Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

[Murray Kelly]

Looks good, Schyter. There is more shadow detail than at first look.
Thornton used metol and IIRC Crawley preferred it over phenidone for grain and gradation.
Thanks for that.

 

[schyter]

Looks good, ...

thks... an annotation. Together with the Aviphot 200, I also developed a Silberra 160 film (Kiev II / Jupiter 3) at the same time.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Good to see that Thornton's two bath successfully reduces the contrast of Aviphot.
MeCD4, somewhat similar to the former Emofin, should give about a 1 stop speed increase in addition.

 

[schyter]

...
MeCD4,

MeCD4 ... ? What is this .

thanks a lot

 

[Alan Johnson]

MeCD4 is the second formula in post 100:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/developer-for-aviphot-pan-200.182434/page-4#post-2447547
With the hope of reducing the contrast of Aviphot based films I used Metol and CD4. To make the developer uncover latent image to improve speed there is sulfite in both baths.
The result is somewhat similar to a dilute version of Emofin ,dilution also reducing contrast.

 

[Foto Ludens]

For what it's worth, I recently shot a roll of Rollei Retro 400s, which I am given to understand is Aviphot 200, and developed it in 510-Pyro 1:100 for 8 minutes (77°F) with good results. Rating at 100 ensured good shadow details, and the development time kept highlights from blowing out (when scanning with an Epson V600).

Here are a few finished scans:

These were shot with a Lomo LC-A.

 

[Foto Ludens]

Here are a couple more from the same roll:

 

[Foto Ludens]

I have to say, I'm really enjoying the results I'm getting from this film in 510... I just might have to get myself a bulk roll of it!

 

[Alan Johnson]

Yes, 510 Pyro gives fine grain.
Is the temperature 77F in post 117 correct, it seems a bit out of line with the MDC?
https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?devrow=7557

 

[Foto Ludens]

Yup, I developed it for 8 minutes at 77 Fahrenheit (25 Celsius). Interestingly, when I looked for a time with 510 Pyro in the MDC app (on Android), i found none. So I used the D76 times as a ballpark for 1:100 times, as is standard for 510, and corrected the time for my water temperature. In hindsight, 7 minutes (11min x 0.64, to correct for higher temp) would probably yield better contrast for printing on VC paper, but for scanning purposes 8 minutes was fine (highlights were not blown, though I inverted the scans at a gamma curve equivalent to grade 00 and worked on the contrast in post).

 

[Alan Johnson]

These 6 pics labelled South Downs were by mistake shot at EI=50 instead of EI=80 but confirm that MeCD4 also works with Aviphot derivative Adox HR-50 with speed boost.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51492725516/in/dateposted-public/

 

[gorbas]

Hi Alan, do you have any film developer recipe with CD2? I inherited jar of it and have no idea shall I keep it or give it away?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Yes, Crawley's FX-10 superfine grain developer:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/resources/fx10.171/

 

[gorbas]

Thank you very much Alan! Interesting discussion on that resource. I did not use A49 in 30+years

 

[Murray Kelly]

You're onto a good thing there, Alan. Thanks for all the effort.
Murray

 

[Alan Johnson]

The more contrasty Adox CMS20 @EI 20 can be developed in MeCD4 3m +3m 25C but needs reduction in contrast when scanning if conditions are sunny, see the series "Dengie" here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51508765480/in/dateposted-public/
The CMS20 negatives so developed may be printable on silver gelatin if taken on dull days or ,for all conditions, using the proprietary Adox developer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Of the Aviphot derived series I found Adox HR-50 to be OK for handheld 35mm with a yellow filter on sunny days, a 100 ISO film would be my preference for dull summer days.
These were shot at EI-50 in anticipation of some contrasty scenes:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/
Time for development in MeCD4 was 3m +3m 25C , corrected for lower temperatures using the Ilford chart.

Thanks to AgX for noting that Adox HR-50 developer appears to be the same as Spur TRX 2000, which only claims rather low EIs for Rollei Retro 80s (EI=25) and Aviphot 200 derivative Rollei Superpan 200 (EI=80).
https://spur-photo.com/wp-content/uploads/Data-sheet-SPUR-TRX-2000-07.08.19-1.pdf
MeCD4 is similar to the discontinued Emofin, which used to give me 1 stop more speed so my claim of higher EIs for these 2 films may be true but has not been checked with a densitometer.

 

[Murray Kelly]

An EI of 50?

 

[AgX]

Yes, the Aviphot 80 is rated in the pimped Adox version (with Speed Booster) at EI 50 in the dedicated developer, which only gives a rating of EI 25 for the unpimped version.

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51558328910/
For the more contrasty scenes like this Adox HR-50 at EI 50 in MeCD4 gave a density range just covered by my scanner on auto and which would probably print OK on silver gelatin paper.
I hope to test Rollei Retro 80s later to see if my MeCD4 developer based on the old Emofin technology will give a higher EI than the EI=25 quoted by Spur.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Thanks Alan and AgX. I await your results with anticipation.

 

[Foto Ludens]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51558328910/
For the more contrasty scenes like this Adox HR-50 at EI 50 in MeCD4 gave a density range just covered by my scanner on auto and which would probably print OK on silver gelatin paper.
I hope to test Rollei Retro 80s later to see if my MeCD4 developer based on the old Emofin technology will give a higher EI than the EI=25 quoted by Spur.

Good to know that their speedboost delivers! Your scan seems quite grainy, though, as my experiences with Aviphot 80s (Rollei 80s / RPX 25) are virtually grain free and smooth:

Is the grain an artifact of the scan/post processing, or is that a characteristic of the developer you're using?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Your scan seems quite grainy, though, as my experiences with Aviphot 80s (Rollei 80s / RPX 25) are virtually grain free and smooth:

I too noticed the same though I'm not sure it is grain that we see in the scans.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I think it is more grainy than Emofin , probably because CD4 is not such a good solvent as the CD1 which was the ppd derivative in Emofin.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/microdol-x-replacement.46346/page-8#post-669467
But there may also be an effect from scanner sharpening left on auto.

 

[Alan Johnson]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51565426288/in/dateposted-public/
Here the sharpening amount is reduced to 50 from 440 in automatic.
Most of the grain seems to come from the developer.