Developer recomendations for AGFA APX 400?

[Javert]

Hi everyone, first time poster here!

I'm about to invest in my first darkroom chemicals and need some advise. My first thought was Rodinal due to low cost and long shelf life but since I'll primarily be shooting APX 400 and the internet says that Rodinal is less than optimal on fast films I ask your advice.

What's your preferred developer for AGFA APX 400 (new emulsion off course)?

 

[mcfitz]

Welcome!

I use Xtol, diluted 1:1, for APX, both 100 and 400 and been quite happy with the results.

 

[jim appleyard]

In the opinion of many, Rodinal is less than optimal, but there are probably just as many who disagree. I used to shoot quite a bit of this film and I found that WD2D+ from the Formulary gave me outstanding negs. Aigitation is very frequent and there's the toxicity problem of pyro, but if you're careful, there are no worries.

http://stores.photoformulary.com/film/?sort=featured&page=2

 

[Javert]

Welcome!

I use Xtol, diluted 1:1, for APX, both 100 and 400 and been quite happy with the results.

Thank you!

 

[Javert]

In the opinion of many, Rodinal is less than optimal, but there are probably just as many who disagree. I used to shoot quite a bit of this film and I found that WD2D+ from the Formulary gave me outstanding negs. Aigitation is very frequent and there's the toxicity problem of pyro, but if you're careful, there are no worries.

http://stores.photoformulary.com/film/?sort=featured&page=2

I'm intrigued by PFs products, especially their developers. However it's a bit hard to come by in my location (Sweden). I know there is someone in Wales who sells some of their stuff though, so I might check if they have it.

 

[AgX]

The new film is called

AgfaPhoto APX 400 and has no relation to Agfa APX 400 at all, which was last made in 2005,

 

[Javert]

The new film is called

AgfaPhoto APX 400 and has no relation to Agfa APX 400 at all, which was last made in 2005,

Well… If you had read my post properly you would have seen that I specifically asked for advice about the new emulsion. I am well aware that the new and the old APX are different and assumed that people on this forum would be as well. Why would I be asking for advice on a product thats not available? I'm sure you are right about he name but as fas as the internts goes the new emulsion is often called just "AGFA APX 400".

But sure, I'll try to rename the thread if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[AgX]

Yes, please do so.

 

[koraks]

Why would I be asking for advice on a product thats not available?

Many people ask for advice on dealing with old materials of which they still have some stock. Obviously involves specific measures/precautions especially for high speed film stocks. So while AgX may seem pedantic to you, if you keep in mind the above as well as how a thread like this is indexed by search engines, he does have a point!

 

[Javert]

Yes, please do so.

I don't seem to be able to edit the threads title or even my own original post. If this is indeed possible, I'll appreciate help on how to do so. I am new to this forum.

 

[removedacct3]

… If you had read my post properly you would have seen that I specifically asked for advice about the new emulsion...

But sure, I'll try to rename the thread if it helps you sleep at night.

Are you sure you would like to participate in an photographic community? Registered only two weeks ago and it took only four messages for you to become rude. Please give it some thought and act accordingly

 

[Javert]

Are you sure you would like to participate in an photographic community? Registered only two weeks ago and it took only four messages for you to become rude. Please give it some thought and act accordingly

Are you sure you want that community to grow? You sure make me feel unwelcomed.

My response to AgX was unnecessary snarky, yes. This was however only in response to an answer that I (wrongly) read as harsh and pedantic.

It saddens me that what I was hoping to be an interesting technical discussion has ended in argument due only to a simple misunderstanding.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi everyone, first time poster here!

I'm about to invest in my first darkroom chemicals and need some advise. My first thought was Rodinal due to low cost and long shelf life but since I'll primarily be shooting APX 400 and the internet says that Rodinal is less than optimal on fast films I ask your advice.

What's your preferred developer for AGFA APX 400 (new emulsion off course)?

Rodinal 4+50

 

[Javert]

Rodinal 4+50

Thank you! Would that put me in the 6 minutes range of dev. times?

 

[eatfrog]

agfaphoto apx 400 is also sold as kentmere 400, you can probably find more information about the film by searching for that instead.

 

[JPD]

Yes, it's Kentmere 400. I like this review of the film in different developers, but scans will look different than prints (larger grain): http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index.php/2019/02/19/film-review-blog-no-32-kentmere-400/

My response to AgX was unnecessary snarky, yes. This was however only in response to an answer that I (wrongly) read as harsh and pedantic.

AgX often corrects details in discussions that may be important. It takes a while to learn to know the other members.

 

[Javert]

agfaphoto apx 400 is also sold as kentmere 400, you can probably find more information about the film by searching for that instead.

Well, as per a 2016 thread on this forum they are not the same. And in a test like this: there indeed seems to be a difference. Of course I don't know if they are the same or not but unless there is hard proof or at last consensus that they are the same I'll stick to advice on the AgfaPhoto

 

[StepheKoontz]

Why would I be asking for advice on a product thats not available?

Because I'm sure there are people like me who still have some of the old stuff in their fridge.

On developers, especially someone new to B&W, it's hard to go wrong with Kodak D76 (Or the Ilford equiv). I use stock solution for fast films and 1:1 for slow films. There is a reason it's been used by so many people for decades, it just works.

 

[jim appleyard]

Because I'm sure there are people like me who still have some of the old stuff in their fridge.

On developers, especially someone new to B&W, it's hard to go wrong with Kodak D76 (Or the Ilford equiv). I use stock solution for fast films and 1:1 for slow films. There is a reason it's been used by so many people for decades, it just works.

Yeah, can't lose with D-76/ID-11 and it's available worldwide (or I hope it still is!)

 

[ozphoto]

Not used the Agfa new stuff at all, as I have a freezer full of the old, original Agfa emulsion (100 & 400), however as others have stated, you can't go wrong with D76. @StepheKoontz has hit the nail on the head: It. Just. Works

A mod will probably be able to fix the thread title for you if you are unable to do so, or Sean for that matter. Just send them a quick PM and with luck, it'll be fixed in no time.

I have used Rodinal with the old emulsion and it was ok, but I much prefer Atomal FF. The original stuff is no more, but Adox has reformulated under the name Atomal 49. Not yet tried it myself as I can't find a distributor here in Australia, but if it is even close to the original stuff, the results will be very good.

http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-film-developer/atomal-49/

 

[StepheKoontz]

Rodinal works good with slow films, I found used with 400 speed films, it cuts the speed in half and exaggerates the grain.

 

[Henning Serger]

First: Welcome to the forum!

Well, as per a 2016 thread on this forum they are not the same.

Well, but they are indeed the same. Small differences maybe visible only due to some batch-to-batch variation (which can happen especially with cheaper film).
If you compare them side-by-side under identical test conditions, and if you evaluate their characteristic curves you immediately see their identical origin.
And, by the way: When this film was introduced to the market one photo chemistry manufacturer had a severe staff bottleneck and ask me to evaluate this film in their developers (generate data for the developer datasheet). So they outsourced the work to me (I am running an independent photography test lab). They shipped their developers to me for the test and the films.....Kentmere 100 and 400 (at that time the films have not yet been available in the AgfaPhoto packagings; and the chemistry manufacturer wanted to be early enough on the market with the developing data).

Kentmere 100/400 is also repackaged as Fotoimpex CHM 100/400 (Fotoimpex has always been absolutely honest on this and given their customers the Kentmere developing times), RPX 100/400, Oriental 100/400.
Both films (100/400) are solid performers with a very good price-performance ratio. One major difference to FP4+/HP5+ is the worse anti-halation layer of the Kentmeres: At light sources and highlight detail (e.g. reflecting metal) you get a kind of "halo" around the light source or reflecting detail.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Javert]

First: Welcome to the forum!



Well, but they are indeed the same. Small differences maybe visible only due to some batch-to-batch variation (which can happen especially with cheaper film).
If you compare them side-by-side under identical test conditions, and if you evaluate their characteristic curves you immediately see their identical origin.
And, by the way: When this film was introduced to the market one photo chemistry manufacturer had a severe staff bottleneck and ask me to evaluate this film in their developers (generate data for the developer datasheet). So they outsourced the work to me (I am running an independent photography test lab). They shipped their developers to me for the test and the films.....Kentmere 100 and 400 (at that time the films have not yet been available in the AgfaPhoto packagings; and the chemistry manufacturer wanted to be early enough on the market with the developing data).

Kentmere 100/400 is also repackaged as Fotoimpex CHM 100/400 (Fotoimpex has always been absolutely honest on this and given their customers the Kentmere developing times), RPX 100/400, Oriental 100/400.
Both films (100/400) are solid performers with a very good price-performance ratio. One major difference to FP4+/HP5+ is the worse anti-halation layer of the Kentmeres: At light sources and highlight detail (e.g. reflecting metal) you get a kind of "halo" around the light source or reflecting detail.

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you very much for that clarification Henning!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thank you! Would that put me in the 6 minutes range of dev. times?

use the times from the massive dev chart.

 

[pentaxuser]

First: Welcome to the forum!



Well, but they are indeed the same.If you compare them side-by-side under identical test conditions, and if you evaluate their characteristic curves you immediately see their identical origin.
And, by the way: When this film was introduced to the market one photo chemistry manufacturer had a severe staff bottleneck and ask me to evaluate this film in their developers (generate data for the developer datasheet). So they outsourced the work to me (I am running an independent photography test lab). They shipped their developers to me for the test and the films.....Kentmere 100 and 400 (at that time the films have not yet been available in the AgfaPhoto packagings; and the chemistry manufacturer wanted to be early enough on the market with the developing data).

Kentmere 100/400 is also repackaged as Fotoimpex CHM 100/400 (Fotoimpex has always been absolutely honest on this and given their customers the Kentmere developing times), RPX 100/400, Oriental 100/400.
Best regards,
Henning

Does this mean that based on your tests, Ilford who developed and launched Kentmere has chosen to allow its film to be sold and be simply re-packaged as both AgfaPhoto 100/400 and Fotoimpex CHM100/400?

This certainly flies in the face of a statement made on numerous occasions by Simon Galley, formerly of Harman Technology.

Of course I cannot recall whether anyone from the latest version of Ilford has re-stated Mr Galley's claim and the new Ilford may have changed its policy. However if I recall correctly AgfaPhoto was in the marketplace before Ilford changed hands and was owned by Pemberstone, its present owners.

So does this suggest that Mr Galley might have been lying all along?

I suppose the other explanation is that Agfaphoto gave a specification for its film to Ilford which just happened to match exactly its own specification of Kentmere. Such things are possible, I suppose but while I am a long way from being a film expert I'd have thought that one film from Agfaphoto matching another from Ilford in every measurement possible was unlikely?

Do both films match exactly on the whole range of ways that film is measured?

Thanks

pentaxuser