Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

[gorbas]

Hi Goran, very interesting stuff! Does any developing happen in the first bath? What is the duration of each bath?

Ha, ha, Raghu, that 1.3g of carbonate in bath A make you curious? To be honest, back in the day, I never tried to develop film test just in bath A to see how much image is formed there. I did it a few years back with Barry Thornton's bath A (you see, our age is making us wiser). It was almost impossible to see any image formed on the film.
As for timing, 4-5 min in each bath is enough.
Interestingly all that crazy amount of Carbonate in Bath B did not fry highlights at all. Most likely, because of very limited amount of developing substances absorbed by the emulsion. Later when I was making big enlargements (condenser enlarger, Forte Bromophort normal paper) I had to run some negatives thru chromium intensifier bath to get better highlights density.
If anybody is interested you can see final results: https://www.blurb.com/bookstore/invited/8900891/7860599335537f49b47f63bf8d9c71c22d21827a

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning,
Thank you very much for your explanation of the strong S-shaped curve of the Agfa aerial films. I nearly wrote earlier that there seemed to be a lot of detail in the extreme highlights and shadows on Aviphot 200 developed in MDS-1 when exposed at EI 400 but at that time I thought that ,with some difficulty, darkroom printers could burn in/hold back such detail but now it appears it would be rather hard work. However, from the scan I put up in post 9, it's not really a problem with electronic processing provided all the detail on the negative can be captured in the first place, so I will limit my claim for EI=400 to the this case.

Alan, some scanners work quite well in recovering shadow detail. And drum scanners are working extremely well in this regard. But for optical prints it is by far the best method to have sufficient shadow detail on the film (working according to the Zone system). Then you will have the needed shadow detail on the print, too.
And of course scanning is also easier and you get better quality / tonality if your shadows already have the detail on the film, by correct exposure.
You can get enough density in the mid-tones with Aviphot Pan 200 at EI 200/24° because of its strong S-shape curve. But then you have to accept the loss in shadow detail. Important is to know how this film works to get the wanted results.
But in most cases a normal pictorial film delivers overall better results. The main applications for the Agfa aerial films are especially infrared photography and reversal processing. In both applications they work very well.

BTW, I wonder if the the claim of 181 lppm for Aviphot 200 compares well with other 400 ISO films, I did not find any result in your older posts.

The resolution value Agfa has published in the data sheet is for an object contrast of 10 stops (1000:1). I am using a much lower contrast (1:4) for my resolution tests as these lower contrast details are much more frequent in most scenes.
I've got 90-105 Lp/mm with Aviphot Pan 200 developed in my standard test developer SPUR HRX. But at the correct pictorial ISO rating of this film in that developer: 40/17°.
90-105 Lp/mm in my test is a quite good value for an ISO 200/24° BW film, but a very bad value for an ISO 40 or 50 film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Ha, ha, Raghu, that 1.3g of carbonate in bath A make you curious? To be honest, back in the day, I never tried to develop film test just in bath A to see how much image is formed there. I did it a few years back with Barry Thornton's bath A (you see, our age is making us wiser). It was almost impossible to see any image formed on the film.
As for timing, 4-5 min in each bath is enough.
Interestingly all that crazy amount of Carbonate in Bath B did not fry highlights at all. Most likely, because of very limited amount of developing substances absorbed by the emulsion. Later when I was making big enlargements (condenser enlarger, Forte Bromophort normal paper) I had to run some negatives thru chromium intensifier bath to get better highlights density.
If anybody is interested to see final results: https://www.blurb.com/b/10245390-restoran-fdu

Goran: I'm definitely interested in seeing the results but your book isn't accessible via that link. Says "It may have been deleted or removed from public view."

 

[relistan]

I am not sure how informative it is about @Alan Johnson 's original question, but here is ADOX Scala 50/HR-50 (Agfa Aviphot 80/Rollei Retro 80S) in my 2B-1 developer at EI50 (Box speed for ADOX). I purposely found a high contrast scene in the house, with backlighting. I think the results came out pretty well. That being said, I'd be shocked if this actually hits EI50 in a standard developer other than HR-dev, becaue 2B-1 has been over box speed on several other films.

The grain is extremely fine and I think the pictorial contrast came out quite well. I don't know how much ADOX's Speed Boost has to do with that. Even so, there is a huge black hole in the shadows.

EDIT: This was developed for 6 mins A and 4 mins B in 2B-1.

 

[gorbas]

Thank you Raghu! I did fix the link. Hope it will work now? Please let me know if you have any issues with it?

 

[gorbas]

From what I have seen (by my own trials) with a few 2 bath formulas, it's very hard to reach even "box speed" with just borax in bath B. Even with Kodalk in it, it's challenging.
Back in the day, with Bauman 2 bath, the greatest increase in speed was with daylight lit scenes, much more pronounced than I ever experienced with normal films and processing.
For my project I was treating all my films as 800ei

 

[relistan]

From what I have seen (by my own trials) with a few 2 bath formulas, it's very hard to reach even "box speed" with just borax in bath B. Even with Kodalk in it, it's challenging.
Back in the day, with Bauman 2 bath, the greatest increase in speed was with daylight lit scenes, much more pronounced than I ever experienced with normal films and processing.
For my project I was treating all my films as 800ei

I’m using Sodium carbonate and sulfite in my bath B. Diafine originally used trisodium phosphate, which is even stronger. You should be fine with very high pH in the second bath. Some sulfite to control grain is the solution I used. 2B-1 is more properly a divided developer because some development happens in bath A, but not very much. I think the higher pH in B makes it easier to hit box speed in a two bath.

Also, some great photos in your book!

 

[Henning Serger]

I am not sure how informative it is about @Alan Johnson 's original question, but here is ADOX Scala 50/HR-50 (Agfa Aviphot 80/Rollei Retro 80S)

ADOX HR-50 / SCALA 50 is not identical to Aviphot Pan 80. If you compare them side-by-side - test under identical conditions - you will find
- higher effective sensitivity with the ADOX
- different characteristic curves
- smoother tonality and a more linear tonal separation.

The grain is extremely fine and I think the pictorial contrast came out quite well. I don't know how much ADOX's Speed Boost has to do with that.

As the ISO norm is on the "optimistic side" and gives a N+1 development in Zone system terms, most BW films really benefit from being exposed with an EI of 2/3 to 1 stop lower than the official ISO rating. At least if you want optimal shadow detail and best overall tonality.
And this rule is also valid for HR-50. When I am using it as a negative film, I mostly use it with an EI of 25/15° in ADOX FX-39 II, or with an EI of 32/16° in ADOX HR DEV.

And this film really shines in reversal development with EI 50/18° in the ADOX SCALA reversal kit. Dream combination: Extremely fine grain, excellent sharpness and resolution, outstanding highlight detail for a reversal film, very nice tonality.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[relistan]

ADOX HR-50 / SCALA 50 is not identical to Aviphot Pan 80. If you compare them side-by-side - test under identical conditions - you will find
- higher effective sensitivity with the ADOX
- different characteristic curves
- smoother tonality and a more linear tonal separation.



As the ISO norm is on the "optimistic side" and gives a N+1 development in Zone system terms, most BW films really benefit from being exposed with an EI of 2/3 to 1 stop lower than the official ISO rating. At least if you want optimal shadow detail and best overall tonality.
And this rule is also valid for HR-50. When I am using it as a negative film, I mostly use it with an EI of 25/15° in ADOX FX-39 II, or with an EI of 32/16° in ADOX HR DEV.

And this film really shines in reversal development with EI 50/18° in the ADOX SCALA reversal kit. Dream combination: Extremely fine grain, excellent sharpness and resolution, outstanding highlight detail for a reversal film, very nice tonality.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks for all the good info! I would assume that you were involved in some of the testing for them, also. It seems to be quite a good film, especially with regard to the grain! I will note the EI's you recommend for future use. I know that they have treated the emulsion with "Speed Boost" so I would expect some different characteristics from Aviphot 80. I will try it at EI25 as a negative, but actually what I bought it for was reversal. I have three rolls for testing out.

 

[Alan Johnson]

From LFA Mason, "Photographic Processing Chemistry" p 121 "Due to the very high rates of diffusion of hydrogen and hydroxyl ions, local variations of pH [in the emulsion] are unlikely to occur, except perhaps during the initial stages of very rapid development. Therefore the effective buffer capacity at the site of development is, for all practical purposes, that of the bulk solution." p120 " For all organic [developing] agents, increase in pH results in increase in activity, the effect being much greater in the lower alkalinity range (8-9.5) than in the high alkalinity range (10.5-13.5)."
Based on this it does appear that the greater density obtained with the higher pH carbonate in two bath developers may be due to more rapid development occurring before the developer carried over from the first bath is able to diffuse away from the emulsion into the second bath solution. However I have never seen this confirmed in a good technical book.

 

[revdoc]

As the ISO norm is on the "optimistic side" and gives a N+1 development in Zone system terms, most BW films really benefit from being exposed with an EI of 2/3 to 1 stop lower than the official ISO rating. At least if you want optimal shadow detail and best overall tonality.
And this rule is also valid for HR-50. When I am using it as a negative film, I mostly use it with an EI of 25/15° in ADOX FX-39 II, or with an EI of 32/16° in ADOX HR DEV.

So I guess that means that RPX 25 (also Aviphot 80) is actually rated at a realistic speed for normal use!

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Thank you Raghu! I did fix the link. Hope it will work now? Please let me know if you have any issues with it?

Goran: it works fine now, thanks! I saw the preview and I am in awe of the pics, the various shades of mood captured by them and the times. Did you use a Horizont swing-lens camera for some of those panorama pics?

 

[gorbas]

Thank you for kind words Raghu! Yes, I used Horizont (first model) with Tri-X in it. 1/30-2.8. It was dark place!

 

[gorbas]

I’m using Sodium carbonate and sulfite in my bath B. Diafine originally used trisodium phosphate, which is even stronger. You should be fine with very high pH in the second bath. Some sulfite to control grain is the solution I used. 2B-1 is more properly a divided developer because some development happens in bath A, but not very much. I think the higher pH in B makes it easier to hit box speed in a two bath.

Also, some great photos in your book!

Thank you Relistan!
Looking at your recipe 2B-1, B bath looks good to me. For sure you do not need 100g of carbonate in B as in Bauman recipe. I liked Vestal's approach to two bath with adding equal amount of sulfite to both baths.

 

[relistan]

For completeness. This is the difference in ADOX HR-50/Scala 50 vs the base Agfa emulsion as @Henning Serger was referring to:

 

[relistan]

Thank you Relistan!
Looking at your recipe 2B-1, B bath looks good to me. For sure you do not need 100g of carbonate in B as in Bauman recipe. I liked Vestal's approach to two bath with adding equal amount of sulfite to both baths.

Yeah, that's what I did, too, split the sulfite. 70g split into 35g in each bath. I am not sure I could get 100g of carbonate to dissolve! Your results with that look great, though.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Speed Boost = Pre-flash?

 

[relistan]

Speed Boost = Pre-flash?

Most likely. The effect seems to be what you'd expect from a pre-flash. I don't think we know publicly. But it could be a combination of things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_hypersensitization

 

[Henning Serger]

So I guess that means that RPX 25 (also Aviphot 80) is actually rated at a realistic speed for normal use!

In general, yes. See the reason I have explained in my posting above.
In my preferred developers for that film I mainly used an EI of 20/14° for my personal optical prints. But I have switched to ADOX HR-50 completely. Here is why:

I have used and tested Agfa Aviphot Pan 80 (and many developers for it) really a lot in the last 14 years. Main reason for that: I was a big fan of the former Agfa APX 25 film, loved that stuff.
And after its production stop I was looking for replacements. And one candidate was Aviphot Pan 80. The result after many tests of the Aviphot Pan 80 vs. APX 25:
- the Aviphot had a bit finer grain in some developers
- sharpness being similar in most developers
- APX 25 still had an advantage in resolution
- higher effective speed / better shadow detail with APX 25
- much better characteristic curve / tonality with APX 25
- and another difference is the spectral sensitivity: normal panchromatic (APX) vs. superpanchromatic (Avi).
Therefore the Aviphot was only partly a replacement.

And then in 2018 ADOX HR-50 was introduced with the following advantages to Aviphot Pan 80:
- higher effective sensitivity with the ADOX
- different characteristic curves
- smoother tonality and a more linear tonal separation.
- offered by a manufacturer who is extremely dedicated to us film photographers and is investing in R&D, new products and new production facilities (and I totally prefer that approach to just rebranding with even misleading technical information and marketing).
Result:
With HR-50 I come a significant step closer to my former APX 25 results.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Speed Boost = Pre-flash?

You will not get an answer. Because the technology is a company secret.
I have seen it in the ADOX factory, I have done tests of it, it really works very well, and I can ensure you that it is a unique technology only used by ADOX. The industrial implementation and production is very clever and sophisticated. Lots of tests were needed to achieve the very high industrial standards ADOX is obliged to.
It is also a technology you could not do at home on such a consistent high quality level, and not at such very low costs. The price-performance ratio of ADOX HR-50 and SCALA 50 is really excellent.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[bluechromis]

Well, with very much 'good will' and if you are willing to accept less shadow detail........
If you want better tonality and more 'normal' shadow detail as with standard films you have to give this film significantly more light. Reason see below:



Exactly.
In aerial photography the light sensitivity rating is based on the evaluation of density at Zone III. Not at Zone I as in normal pictorial photography.
Therefore aerial films have about two stops less light sensitivity / speed when used as normal pictorial film "on the ground".
The Agfa aerial films have also a very strong S-shaped characteristic curve. The reason for that and the different ISO rating in aerial photography is the following:
When you take photographs from 1000m, 2000m or higher down on the ground you have almost no shadows (at least no deep shadows) and also no pronounced highlights. What is dominating are the middle tones. Therefore aerial films must have an excellent separation of the middle tones, and therefore they have this strong S-shape curve with steep slope of the curve in the middle tones, and a flattening curve in the highlight tones.
If you want shadow detail with the Agfa aerial films you have to give them about two stops more exposure, so expose Aviphot Pan 200 with an EI of 50/18°.
As an example, here the results of Aviphot Pan 200, exposed at EI 40/17° and developed in DD-X. Target was a cc which works well in optical printing with an enlarger which has a mix-box and a double condensor:
Zone I: 0.07 logD
II: 0.19
III: 0.38
IV: 0.62
V: 0.74
VI: 0.96
VII: 1.10
VIII: 1.18
IX: 1.25
X: 1.30
You see at first sight that the density values of Zone I to III are still a bit low, VI to VII is a bit too high, and from VIII to X you see the typical flattening of the curve which is characteristic for these films.
No matter what developer I have used, I have never got a complete linear characteristic curve with these films. The cc always had a more or less S-shaped form.



Correct. The problem is the misleading marketing for these films, as the speed rating is the aerial rating, but not that for pictorial photography on the ground. So most photographers significantly underexpose the film (two stops when using it as Superpan 200, and even three when using it as Retro 400S, Infrared 400 and other repackaged versions with the wrong ISO 400 rating) and push process it. Resulting in even higher contrast.

Best regards,
Henning

Great info. Henning. Thanks!

 

[bluechromis]

I understand that Henning said that a good EI to shoot the Rollei Aviphot 200 based films is 50. He said the Adox HR-50 with the HR-50 developer was good at EI 32. That's not that much different. One of the reasons I use these films is for use with an IR filter. My impression is that the IR sensitivity of the HR-50 is almost as good as the Aviphot 200 stuff. The HR-50 has finer grain and perhaps, with the special developer, the shadow detail is not much less than Super Pan 200. It makes me think maybe I should just use the HR-50 and forget the Rollei stuff. One limitation of the HR-50 is that it is not available so far in as many film formats as the Aviphot 200 emulsions. But the grain of the HR-50 is so fine this may be less of an issue than with typical films.

 

[relistan]

I understand that Henning said that a good EI to shoot the Rollei Aviphot 200 based films is 50. He said the Adox HR-50 with the HR-50 developer was good at EI 32. That's not that much different. One of the reasons I use these films is for use with an IR filter. My impression is that the IR sensitivity of the HR-50 is almost as good as the Aviphot 200 stuff. The HR-50 has finer grain and perhaps, with the special developer, the shadow detail is not much less than Super Pan 200. It makes me think maybe I should just use the HR-50 and forget the Rollei stuff. One limitation of the HR-50 is that it is not available so far in as many film formats as the Aviphot 200 emulsions. But the grain of the HR-50 is so fine this may be less of an issue than with typical films.

Yes, I'm starting to think the same thing. I guess I will get some 400S to try it and see how different it is. I think the HR-50 availability in 120 has something to do with their slitter and the PET base for the film deforming the rollers under pressure. Mirko said they were working on solving that and AFAIK they still say they are going to make it available in 120 and 4x5 although that's not available yet.

 

[Henning Serger]

I understand that Henning said that a good EI to shoot the Rollei Aviphot 200 based films is 50. He said the Adox HR-50 with the HR-50 developer was good at EI 32. That's not that much different.

Yes, correct. If you want similar good shadow detail and compare the characteristic curves of both films in the same developers, the difference in the EI is indeed relative small.
But the difference in resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain is huge! ADOX HR-50 plays in a completely different league here.

One of the reasons I use these films is for use with an IR filter. My impression is that the IR sensitivity of the HR-50 is almost as good as the Aviphot 200 stuff.

They are on a similar level. If you use a 715 or 720 Nm IR filter you will get an excellent Wood-effect with clear white bright leaves and a dark sky with both films.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Johnson]

Referring to this thread:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-re-divided-metol-sulfite-development.106512/
Michael agitated part B at 15s intervals, post 1, and I obtained the same result, post 65, agitating by inversion at 2 min (just found my notes).

Now I wonder if both these agitation schemes are vigorous enough to significantly disturb the laminar layer on the emulsion surface.
This might allow enough OH- ions to get to the emulsion with Borax and Metaborate to permit as much development as with carbonate.
With less agitation that did not disturb the laminar layer, carbonate, with its higher concentration of OH- ions, would get more of them to the emulsion and give a denser negative.
A denser negative with carbonate is what many seem to see.