Developer for Aviphot Pan 200

[Alan Johnson]

Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 is sold for aerial photography and for this purpose gives a high contrast as the land photographed has relatively low contrast. I believe it is sold in 35mm eg as Rollei Retro 400s.The resolution is up to 181 lppm.
For aerial photography it is developed in Agfa G74c plus G74s, from the msds I concluded that this combination is a high pH PQ developer. I was curious to see from the diagram on p8 of the link that developing for long times in this combination gives a notable increase in shadow speed. However, the corresponding curve , for 20 min, would likely give blown highlights when the film is used for pictorial photography.
My question is, what developer might give the notable increase in shadow speed but make the curve less steep thereby giving good results for pictorial photography. There is a lot of data on the massive development chart but some complain of high contrast.
https://www.agfa.com/specialty-products/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2017/06/AVIPHOT-PAN-200.pdf

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

For best results in pictorial photography rate it at 100 and develop in D-76 for 8 minutes with standard agitation - 5 inversions every 30 seconds.

For better results use a pictorial film like TMX-100 rather than a respooled aviation film.

Try it yourself: try one roll of AP200 pushed, one roll pulled and one roll of TMX - see which gives you better pictorial results.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I would like to get a bit more speed than 100. I have a selection of photo chemicals and since metol and sulfite in Crawley's FX-1 give higher film speed could try Crawley's FX-1b which has extra sulfite : Metol 0.5g Sodium Sulfite anh 45g Sodium Carbonate anh 2.5g water to 1L. Although the extra sulfite is intended to give finer grain, The Film Developing Cookbook 2020 p80 gives a rather downbeat assessment of this approach as the sulfite does not merely decrease grain but also preserves the developing agent so that fewer sharpness enhancing adjacency effects are formed. But I would like to hear any other ideas.

 

[revdoc]

You're going to get about ISO 125 to 150, regardless of developer, although I once mistakenly exposed it at 400, and the negs were reasonably printable.

I usually rate it at 125 and develop in Pyrocat HD, 2+2+100, 8.5 minutes at 20C. I generally invert every minute, to reduce any shoulder. Contrast is pretty normal, though I might have to print on grade 1 a lot of the time.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks for those details, I have some Pyrocat HD and 4 test strips exposed 100 125 160 200 250 320 so I will try that.
Also looking at 2 bath developers like Diafine substitute , IDK if it would work.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for those details, I have some Pyrocat HD and 4 test strips exposed 100 125 160 200 250 320 so I will try that.
Also looking at 2 bath developers like Diafine substitute , IDK if it would work.

Once you do this Alan, can you give us pics of what you found? This would be much appreciated.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Johnson]

A test of a sun/shade scene with Pyrocat HD using the data given in post 4 showed that even at EI=100 the contrast was too much for my scanner to capture.
An identical test using a Diafine substitute formula gave a negative with good gradation at EI=250.
I hope to post the details from taking real photographs later if the procedure proves satisfactory for this purpose.

 

[pentaxuser]

I hope to post the details from taking real photographs later if the procedure proves satisfactory for this purpose.

Much appreciated, Alan

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Johnson]

With the usual Diafine substitute containing phenidone I obtained uneven skies with Aviphot 200. Previously I found the same with another high contrast film , Adox CMS-20. It may be due to all the hydroquinone being used up in the highly exposed areas leaving the phenidone, which gives much lower contrast, to carry on the developing. So I changed from phenidone to metol in this Metol Diafine Substitute - call it MDS-1.

Part A
Sodium sulfite anh..............................35g
Hydroquinone......................................6g
Metol....................................................2g
Sodium Metabisulfite...........................3g
Water to...............................................1L

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

Develop MDS-1 Part A---- 5 min 20C agitate 30s start, then 2 inversions every 30s, immediately followed by
Part B ----5 min 20C agitate 2 inversions at start then 2 inversions after 2min and after 4 min.
Stop, Fix.

This gave negatives of normal density with Rollei Retro 400s (Aviphot 200?) exposed at EI =400
An against the light shot shows detail in highlights and shadows (attachment):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98816417@N08/51032281702/in/dateposted-public/

The sky is now satisfactory. I have not compared with other 400 ISO films but just note that Aviphot 200 will provide infrared shots with filters and, with other developers, high contrast shots.
The numbers given are not optimized in this first test.

 

[Nokton48]

400s 70mm Supergrain Blad 30 Distagon 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Test roll (31 exposures) fresh 70mm Rollei 400s, processed in Rollei Supergrain. JOBO 120/220 reel modified to 70mm width by me, JOBO Multitank 2 Agitated by hand. Film shot last spring, then life came along................... Hasselblad A70 mag, 30mm Zeiss T* Darkroom print Omega DII Omegalite head Aristo #2 RC Ultra Multigrain Dev

 

[gorbas]

Nice results Alan! Recently I'm playing around with slitted 70mm to #127 format Rollei 400. Here there are my first shots taken with Baby Rollei at 200EI. My previous attempts with this film in 35mm in Rodinal, resulted in no more than 80ei max. Here I was using it at 200ei, developed in Barry Thornton two bath. Next time I will treat it closer to 100ei.


Dan, did you shoot it at 400?

 

[Nokton48]

Dan, did you shoot it at 400?

Hello Goran,
I don't think there is any way it can be 400. I started at 200 (nearly sure underexposure) and bracketed full stops. 100 and 50 were speeds with better shadow detail.

 

[Alan Johnson]

MDS-1 is quite similar to the now discontinued Emofin, Metol-Carbonate but without the PPD and with added hydroquinone.
IIRC I used to get about 1 stop more film speed with Emofin. Bill Troop suggested a possible substitute for it:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/microdol-x-replacement.46346/page-8#post-669467

 

[relistan]

MDS-1 is quite similar to the now discontinued Emofin, Metol-Carbonate but without the PPD and with added hydroquinone.
IIRC I used to get about 1 stop more film speed with Emofin. Bill Troop suggested a possible substitute for it:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/microdol-x-replacement.46346/page-8#post-669467

Hey Alan, these results look good! If you want to get better speed you might try out the 2B-1 two bath experiment I did (that you advised on). I have been seeing better than box speed on most films, without any substantial unevenness issues in skies. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/advice-on-my-two-bath-developer.181701/

This was box speed Silvermax, but the skies look good.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Yes your skies are indeed OK and it is good to see that more than box speed can be obtained. It is possible the sky problem only occurs with unusually contrasty films.
It seems that Tetenal/Troop left out hydroquinone and used only metol in the Part A. Maybe there are more possibilities still not investigated as metol alone may provide lower contrast although at first sight that is just to re-invent Barry Thornton's two bath developer with a carbonate Part B.

 

[relistan]

Yes your skies are indeed OK and it is good to see that more than box speed can be obtained. It is possible the sky problem only occurs with unusually contrasty films.
It seems that Tetenal/Troop left out hydroquinone and used only metol in the Part A. Maybe there are more possibilities still not investigated as metol alone may provide lower contrast although at first sight that is just to re-invent Barry Thornton's two bath developer with a carbonate Part B.

thanks. Conversely, I’m using quite a bit more hydroquinone. Which if your theory is correct about the cause for uneven skies, may also be why the skies look ok. I used Barry Thornton’s two bath a bunch with other films. I found that it was very low contrast and below box speed for the films I used. It’s nice for photo quality. The very low contrast might be good for this film but like @gorbas showed you probably won’t get any more speed. I have some Rollei Retro 400S. Maybe I’ll try it in 2B-1

 

[relistan]

Hmm no I only have Rollei Retro 80s and it’s in 120, not that great for testing.

 

[Alan Johnson]

There are some other possibilities based on adapting single bath formulas based on those given in TFDC 2020 p133 but Bill Troop says to keep the total concentration of the developing agent between 0.15 and 0.3 g/L for document films.
Its not clear how this might work out using the two bath method for somewhat less contrasty films like Aviphot 80 and 200.

 

[gorbas]

I found that it was very low contrast and below box speed for the films I used.

Unfortunately I never fully tested BTTB in all situations and with different films but what I have seen so far your conclusion is very close to mine.
Here, right after exposing the roll of Rollei 400 i exposed short roll of Rollei 25 at 12ei. Definitely next time I will be using just borax instead of Kodalk in bath B with this film.
Kodalk give me way more contrast than I like.

Some 35 years ago I was working on all available light project and decided to use two bath developer. It that time I could not buy original Emofin or Diafine.
The only one I could have was home made "Bauman Diafine""
A
Metol-3g
Potassium metabisulfite-30g
Hydroquinone-7.5g
Sodium Carbonate 1.3g
KBr-2g
Water to 1L
B
Sodium Carbonate-100g
Sodium Sulphite-10g
KBr-2g
Water to 1L

I was very happy with those results. I used it mostly with ORWO Np-7, Np-27 and Tri-x films.
Later when I used Emofin and Diafine, they were giving me higher speed. But the best of them by far was Tetenal Emofin.
Alan and Relistan, maybe we should have one organized thread about all those 2 bath developers instead of spreading them all over??

 

[bluechromis]

As I recall, when Hennings Serger tested this film, he found the usable EI to be 160 at the most. It doesn't help the Maco markets three films that are all apparently based on Agfa Aviphot 200. I have heard it said that the ISO of aerial films is established in a different way than for convention films and the effective speed is lower if used as pictorial film. So if the box speed of 200 is really an aerial speed, it makes sense that for general use might be EI 100-160. If you want greatest speed, you could use a speed increasing developer like Xtol and clones, which will also give good sharpness and fine grain. Some people complain that the film is excessively contrasty, but some of this is due to shooting at an EI that is too high, resulting in a push exposure. This is especially true with IR 400 if people try to shoot it at 400.

 

[relistan]

Alan and Relistan, maybe we should have one organized thread about all those 2 bath developers instead of spreading them all over??

Very nice results! Sure, start a thread and I'll contribute

I didn't have this film, but I do have some ADOX Scala 50/HR-50 that I shot this weekend and developed in my 2B-1 developer. Test negatives look quite good. I will scan and post tomorrow if I can. I believe this is the same emulsion as Rollei Retro 80S (Agfa Aviphot Pan 80). ADOX has done something, probably pre-flashing to "speed boost" it. Anyway it's the closest I could come to the film @Alan Johnson is testing. Noticeably it seems to be almost totally insensitive to blue from looking at the negatives. This would make sense for an aerial film.

 

[relistan]

As I recall, when Hennings Serger tested this film, he found the usable EI to be 160 at the most. It doesn't help the Maco markets three films that are all apparently based on Agfa Aviphot 200. I have heard it said that the ISO of aerial films is established in a different way than for convention films and the effective speed is lower if used as pictorial film. So if the box speed of 200 is really an aerial speed, it makes sense that for general use might be EI 100-160. If you want greatest speed, you could use a speed increasing developer like Xtol and clones, which will also give good sharpness and fine grain. Some people complain that the film is excessively contrasty, but some of this is due to shooting at an EI that is too high, resulting in a push exposure. This is especially true with IR 400 if people try to shoot it at 400.

Those results look great

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

The only one I could have was home made "Bauman Diafine""
A
Metol-3g
Potassium metabisulfite-30g
Hydroquinone-7.5g
Sodium Carbonate 1.3g
KBr-2g
Water to 1L
B
Sodium Carbonate-100g
Sodium Sulphite-10g
KBr-2g
Water to 1L

I was very happy with those results. I used it mostly with ORWO Np-7, Np-27 and Tri-x films.

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

 

[Henning Serger]

As I recall, when Hennings Serger tested this film, he found the usable EI to be 160 at the most.

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:

It doesn't help the Maco markets three films that are all apparently based on Agfa Aviphot 200. I have heard it said that the ISO of aerial films is established in a different way than for convention films and the effective speed is lower if used as pictorial film.

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.

Some people complain that the film is excessively contrasty, but some of this is due to shooting at an EI that is too high, resulting in a push exposure. This is especially true with IR 400 if people try to shoot it at 400.

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

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.
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.