First look at the new Adox CHS 100 II - print and neg scans

[Bruce Robbins]

I've shot my first roll of the new stuff and written up my impressions, along with some sample pics. Bottom line? It's lovely stuff. I'm hoping to do a comparison test with Silvermax in the near future. Please check it out here:

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2013/10/adox-chs-100-ii.html

 

[miha]

Thank you Bruce, nice review. Can you please comment on the polyester base. Is there any light-piping present? Is it any more difficult to load on the reels? Thanks!

 

[MDR]

Thank you for the review seems like an interesting film

Also do you know if Adox CHS 100 II is a product made by Foto Impex/Mirko/Adox or a relabeled film from some other manufacturer like Agfa-Gevaert or Ilford. The label Made in Germany is worthless as any product packaged in Germany and receiving added value in Germany can be labeled made in Germany despite being manufactured in China.

 

[karl]

Made in Germany by Foto Impex/Mirko/Adox.

 

[ntenny]

That's a very useful review, thanks! I'm looking forward to getting my hands on some of the new film (and I think I still have some sheets of the old Efke 100, so I can try to do apples-to-apples comparisons). I'm also very glad to have been introduced to the word "dreich", which I don't think we have over here, but which I would have had a lot of use for when I lived in Oregon!

-NT

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Thank you Bruce, nice review. Can you please comment on the polyester base. Is there any light-piping present? Is it any more difficult to load on the reels? Thanks!

Thanks, Miha. The film loaded OK onto my Paterson tank but there was a bit more resistance than normal. Not too bad, though. The only light piping was between two frames - see the "contact sheet", frames 50 and 52. I didn't see it anywhere else.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

I'm also very glad to have been introduced to the word "dreich", which I don't think we have over here, but which I would have had a lot of use for when I lived in Oregon.

Pleasure, Nathan. Sorry I can't suggest something for San Diego. We have ony one phrase over here for sun - "What the hell was that?"

 

[jstraw]

Any info on the reciprocity characteristics?

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Hi Michael,

Reciprocity characteristics look excellent. I haven't done any testing but I reckon this could be the next best thing to Acros. Maybe a half stop at 1 to a few seconds and a stop at ten seconds. Don't take my word for it, though, as I (stupidly) wasn't taking notes.

 

[jstraw]

Thanks...that sounds promising. I'd love to see the manufacturer's reciprocity information. Do you know if there's a data sheet? I found no information on the Adox website.

 

[Black Dog]

The original CHS100 worked great with Barry Thornton's 2 bath formula-lovely old school tonality!

 

[polyglot]

Reciprocity characteristics look excellent. I haven't done any testing but I reckon this could be the next best thing to Acros. Maybe a half stop at 1 to a few seconds and a stop at ten seconds. Don't take my word for it, though, as I (stupidly) wasn't taking notes.

That's not too bad, but no better than FP4 for example. And TMY2 is far better for reciprocity.

I'm gonna have to get a couple boxes of sheets once Freestyle gets it in, and compare it with my last box of CHS100.

Edit: nice photos in the review...

 

[Bruce Robbins]

I just did a quick check and, while FP4 doesn't appear to be quite as good as the new Adox film, Tmax is certainly better when it comes to reciprocity. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[polyglot]

I just did a quick check and, while FP4 doesn't appear to be quite as good as the new Adox film, Tmax is certainly better when it comes to reciprocity. Thanks for pointing that out.

FP4 and HP5 are far better than their published curves, which seem to be out of date and/or relate to an older version of the emulsion. Not sure why the Ilford tables are so conservative compared to their films.

Still not as good as TMY2 though, which isn't as good as Acros or Provia. However, TMY2 is always faster than Acros for any exposure shorter than "overnight".

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like the looks of the paper, might have to buy some.

Jeff

 

[jstraw]

I like the looks of the paper, might have to buy some.

Jeff

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Is that the Tetenal Baryta Vario you're referring to, Jeff? If so, I quite like it and it's much cheaper than the rest of the FB papers here in the UK if you get it from Sharif Photographic.

 

[StoneNYC]

FP4 and HP5 are far better than their published curves, which seem to be out of date and/or relate to an older version of the emulsion. Not sure why the Ilford tables are so conservative compared to their films.

Still not as good as TMY2 though, which isn't as good as Acros or Provia. However, TMY2 is always faster than Acros for any exposure shorter than "overnight".

Can you explain your thought process in saying TMY-2 is faster? Acros has a 2 minute failure, TMY-2 has a (forgive my poor memory) 1 or 2 SECOND failure with a ... Is it 1/2 stop after that?

Even at 2 stops faster ASA, 2 minutes of no failure beats 1-2 seconds of failure...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rcmartins]

I've shot my first roll of the new stuff and written up my impressions, along with some sample pics. Bottom line? It's lovely stuff. I'm hoping to do a comparison test with Silvermax in the near future. Please check it out here:

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2013/10/adox-chs-100-ii.html

Bruce, thank you for your nice take on reviewing this new film from Adox, and congratulations for some very fine articles in your blog. It was a nice discovery for me.
My take here is just to complement your review with my own data for the sheet film version, in this case 4x5. This is densitometry (or sensitometry) data for my specific developing procedure (PyrocatHD 1.5:1:260), but it might be useful for someone else, specially because I include a short reciprocity test.
So, in one of the figures you will see how the gradient changes for different durations of my developing: 12 min, 24 min, 36 min and 48 min. In another figure how the gradient changes for the same exposure but using different exposure times: 0.3 s, 2.4 s and 9.6 s, and developing time: 36 min. As you can see at least until 9.6 s there is no significant reciprocity failure - the gradient is essentially the same. I wanted to make further tests with longer exposures but have been under heavy workload...maybe next week.
I don't like to compare density curves from different films but for a reference I can say that for the same developing conditions (36 min) the gradient of Adox CHS100II is lower than that of Fomapan 100, but not by a lot (0.58 vs. 0.64). This means that Adox is slightly less contrasty than Fomapan.
Included is also a photograph I have taken with this sheet film and developed for 36 min. While there is some sky in the photo it really is very small and dark since I used an orange filter and thus cannot comment on its spectral response. Arguably it is one its greates strengths so I am curious to try portraits and open landscapes. This is a scanned negative, as I haven't had the time to print it, but I have not processed it digitally.
I must say I enjoy this film a lot. Kudos to Adox!
raul

 

[Rhodes]

Thinking that this film may be one of my first choice to 4x5!

 

[StoneNYC]

Thinking that this film may be one of my first choice to 4x5!

Yea I want to try some in 4x5 too


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brianmquinn]

Can you explain your thought process in saying TMY-2 is faster? Acros has a 2 minute failure, TMY-2 has a (forgive my poor memory) 1 or 2 SECOND failure with a ... Is it 1/2 stop after that?

Even at 2 stops faster ASA, 2 minutes of no failure beats 1-2 seconds of failure...


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

In the same dim light you will be able to use a faster shutter speed with TMY-2 than you will with Acros.
At 10 seconds you only have to rate TMY-2 at ISO 320 (Much faster than Acros) and at 2 minutes you only add under 2 stops (Still faster than Acros).
That is why it is faster. Nuf said.

 

[StoneNYC]

In the same dim light you will be able to use a faster shutter speed with TMY-2 than you will with Acros. That is why it is faster. Nuf said.

Huh?

All of my long exposures are 10 minutes to 3 hours long. So when you say "shutter speed" you're thinking of speeds like 1/8 second instead of 1/2 second? In that case yes it's faster simply because it's 2 stops faster speed film (well that's debatable, it seems to me to be more like EI 200, but that's a whole can of works I don't want to get into). But is that what you mean?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

He's saying it's faster out to an exposure time of at least two minutes. Eventually you may get to a time where Acros is faster, especially with times like you are using. But for most people a couple of minutes is a long exposure.

 

[StoneNYC]

He's saying it's faster out to an exposure time of at least two minutes. Eventually you may get to a time where Acros is faster, especially with times like you are using. But for most people a couple of minutes is a long exposure.

Thanks, I think I JUST got it!! Because TMY-2 only looses 1/2 stop for x minutes after 1 second, it's effectively still Ei 200 after 1 second so that's faster than 100 at 0 reciprocity failure the first 2 minutes... Seriously it's taken me a year to get that! Duh!!!

Well, since I find I have to rate TMY-2 as EI-200 to get a good exposure, for me acros is still better haha, plus I like it's look better for many things and have trouble repeating results with it. Anyway again another story all together...

Thanks for helping me "get it"


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk