Did I miss something here? APX 100?

[StepheKoontz]

Is this really a new release or a reboxed film. I don't recall seeing this last time I bought some film.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It has nothing to do with the old Agfa film. The brand Agfaphoto rebrands film from whatever source.

 

[removedacct1]

Whatever it is, its very nice. I think of it as kinda like a 100ASA version of Tri-X.

 

[railwayman3]

It has nothing to do with the old Agfa film. The brand Agfaphoto rebrands film from whatever source.

I think that Agfaphoto film has been from Fuji or Ilford, and I can say that all that I've used (color and B&W neg and color reversal) has all been of good quality. (Just saying, as your suggestion of "whatever source" could be taken as suggesting that they are selling random stuff of doubtful origin.)

 

[Nokton48]

MFlex 150mm Apo Ronar Agfa 100 roll Mic-X by Nokton48, on Flickr

Columbus Camera Group Exterior. Makiflex 150mm Apo Ronar barrel Agfa 100 120 roll Mic-X

Omega D2 120mm WA Rodagon LED head 5x7" Arista #2 paper Multigrade dev

 

[Anon Ymous]

I think that Agfaphoto film has been from Fuji or Ilford, and I can say that all that I've used (color and B&W neg and color reversal) has all been of good quality. (Just saying, as your suggestion of "whatever source" could be taken as suggesting that they are selling random stuff of doubtful origin.)

For the record, I didn't mean that their films are of inferior quality, but simply that they're not related to the old Agfa films. And yes, this film is made by Harman and the colour films that they used to sell were Fuji. Their E6 CT Precisa was an exceptional value for money film, but alas is no more...

 

[Bikerider]

One of the UK main outlets of film and darkroom products and equipment has stated that APX is very similar to Kentmere. So much so they do not stock APX, Kentmere is a more popular film.

 

[AgX]

And yes, this film is made by Harman and the colour films that they used to sell were Fuji.

And from Ferrania too.

 

[foc]

And from Ferrania too.

IIRC the Agfaphoto colour film was made by Ferrania from around 2005 till 2009 approx. Then it was made by Fuji. Basically they well all rebadged films.

One of the UK main outlets of film and darkroom products and equipment has stated that APX is very similar to Kentmere. So much so they do not stock APX, Kentmere is a more popular film.

The B&W was made by Ilford (Harman) and as has been mentioned was basically rebadged Kentmere.

 

[koraks]

The B&W was made by Ilford (Harman) and as has been mentioned was basically rebadged Kentmere.

I remember having read statements from Impex that the APX films are NOT identical to Kentmere; different emulsions apparently.

 

[foc]

I remember having read statements from Impex that the APX films are NOT identical to Kentmere; different emulsions apparently.

Yes I had heard that too and I also remember Fuji saying that their 400CN was a slightly different version of XP2. Now I have shot plenty of both and to be honest I can see no difference.
I often wonder if the "different emulsions/our own specification " is just sales talk for rebadged especially considering how difficult it is to make an emulsion and the costs involved.
Is it a case of the manufacturer trying to protect their own brand name?

 

[Henning Serger]

I remember having read statements from Impex that the APX films are NOT identical to Kentmere; different emulsions apparently.

Sorry, but then you remember completely wrong!
Because Fotoimpex is clearly saying that AgfaPhoto APX New, Rollei RPX and Fotoimpex CHM films can be exposed and developed identically to the Kentmeres (= are from Kentmere production):
https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/fotoimpex-chm-100-13536.html
and
https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/fotoimpex-chm-400-13536.html
Fotoimpex wants happy and satiesfied customers. That means giving them correct information.

All experienced photographers who have done detailed comparison tests of AgfaPhoto APX New, Rollei RPX, Kentmere and Fotoimpex CHM films (evaluating the characteristic curve, measuring grain, sharpness and resolution, testing the halation around light sources: the Kentmeres have a very typical behaviour in this regard) have come to the same result: These films are identical and from Kentmere production. I have done these tests in my photography test lab, too. Same results. And as distributors of the AgfaPhoto films have asked Lupus Imaging (the company which is offering the AgfaPhoto films) about recommended developers and developing times, they also got the answer to use the tested data for the Kentmeres.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I often wonder if the "different emulsions/our own specification " is just sales talk for rebadged especially considering how difficult it is to make an emulsion and the costs involved.

Felim, you are right.
In almost all current cases it is just marketing talk, used to hide the original source of the repackaged films.
Making specific, different and additional emulsions is very difficult and - extremely important - very expensive. You need quite big production volumes to justify that, making economic sense.
And small distribution firms and especially the "one man shows" in the market don't have the financial resources to initiate that.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[koraks]

Sorry, but then you remember completely wrong!

I don't remember wrong, but your experience doesn't align with what I've read. That's something else
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kentmere-100.126710/
http://pirate-photo.fr/pages/viewpage.php?f=51&t=69
One person says they're the same, others say they're different. IIRC Harman Tech. made a statement that they're different. Who should I believe? Frankly, I don't really care.

 

[Henning Serger]

Koraks, in the links you have given there is no proof at all for your comment above concerning the Fotoimpex statement. The official statement from Fotoimpex concerning that topic is on their shop page (see the links in my posting above).
The link to the comparison test clearly demonstrates that the films are from the same production: The differences are so tiny, just normal batch-to-batch variation (which is generally a bit bigger with cheap films).
When the AgfaPhoto APX New films were introduced, an independent photo chemistry manufacturer ask me to evaluate these films in their developers (developing data for data sheets) in my test lab (because they had a personal bottleneck at that time and couldn't do it by themselves). So they sent me the material for the tests. Besides the developers also the films: Kentmere 100 and 400 in original Kentmere packaging (APX New packaging was not finished yet at that time; and they said APX New is identical to Kentmere, official info by Lupus Imaging).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes I had heard that too and I also remember Fuji saying that their 400CN was a slightly different version of XP2. Now I have shot plenty of both and to be honest I can see no difference.
I often wonder if the "different emulsions/our own specification " is just sales talk for rebadged especially considering how difficult it is to make an emulsion and the costs involved.
Is it a case of the manufacturer trying to protect their own brand name?

not my experience;I find t XP2 is vastly superior to 400CN with much more h\midtone contrast

 

[foc]

not my experience;I find t XP2 is vastly superior to 400CN with much more h\midtone contrast

Ok I will agree to differ. (BTW I don't wish to start an argument regarding what brand is what). I often think some people see a difference where there is none, a case of the placebo effect.

On a slightly different, more personal note, back in the 1990s and early 2000s, Fuji Ireland pushed their "all in one minilab service contract" where if you signed up for it you would get preferential breakdown service, bi-annual maintenance service, and FREE laser unit replacement (this was the cherry on the cake as a replacement laser unit was big money) .

I was "caught during a service" by one of their engineers using Champion chemistry instead of Fuji CP48 in both of my Fuji Frontiers. The riot act was read to me saying how my contract was invalid since I was using non Fuji chemicals which would lead to incorrect colour balance and damage the machine!!!!!!.
To cut a long story short I threatened them with litigation regarding monopoly of supply, breach of contract etc and that shut them up and stoped them threatening me (never threaten an Irishman ) Basically it was like saying this petrol is better than that petrol, for your car.

Moral of the story, never believe everything the seller/manufacturer is telling you. They are not lying, they are just not telling the full truth.
So I still stick to what I said in the previous post regarding "different emulsions/our own specification "

 

[foc]

Felim, you are right.
In almost all current cases it is just marketing talk, used to hide the original source of the repackaged films.
Making specific, different and additional emulsions is very difficult and - extremely important - very expensive. You need quite big production volumes to justify that, making economic sense.
And small distribution firms and especially the "one man shows" in the market don't have the financial resources to initiate that.

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you Hennings.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

There does seem to be way too much marketing talk in the analogue photography industry. More transparency of information about products is always helpful, not withstanding issues of commercial confidentiality.

 

[Agulliver]

Way back before the most recent buy-out of Harman, when their director Simon Galley posted here....he made it abundantly clear that no Ilford or Kentmere branded product was offered under any other name. Anything coated by Harman for other people (eg, Agfa Photo) was not identical to any Ilford or Kentmere product. That still left some wiggle room for similar products, perhaps with minor changes to formulae or procedure....but it was scotching the prevalent rumours that various other products were Kentmere in disguise.

The new owners have said "nothing has changed" regarding that policy and went on to say no Ilford products appear under other names. They omitted Kentmere which could be simply that they forgot or it could mean they now sell the exact same film as Kentmere to other companies who sell it on as Agfa APX etc.

I honestly don't know. I've not used the most recent Agfa APX nor the CHM. I do know that there are people here at Photrio who claim practically every B&W negative film that whose provenance isn't proven to be rebadged Kentmere.

What we do know is that AgfaPhoto, the part of Agfa that was sold off and which has the license to sell consumer camera films, has continued to offer a B&W negative film called APX. Currently the product is known to be manufactured by Harman for AgfaPhoto. Some people say it behaves similarly to Kentmere. Some say they detect differences. Both groups of people seem to feel it's a decent quality product.

 

[foc]

They omitted Kentmere which could be simply that they forgot

Companies do not forget. I think their omission or silence speaks volumes but then you know where I stand on these things.

Speculation can be fun and I would not like to deny anyone the joy of deciphering who made what.

I am just glad that film is being talked about and more importantly, being used. If we have more brand choice that is great but we also must remember that the number of film manufacturers is very small, the market is small (in comparison to days of old) so economies of scale play a big part in producing a film product.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

What we do know is that AgfaPhoto, the part of Agfa that was sold off and which has the license to sell consumer camera films, has continued to offer a B&W negative film called APX. Currently the product is known to be manufactured by Harman for AgfaPhoto. Some people say it behaves similarly to Kentmere. Some say they detect differences. Both groups of people seem to feel it's a decent quality product.

One of the issues here is that 'APX' is being used as a brand (which it is) and that term is then being applied to a film which is not based on 'APX' technology. New "real" APX 100 film would be great, but I suspect a challenge to manufacture and find a place in the market.

 

[miha]

One of the issues here is that 'APX' is being used as a brand (which it is) and that term is then being applied to a film which is not based on 'APX' technology. New "real" APX 100 film would be great, but I suspect a challenge to manufacture and find a place in the market.

Have a look (as long as it lasts, 135 only): https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/film-showdown-adox-silvermax-100-vs-original-agfa-apx-100

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Have a look (as long as it lasts, 135 only): https://emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/film-showdown-adox-silvermax-100-vs-original-agfa-apx-100

Good point. If I did more 35mm work I'd pick some up to try.

 

[subsole]

The ADOX Silvermax Film is an APX 100 emulsion. Only available in 135/36:

http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/adox-silvermax/