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

miha

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
2,998
Location
Slovenia
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

ntenny

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
2,505
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Format
Multi Format
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
 
OP
OP

Bruce Robbins

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
120
Location
Carnoustie,
Format
Medium Format
miha said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
OP
OP

Bruce Robbins

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
120
Location
Carnoustie,
Format
Medium Format
ntenny said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?"
 
OP
OP

Bruce Robbins

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
120
Location
Carnoustie,
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,699
Location
Topeka, Kans
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2003
Messages
4,291
Location
Running up that hill
Format
Multi Format
The original CHS100 worked great with Barry Thornton's 2 bath formula-lovely old school tonality!
 

polyglot

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,467
Location
South Australia
Format
Medium Format

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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

Bruce Robbins

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
120
Location
Carnoustie,
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
3,467
Location
South Australia
Format
Medium Format
Bruce Robbins said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
 
OP
OP

Bruce Robbins

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
120
Location
Carnoustie,
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format

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

Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
18
Location
Lisbon, Port
Format
4x5 Format

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
 

brianmquinn

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
687
Location
Cincinnati O
Format
Medium Format


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

StoneNYC

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
brianmquinn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
8,345
Location
Antarctica
Format
8x10 Format
Roger Cole said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…