Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

[Alan Johnson]

The guy who posts on Youtube as "the naked photographer" presented D-log E curves for Rollei Superpan 200, Rollei RPX 25 and Agfa Copex rapid [among others he is in process of presenting].
If the liberty is taken of assuming these are Aviphot 200, Aviphot 80 and Agfa Copex rapid and they are roughly sketched on the same diagram, the attachment results.
My main conclusion is that the microfilm Copex rapid has the greatest overall contrast in D-76. But since it has the best resolution of fine detail it is worth further investigation in MeCD4R.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Hi Alan,

give me some insights here . . ... why are you comparing these films in d-76? i'm confused? IMO D-76 is one of the least effective choices of developer for these films. Im not sure where you are going with this???? "this" train of thought.. . .

 

[Helge]

It’s probably that D76 is the standard developer for many. It kind of establishes a floor or Rosetta Stone against which you can make guesses about what is film and what is developer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I compare them in D-76 because that is the only developer that has data for all three.
I want to try copex rapid in 35mm because of its high resolution of fine detail and this is the only guide how it might compare with the Aviphot films.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Sigh!! . . . O.K.

 

[Alan Johnson]

For a high contrast scene with MeCD4R, Copex rapid @ EI 50 auto scans to a high contrast:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51869764711/in/dateposted-public/
At EI =100 it is needed to apply contrast reduction:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51870294214/in/dateposted-public/
I would not like to try to wet print a high contrast scene at EI=100
For an EI 80-100 film for hand holding the Copex is more work than Aviphot 80 but gives better resolution of fine detail.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I investigated use of HC110 1+80 15m 20C vs MeCD4R 5m + 5m 20C with copex rapid at EI =100 (pic).
HC110 [old version] shows less shadow detail and higher contrast. it is not suitable for use @ EI =100 with copex rapid microfilm.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I repeated the experiment ,post 189, in which the same scene on Aviphot 80 was developed in MeCD4 and in the version with added Resorcinol ,MeCD4R.
It was just possible to see from 2 prints that the mid-grey was slightly lighter with added resorcinol.
This second test suggests that the first test [posts 189-195] exaggerates the effect of adding resorcinol.
It appears that for practical purposes the original and simpler MeCD4 version is good enough.
It is detailed in post 130:

I repeat the MeCD4 formula here:
Bath A
Metol...............................1g
Sodium Sulfite anh..........35g
Color developer CD-4......4g
Sodium Metabisulfite........1g
Water to............................1L

Bath B
Sodium Sulfite anh............35g
Sodium Carbonate anh......30g
Water to..............................1L

Develop 3m +3m 25C, correct the time for other temperatures, I use the Ilfordphoto chart.
Agitate in Bath A 2 inversions every 30s
Agitate in Bath B 2 inversions at start and 2 inversions at half time only.

MeCD4 flattens the S curve of the Aviphot films to some extent giving EI=200 for Aviphot 200 and EI=80 for Aviphot 80.
CD-4 appears generally the least likely of the CD series but it may cause an allergic reaction in some individuals.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Orwo sound recording film gives good results for scanning in MeCD4, it is similar to microfilm and orthochromatic.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51908640777/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I

I repeat the MeCD4 formula here:
Bath A
Metol...............................1g
Sodium Sulfite anh..........35g
Color developer CD-4......4g
Sodium Metabisulfite........1g
Water to............................1L

Bath B
Sodium Sulfite anh............35g
Sodium Carbonate anh......30g
Water to..............................1L

Develop 3m +3m 25C, correct the time for other temperatures, I use the Ilfordphoto chart.
Agitate in Bath A 2 inversions every 30s
Agitate in Bath B 2 inversions at start and 2 inversions at half time only.

MeCD4 flattens the S curve of the Aviphot films to some extent giving EI=200 for Aviphot 200 and EI=80 for Aviphot 80.

What is the capacity of this developer Alan? And what is the expected shelf-life? I might have some use for it (assuming I can find a way to buy affordable CD4) soon for developing 70mm Aviphot 200 film.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Hello Raghu, as of 5 March 2022 it is too early to say. I have only developed 3 films in the latest batch of MeCD4 which is 2 months old. However the capacity of the related Emofin was 15 films. If it is found that more density is wanted for silver printing, I suggest that the times in A and B baths be increased as indicated in post 173.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Dear Mr. Kuvempunagar.

I can sell you what I have left from what I bought at artcraft. pm me if you have an interest.

best regards Greg Zinselmeier

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Hello Raghu, as of 5 March 2022 it is too early to say. I have only developed 3 films in the latest batch of MeCD4 which is 2 months old. However the capacity of the related Emofin was 15 films. If it is found that more density is wanted for silver printing, I suggest that the times in A and B baths be increased as indicated in post 173.

Thanks Alan. Book marking #173 now.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I changed from Copex rapid because of the contrast reduction needed and appearance of scratches.
Rollei Retro 80s [Aviphot 80] does not show either of these effects and has high resolution and small grain.
Adox HR50 is not yet investigated.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51935684189/in/dateposted-public/

 

[Alan Johnson]

After 12 weeks in a part full plastic bottle, old MeCD4 part A gives thin negatives compared to a freshly made sample, attachment.
This is possibly due to oxidation.
I will keep the fresh sample in a glass bottle under inert gas.
The old version gives more grain and higher contrast, too much imo, as here:

Times nearer 10m + 10m 20C ,post 173, will be tried.

 

[Alan Johnson]

With Rollei Retro 80s [=Aviphot 80], increasing the development time to 7-8 min in each bath of MeCD4, 20C, gives a density more like normal without blowing out any highlights.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

trying to get expansion of zone 1-3, without changing the gamma is difficult, but can be done. Trying to expand zone 6-9 without changing the gamma is difficult, but can be done. Doing both is impossible. I will say this I like the look of aviphot. Shadows are alittle closer together, highlights do not have as much seperation, However it is the expansion of midtones that set this film apart from others. Like I have said before, with the correct light, carefull metering, carefull development, correct paper choice and a smooth developer images on fiber base glossy come out with excellent POP!!!!

Allen, I like seeing all the reports you are giving. Damn good job. thanks for sharing !!!!

 

[Helge]

Thinking about whether the original use of Aviphot could be any clue:

The lower contrast of the aerial shots is not mainly due to the inherent low contrast of the subject, but rather because of aerial perspective (humidity in the air the accumulates density even over a few hundred meters) and the absence of big shadow areas that has to be discernible.

We can’t do much about the shadows, outside of fill flash for close range.

But what we can do, is to simulate “fog” with flashing or latensification.

My humble experience with silver nitrate hypering, points to that flashing (chemical or physical) actually works very well for this film.
The combined result is a modest speed increase and normalized contrast.

It might also be worth looking into how the original very short high temperature development scheme works.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I tried the 800 lppm microfilm Spur Ultra R 800 [edge markings Spur Orthopan UR]:

A Perfect Match – SPUR Photo

spur-photo.com

It was exposed at EI 32 [sunny] and developed for either 7m +7m or 5m + 5m 20 C in MeCD4. The 5m + 5m was better.
A contrast reduction was applied on scanning.

As regards the resolution of fine detail, Spur Ultra R 800 was better than Aviphot 80 [Rollei Retro 80s] but the Aviphot 80 gives higher speed [less camera shake] and lower contrast.
Copex Rapid also gives higher speed but was susceptible to scratches. The resolution of Spur Ultra R 800 of course exceeds that of my scanner and Flickr Pro [ Both about 80-85 lppm].

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Thinking about whether the original use of Aviphot could be any clue:

The lower contrast of the aerial shots is not mainly due to the inherent low contrast of the subject, but rather because of aerial perspective (humidity in the air the accumulates density even over a few hundred meters) and the absence of big shadow areas that has to be discernible.

We can’t do much about the shadows, outside of fill flash for close range.

But what we can do, is to simulate “fog” with flashing or latensification.

My humble experience with silver nitrate hypering, points to that flashing (chemical or physical) actually works very well for this film.
The combined result is a modest speed increase and normalized contrast.

It might also be worth looking into how the original very short high temperature development scheme works.

Helge, can you give directions to a book or website( information) regarding this . Thanks

 

[Alan Johnson]

Having found that MeCD4 will develop microfilm, I tested it with two high contrast films to get pictorial contrast at EI = 100 with scanner on auto [should be OK for silver gelatin printing].

Adox HR 50:


Ilford Ortho 80 plus:


Fotoimpex claim " Among all current B/W negative films on the market only Adox CMS 20 II has significantly finer grain than HR-50. " Here Ilford Ortho seems close.
Since I found that the resolution of fine detail is limited by grain , use of one of these two films is indicated for that purpose at EI =100.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I made this pic [with different lighting] on Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD to give a rough comparison with the previous two on Adox HR-50 and Ilford Ortho 80 in MeCD4 ,all at EI 100.
The Ortho 80 appears to have the best resolution of fine detail [4 element P&S camera, best near center] but the sky is light in tone.
The other two need a better test to separate them IMO.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Adox HR-50 @ EI 100 in MeCD4 is a little underexposed in my P&S camera that defaults to EI =100.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Noting the Spur data sheet:

https://www.macodirect.de/media/pdf/7b/92/77/SUR8011_Datenblatt_e.pdf

I shot Adox CMS 20 II @ EI =32 on a landscape scene and obtained good shadow detail [with scanner contrast reduction] at EI =32 using MeCD4 7m +7m 20C.

Spur Ultra R 800 film [post 219] seems to be the same film as Adox CMS20 II, or very close as both get EI = 32.
The Spur data sheet has results for push processing, I assume relating to darkroom printing, in their developer.
I don't have any similar results for MeCD4, the degree of push processing to get EI =32 in MeCD4 is not known.

 

[Bigpaul]

I've just stumbled across this thread, and find it fascinating as the Aviphot 80 and 200 derivatives (Rollei Retro 80S and Superpan 200) are two of my favourite films.

I should say that I only use them in 35mm format, print only in the darkroom (scans for contact sheets only), and have only experimented with a few developers. The developer that I have found to be excellent for both is Adox Atomal 49, which I believe is very similar to the old Calbe 49. I use it 1:1, and find that it gives very fine grain, tames contrast, and produces very nice mid-tones in the prints. I find this developer particularly useful for the 80 film, as I've always found it the more difficult of the two when it comes to taming contrast and achieving the "creamy" mid-tones that I like; I find that this combo gives best results at an EI of 50 rather than 80. With this film, I've never had good results using my stand-by method of Rodinal stand development (typically 1:200), with problems in both grain and contrast.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, I've found my Rodinal experiments with the faster 200 film have been better, although the perennial problem of achieving shadow detail without blowing highlights is still there (at whichever EI I've used), albeit to a lesser extent than with the 80. I use the 200 mostly for IR purposes - using an IR filter, and rating it at EI 25, it's actually a very usable hand-held option for IR shooting.

I've recently been experimenting with the Bellini Nucleol BF200 pyro developer with these films, with initial results promising - nice smooth grain with accutance, but still struggling to nail development ratios and times in terms of contrast....

For anyone struggling to get the best out of these Aviphot films (very much worth the effort, in my experience!), I would certainly recommend trying the Atomal 49 as a proprietary option. Being a powder developer it can be made into stock solution in 1litre quantities, which I find has a useful shelf life of around 6-8 weeks if kept in full bottles.