALA 50 results in the ADOX SCALA reversal kit. SCALA 50 has been also superior when exposed at EI 100/21° and pushed one stop in processing. As SCALA 50 has excellent highlight protection a 1 stop push is no problem.
ADOX SCALA 50 is an amazing BW reversal film, which can be used extremely well in the range of EI 25/15° to 100/21°.
I can highly recommend it. Along with my ADOX SCALA 160 stock it is my favourite BW positive film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[dmtnkl]

I exposed and processed a roll of CHS 100 II a month or two ago with a similar surface finish. I can’t say I noticed any issues after processing, but I will check the negatives this evening.

Any update on this? Is the deposit still on the film after development?

 

[K-G]

Any update on this? Is the deposit still on the film after development?

When I developed my rolls, the deposits left no traces after development.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[lantau]

I have an exposed, but undeveloped roll in the fridge. I'm a bit behind it seems. It does have this issue. I didn't even notice it, before. Reading the feedback of the others I'm not worried about it.

My spreadsheet says I have two rolls in the freezer. One should be an old roll from the ~2015 production, because I only bought two new ones. But I don't want to dig it out now, I won't use it before summer, at least.

 

[woodlandSerenade]

Any update on this? Is the deposit still on the film after development?

My findings align with Karl's - I see no issues with the negatives at all.

 

[markjwyatt]

I have several rolls- already shot a couple (purchased Oct 2021- exp. 6/23). I do not see any issues in the scans. I did not even notice this until it was pointed out, but do see it on the undeveloped rolls (looks subtle under direct lighting). I will take a look at some developed negatives later. Both rolls shot so far were developed in ADOX FX-39 II.

EDIT: No signs on developed negatives.

 

[dmtnkl]

It is very encouraging to read from multiple users that the negatives come out clean after development. I will also do my first reversal test during the next few weeks and let you know about my results as well.

 

[JPD]

It's probably just a chemical compound that clumps together and reflects light more, and it should be bound in the back side coating and not act like dust. Maybe it's part of the anti-lightpiping coating, formulated to prevent light to enter the film base and spread like a fiber optic, that can be a problem with PET films.

 

[markjwyatt]

I suspect a coating defect on the backside coating (maybe roll coating, possibly toll coated for ADOX). A bad roll in a roll coater could do this (or less likely- a backing roll in die coating the emulsion, which is coated warm. A near downstream idler or other roller could also do this if the rear coating is present and softens). Another possibility is in finishing (slitting, sprocketing, winding, casseting, etc.) a bad roller could transfer a pattern under tension or pressure. In any case it appears to be a minor optical level defect, which does not look good , but appears to not have significant consequences otherwise.

 

[Team ADOX]

I would like to know if anyone else has seen something like this before. Is it something normal or does it look like a manufacturing defect?

Please don't worry. It is normal for the current CHS 100 II 35mm production run. It is just the appearance of the film's back. It is a kind of optical effect which completely disappears during development. It is not visible anymore after development and does not affect the image quality at all. Meanwhile thousands of current CHS 100 II 35mm films have been developed.

ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
THE BEST THINGS IN LIFE ARE ANALOG.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

It is just the appearance of the film's back. It is a kind of optical effect which completely disappears during development.

How does the optical effect go off when the film is wiped with a little moisture on a microfiber cloth as OP did?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have just looked at my processed Adox CHS 100 II film and there is no sign of any problem with the negatives. - used Susuki's DS-12 developer. 11 minutes @ 20C in a Paterson tank.

 

[markjwyatt]

I suspect a coating defect on the backside coating (maybe roll coating, possibly toll coated for ADOX). A bad roll in a roll coater could do this (or less likely- a backing roll in die coating the emulsion, which is coated warm. A near downstream idler or other roller could also do this if the rear coating is present and softens). Another possibility is in finishing (slitting, sprocketing, winding, casseting, etc.) a bad roller could transfer a pattern under tension or pressure. In any case it appears to be a minor optical level defect, which does not look good , but appears to not have significant consequences otherwise.

Not roll coating- defect period is much too small ( say1/2"). Maybe a coating instability, diffusion from one layer to another (anti-halation, anti-curl), or finishing.

 

[dmtnkl]

I did my first experiment recently reversing CHS II 100 with Fomadon LQR and a permanganate bleach.

I can also now confirm that the deposit/residue i obeserved is gone after development and the film base looks clean.