Developing Agfapan 100 Professional (found film)

[Buzz-01]

A little while ago I received some camera gear, which included this roll of Agfapan 100 Professional film.

It came with a defective camera and someone has written something unreadable on the back of the canister, but it's enough for me to believe the roll was already parrtially shot before and removed from the camera, because the shutter of the camera is broken and now permanently stays open.

So, I would like to develop this roll of film to see if there's anything left on it to give back to the people who donated the camera to me.

I have D-76 and Rodinal in stock, so those are the developers I'd preferrably choose from.
My first thought would be to stand develop the film in Rodinal 1+100, as that's what I've read most people would do with unknown B&W film of which the don't know any developing times or storage history.
But perhaps I'm wrong, and I'd be better off developing it regularly, but what would times for Rodinal or D-76 be, and what to choose best?

 

[koraks]

Massive dev chart days 9 minutes in d76 stock. It may not be *exactly* right, but it will likely work. You could develop a little longer just in case, e.g. 11-12 minutes.

Don't do the stand thing. It won't give better results than normal agitation and only brings the risk of additional problems. Also rodinal gives less film speed which would be undesirable in this situation.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@koraks I assume you found the time for APX100, right? This film is older than APX100, it's a previous generation and this development time is probably not relevant.

 

[Buzz-01]

Thanks for your replies! I've forgot to mention, I've tried to look up the film on the Massive Dev Chart as well, but they only list the new AgfaPhoto APX100, which indeed is very different from this vintage Agfapan film.
According to Wikipedia the original Agfapan 100 was discontinued in or around 1989.

On a sidenote, I've shot the newer Lupus Imaging "AgfaPhoto" APX100 myself recently.
The box of the new film says "Neither Agfa-Gevaert GmbH nor AgfaPhoto Holding GmbH manufacture this product or provide any product warranty or support".
They're only using the AgfaPhoto name to sell their product, which I personally find a bit misleading to be honest, but I must admit it's a great and affordable film!

Someone else mentioned this link to me, where they state "Agfapan 100 at EI80, developed 7 minutes in D-76 1:1 at 68F, agitated 10 seconds once a minute. "
And in this video the guy mentions that the original instructions state 5 minutes in Rodinal 1+25.
He shot a roll at ISO50 and developed as suggested. Those negatives look quite okay to me, but my film was probably exposed at least 20-25years ago. I'm not sure whether that means something for the development times.

Unfortunately my roll came without the cardboard box and instructions, and I haven't been able to find the instructions anywhere online yet, so I can only trust on the information I gathered so far.

As I've never done stand developing before, what kind of problems could I expect there?
I've read about bromide drag, of which people say that this will be minimal when using rodinal and it also helps to agitate once at the 30-minute mark.

So, the choices I think I have would be:
1. Stand-develop in Rodinal 1+100, agitate first minute and then once at 30 minutes.
2. Develop in Rodinal 1+25 for 5 minutes.
3. Develop in D-76 1+1 for 7 minutes.

 

[koraks]

You're right, my bad. I did shoot the original APX (not the current rendition) and relied on mdc times for development, which worked out fine.

A bit of googling might yield useful times for both rodinal and d76; it was a pretty common film.

 

[koraks]

As I've never done stand developing before, what kind of problems could I expect there?

Bromide drag mostly, and other forms of uneven development. Possibly also insufficient development depending on process parameters. There's a good number of threads, also quite recent ones, with people asking how come their negatives are so f*cked up in various ways after doing stand development. There's a few people who have good experiences with this approach, but IMO there's never been any clear justification of the risks. At best, stand development gives results indistinguishable from regular agitation - at worst, negatives are screwed beyond any repair.

 

[Buzz-01]

Hmm that's not what I'd want. Perhaps there won't be anything on it at all, but I'd like to try my best effort ofcourse.
So I think I'll scrap stand developing from the list...

I've also reached out to the guy from the youtube video, he replied that he didnt'have the instructions leaflet anymore.
Here I've found a link to a topic on another forum, where Rodinal 1+50 is used for 14 minutes, while the film was shot at ISO64 with excellent results!
That might also be an option, it would allow for a little longer development time, which might decrease the chance of over- or underdevelopment?
I'm not that experienced in black and white development yet, so I'm kind-of wingin' it...

edit: Someone else gave me these numbers from an old table he still had:
- Agfapan 100 in Rodinal 1+25 = 8 min at 100 ISO
- Agfapan 100 in Rodinal 1+50 = 17 min at ISO 125

So the new suggestions:
1. Develop in Rodinal 1+25 for 8 minutes.
2. Develop in D-76 1+1 for 7 minutes.
3. Develop in Rodinal 1+50 for 18 - 19 (?) minutes.

I'm leaning towards the third option, Rodinal 1+50 for 18-19 minutes.
My end goal is to get at least some scans from the results, but if there's anything interesting on them and the negatives allow for it, I might do some 8x10 darkroom prints to give back to the original owner.

 

[koraks]

Personally I would choose d76 over rodinal in this case as it may give a bit more detail in areas that have received (or retained) less exposure. I'd also try to keep development times somewhat short to limit fog.

 

[relistan]

While I disagree with Koraks about stand development, I'm not going to start yet another argument about it.

Anyway, I posted this before but if you are ever looking for times for films no longer listed, you can find them from the Wayback Machine. https://web.archive.org/web/20091212123029/http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/print.html

Agfapan APX-100 times for all the different developers are here: https://web.archive.org/web/2008122...ltruth.com/chart/search_text.php?Film=APX+100

 

[koraks]

Agfapan APX-100 times for all the different developers are here: https://web.archive.org/web/2008122...ltruth.com/chart/search_text.php?Film=APX+100

It isn't apx. I made the same error...

 

[Buzz-01]

Correct, it's the predecessor of APX film.

I certainly understand that Rodinal is not the utmost best choice there is for this job and that D-76 will probably be a better choice, when developed correctly.
What keeps me from just using D-76, is that I've only found one source for D-76 developing times, but there's a discussion in that same topic whether the chosen development time was long enough.
And I'm not experienced enough to oversee the potential risks and just wing it with D-76 with enough confidence that something decent will come out of it.

But I do think I've found enough information online to be confident enough that Rodinal will give some usable results, even though I understand that D-76 in correct dilution and development time, would give a better result.

 

[relistan]

It isn't apx. I made the same error...

I was under the impression that the original Agfapan APX-100 and Agfapan 100 were essentially the same film. The link I posted has times that exactly match those quoted from other sources in this thread. I could be wrong, I never shot that film. But that's what I understood from people who have.

 

[zanxion72]

Since the exposure details of this roll are unknown, one could do a stand development and get all possible from it.

 

[NB23]

Since the exposure details of this roll are unknown, one could do a stand development and get all possible from it.

Well No. If you want all possible from it, then you’ll have to shake it.

SHAKE THE THING.

What is wrong woth hc110:B for 6 minutes?
Geez, I forgot, hc110 doesn’t exist anymore, now we have FHC110 (where F stands for fake).

Still, any normal developer for 6 minutes with proper agitation will get the most out of any normal speed film.

Just don’t do stand. Why does it seem so “logical” to a lot of people that NOT SHAKING THE FILM will yield acceptable results? Where does this “knowledge” come from?

 

[zanxion72]

Well No. If you want all possible from it, then you’ll have to shake it.

SHAKE THE THING.

What is wrong woth hc110:B for 6 minutes?
Geez, I forgot, hc110 doesn’t exist anymore, now we have FHC110 (where F stands for fake).

Still, any normal developer for 6 minutes with proper agitation will get the most out of any normal speed film.

Cannot agree more with this, but if you know how it has been exposed and how it has aged since then.

 

[NB23]

Cannot agree more with this, but if you know how it has been exposed and how it has aged since then.

Even if you don’t know its provenance. No stand can compete against a properly shaken development.

 

[koraks]

I was under the impression that the original Agfapan APX-100 and Agfapan 100 were essentially the same film

Maybe, maybe not - I don't know. I've also only shot apx (the old version). It was quite nice.

Cannot agree more with this, but if you know how it has been exposed and how it has aged since then.

Stand development isn't going to magically make up for unknowns.

 

[zanxion72]

Maybe, maybe not - I don't know. I've also only shot apx (the old version). It was quite nice.


Stand development isn't going to magically make up for unknowns.

Sure, but it is your best option when you know nothing about the state of the film.

 

[NB23]

Sure, but it is your best option when you know nothing about the state of the film.

Why?
Why would using the worst possible method suddenly be appropriate?

 

[koraks]

Sure, but it is your best option when you know nothing about the state of the film.

Disagree. It's an option with compromises just like any other. Like I said - there's not going to be any magic compensation. In my opinion the "best" option would be to slightly overdevelop in a developer that gives low fog and high emulsion speed. Something like xtol.

 

[relistan]

Pay no attention to NB23, he just shows up to rant.

 

[relistan]

Maybe, maybe not - I don't know. I've also only shot apx (the old version). It was quite nice.

One of my favorite films. I have about 5 rolls still in the freezer that were from the last Leverkusen batch exp 12/2015. ADOX Silvermax is very close to the same emulsion but with claimed more silver. I develop them the same and get pretty similar results. If you liked APX-100 and haven't tried Silvermax (35mm only), I recommend it while it's still around.

Stand development isn't going to magically make up for unknowns.

There is already a flame war brewing again so I'll stay out of it.

 

[NB23]

Pay no attention to NB23, he just shows up to rant.

Actually, you have no idea how much my contribution is worth. Who is behind NB23? Multiple presrigious awards winner, 30 years of intense photography experience, more than 8000 rolls shot and developed, more than 2 Million digital clicks, 5000 darkroom prints in 2020 alone. Been paid to travel.
Actually, NB23’s experience and advice is worth a lot.
You see all those “guru” on youtube, and all those “respected names”? Well, NB23 has more qualifications than any of those Clowns. I could rightfully offer “masterclasses” with REAL pedigree that comes with it.
The truth is, NB23 doesn’t play the BS game.
Everytime NB23 posts, it is a post worth all of the above.

 

[Buzz-01]

I'm not in for a flame war, just want to try and make the best of this roll of film with the chemicals I have in house.
For all I know there could be only 5 images on it, or none at all. If it was an important roll, they probably would have had it developed in the past.
But hey, only one way to find out.

My main reason for stand development was not knowing the recommended development times for this film.
As I'm now quite certain that 8 5 minutes in Rodinal 1+25 is what Agfa originally prescribed, there is no real reason for me to prefer stand development over normal development.
Koraks stated that D-76 would give slightly better shadow detail and I agree that D-76 could therefore be the better choice, but I still haven't found any trustworthy development times for D-76.
So if I find a better (or at least another) source for D-76 then I might use D-76, but otherwise I think Rodinal 1+25 for 8 5 minutes would be my safest bet.

edit: I've just found Agfa's original instruction leaflet online:

Here's a link to the original website where I've found it.

This leaflet states 5 minutes for Rodinal 1+25, not 8 minutes like I wrote before. 8 minutes seems to be the time for APX100.

 

[Anon Ymous]

@Buzz-01 Nice find. I'd be tempted to give it 6' in Rodinal 1+25. Given its age, it might need some extra development. I'd also be tempted to try a clip test and see how dense the leader gets after normal processing. I've seen long expired film struggling to pick density, but it's not always the case.