• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Developer for Adox CHS100 ii

Law251

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 20, 2023
Messages
27
Location
Reading, Berkshire, UK
Format
Multi Format
I have a few rolls of Adox CHS100 ii in 135 format and a couple of developers: Kodak D76 (current formulation) and Adox FX39. Normally I dilute D76 1+1 and FX39 1+14. Has anyone compared CHS in these developers? I like FX39 for full film speed and acutance but is it rather too grainy in comparison? Please let me know if you have compared them yourself and your opinion of the results. Thanks!
 
Alex Luyckx tested those developers and others, but he doesn’t share images of the negatives or of prints, just scans - decent commentary though

Film Review Blog No. 73 – Adox CHS 100 II

The year was 2012; I had been shooting film in a far more serious way for three years at that point. I learned of a speciality film store called Freestyle Photographic from an episode of
www.alexluyckx.com
 
CHS 100 II develops well in pretty much any developer. I've used D-76 and FX-39 and half a dozen other developers — they all deliver fine results. It's not a fussy film, but beware that it can build contrast quickly if you overdevelop.
 
JensH said:
Adox doesn't recomend Pyro or Pyrocat developers,
Click to expand...

It's kind of offtopic, maybe, but I wonder why that is - and whether it's specific for CHS100II? I suppose Adox/Mirko must have said something about it somewhere; can you link to it, please, if possible?
 
Thanks; I see it specifically refers to 3 developers (Finol, Tanol, PMK); this may or may not mean they discourage use of any and all staining developer. It's also not evident why they might suggest this. Keeps me wondering why; is there something peculiar about this film that makes it problematic when used with a staining developer? I'd be interested to hear about it since it would AFAIK be unprecedented.
 
Adox claims that tanning developers cause liftoff of the antihalation layer between the emulsion and base:

The best things in life are analog | CHS 100 II

www.adox.de

“In the 35mm and 120 format ADOX CHS100 II has two anti halation layers.

• Between the emulsion and the base (AHU)
• On the backside layer (anti halation, anti lightpiping and non curling)

Due to the extra AHU layer in the miniature and 120 format there are slight differences in the developing times between those films and the ADOX CHS 100 II sheetfilm.
In order to achive a medium contrast of 0,65 reduce the sheetfilm developing times by about 10%.

Films coated onto PET are subject to the lightpiping effect and must be loaded in the shade.

Rollfilms tend to spring open so they need to be held even more tightly than triacetate films when loading into the camera.

Tanning developers (Pyrogallol / Brentkatechin) are not recomended for Films with an AHU as they can cause tiny emulsion liftoffs”
 
I've used XT3 and HC110 with good results.

About staining developers, I recall there should be some reference around and found a thread here discussing it with this post particularly, ADOX mentions possible emulsion damage in the film datasheet.
Films with an AHU undercoat are not recomended to develop in taning developers such as Finol, Tanol or PMK
containing either Brenzkatechin or Pyrogallol because they may cause small holes in the film (emulsion lift off).
Click to expand...

Post in thread 'Staining Developers with CHS ii?' https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/staining-developers-with-chs-ii.185603/post-2446325
 
bedrof said:
Can you share your dilution/dev.time/temperature/agitation please?
Click to expand...

I used the datasheet times for XTOL 1+1 8 minutes, 10 seconds/4 inversions per minute.
Personally would need more experience and testing; As with some other slower speed films (D100, FP4) some frames were more contrasty than expected. Shot at EI80-100.
 
Thank you!
 
retina_restoration said:
I’ve used PMK with CHS100II many times, with no adverse effects. I didn’t know it was “not recommended”!
Click to expand...

Pual,
Dang, not reading the fine print got you again didn't it! You're going to have to destroy all those negatives and re-shoot and develop in a non-staining developer. The last roll of 120 CHS 100 I did was in Pyrocat-HDC and there certainly wasn't any AHL separation on my negatives. I sure wish I could get CHS 100 in 120 again, but I would probably be wishing my life away.
 

John,
CHS 100 II in 120 is in stock at Fotoimpex, did you know? I've bought it through them occasionally, and it's not that expensive to import (well, it wasn't the last time I did it). Reformed Film Lab in Florida lists it as "in stock" also. Even KEH has a few rolls.
 
I tried Pyrocat with CHS 100 II. From my experience It does weird things in 35mm. The acutance was extreme, and it had black specs randomly spread across the frames. I had normal results when I tried it in 4x5, so I think it only applies to 35mm.
 
Tumbles said:
I tried Pyrocat with CHS 100 II. From my experience It does weird things in 35mm. The acutance was extreme, and it had black specs randomly spread across the frames. I had normal results when I tried it in 4x5, so I think it only applies to 35mm.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for sharing your experience.
Sheet film is fine for pyro etc., but not 135 and 120, as Adox says.
 


Paul, Thanks for the tip on where to find 120 and I will certainly be ordering some. I'm not saying CHS 100 is the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to B&W file, but I do like it in some of my older folding cameras.
 
Adox CHS-100 II is a good choice for old folders with red window. The frame numbers are pretty good visible in the red window.

Top: Foma
Bottom: Adox


Top: Harman (Ilford, Kentmere)
Bottom: Foma

But I dislike the curl of the Adox films.
 


I've gone back to shooting Kodak Tmax 100 and TMY 400 in 120 since the price is pretty much back down to earth for a while. One really gets spoiled with those two films with the way they dry. Almost as flat as a pancake! They are almost impossible to use in old folders with fairly dark or scratched ruby windows. Kodak backing paper has the lightest numbers of any backing paper I've seen. I can use it, but carry a small penlight and reading glasses to advance frames. CHS 100 is just the opposite of Kodak in both the curl and print numbers. Can't have everything I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register