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

[jstraw]

Is this available yet?

 

[Michael W]

Is this available yet?

You can buy it from Fotoimpex in Germany. I checked and a box of 4x5 is about 24 euro, but postage to Sydney was 29 euro, which put me off. I'm waiting for it to arrive at Freestyle to see what their price and shipping will be.

 

[StoneNYC]

You can buy it from Fotoimpex in Germany. I checked and a box of 4x5 is about 24 euro, but postage to Sydney was 29 euro, which put me off. I'm waiting for it to arrive at Freestyle to see what their price and shipping will be.

Seriously the shipping costs more than the film? That's insane.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[polyglot]

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...

There is far more to reciprocity failure than the point at which you need to begin correcting for it, what matters most is how much you need to correct. Draw a graph of total exposure time required against light level, it would be straight lines (pointing downwards at the right/bright end) with no reciprocity failure and lines at higher ISOs are lower (less time required). With long-exposure reciprocity failure, the left (dark) end of the graph curves upwards exponentially, i.e. more time is required. Different films have different exponents, so they curve up at different rates.

If you plot the graph for Fomapan (terrible reciprocity failure), it shoots upwards very steeply. Acros of course only has a very slight upward curve. TMY2 has a slightly steeper curve than Acros but for any exposure less than about 8 hours, the TMY2 and Acros curves do not intersect, i.e. TMY2 still has a shorter exposure. While it might be worse in terms of compensation required, the extra compensation is always less than 2 stops more than what Acros needs. You need days of exposure before Acros is better than TMY2.

If you shoot colour, I find that following the Acros tables for Provia 100F works very well (tested at 20 and 60 minutes) and the TMY2 table seems reasonable for Portra 400 though I haven't tested that much.

 

[polyglot]

Seriously the shipping costs more than the film? That's insane.

For one pack, of course it does. Couriers from Europe to Australia ain't cheap until you start putting $500 of materials in the box.

 

[Michael W]

For one pack, of course it does. Couriers from Europe to Australia ain't cheap until you start putting $500 of materials in the box.

According to the Fotoimpex site they use the postal service, so I was hoping it would be somewhat reasonable. To post a box of 4x5 film from Australia to Germany would be $18, whereas 29 euro is about $42 AUD. If Freestyle have a reasonable price per box I should be able to get it sent FIMS for about $18 so I'll wait for that.

 

[polyglot]

$18 will be unregistered for sure. Once you get all the right stickers on there, it would be over $30 I think.

I certainly plan to wait until Freestyle gets it in and then we'll probably do a group-buy to Adelaide.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here's a link to the table in Howard Bond's article. This was the old version of TMax 400 (TMY), before it became TMY-2, but from what I understand, reciprocity between the two is virtually identical.

Dead Link Removed

At 2 minutes metered, TMY-2 needs 4 minutes - 1 stop.
At 4 minutes metered, TMY-2 needs 9 minutes - 1.very little stops.

Very low slope of the reciprocity failure curve, for sure, and the two extra stops compared to Acros are nice to have, for sure.
Last week I shot some night scenes, and Bond's data was right on the money.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

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
View attachment 75767View attachment 75768View attachment 75769

Hi Raul,

Glad you've enjoyed my website and I hope you keep coming back. Your reciprocity test is very interesting. Wish I could do this technical stuff! I'm going to shoot some landscapes with the new CHS to see how its spectral response compares with Silvermax. I think Mirko of Adox would agree with you that this could well be one of the best reasons for using it.

For other contributors wondering about availability, Adox CHS 100 II can be bought in the UK from Ag Photographic in 35mm, 5x4 and 10x8. Not sure about elsewhere.

 

[StoneNYC]

Just as a cross reference, another thread exists for this film here...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=107684

Figured I would connect both for the heck of it, different info on both.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Just as a cross reference, another thread exists for this film here...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=107684

Figured I would connect both for the heck of it, different info on both.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for that. I've got some 5x4 CHS 100 II as well so your link was well timed!

 

[StoneNYC]

Thanks for that. I've got some 5x4 CHS 100 II as well so your link was well timed!

So did you read my comment/request to try pushing it to 400 in Rodinal?

I really want to see if I'm right about if having a sort of Neopan 400 look when pushed... Even just 1 sheet? Lol


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peter Schrager]

=anyone here used the new Adox 100?? I have done some basic tests with the film. sorry that I' m too lame to post some pix but heck everyone needs to do their own testing. the film has incredible tonality. seems to have no defects that I can see. prints quite beautifully. downside is the the price. they are really whamming it to us at $50+- per box for 25 sheets. I'm going use up my current stash of film first before I can support this. I still feel that TMY is THE best overall film ever made and will use it until it's not available anymore. for the rest of you out there what are you waiting for..go use the film!!
best, peter

 

[Xmas]

http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2203

The type I was cheaper... donno why they have upped the cost.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Because:
1. It isn't made by Fotokemica / Efke

2. It is a higher quality film with much better controls in place

3. It is made in Germany and so incurs higher costs than Type I which was made in Croatia

4. R&D has to be paid for a film that only took a bit more than year from concept to production

5. And it is probably produced in smaller batches due to the market shrinking.

 

[Xmas]

Hi Ricardo

Thanks for the items.

When you decide to make a better product and you charge more you won't necessarily achieve the same turnover or profit.

That was the bit that confused me, this is an intro price?

It is still on the PET base which I could tolerate but Formapan 100 is cheaper and not on a PET base

I probably won't try the type II, I test on the back garden, so a new film type is a wasted test, I used oodles of the type I, unhappy it disappeared.

Oodles of people have stayed with Trix and HP5 ignoring the better tabulars.

Perfectly happy with Formapan at it's price point.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

this is an intro price?

As far as I know, no, it isn't.

Perfectly happy with Formapan at it's price point.

So am I! And also of Ilford PAN 100 and 400 at £3.49 from Nova. Or the Kentmere films that I can get in 24 exp. at £2.49.

 

[SebastianKrauss]

Perfectly happy with Formapan at it's price point.

Me not. Too many pinholes. Won't buy it again. I'm using the CHS II now and no issue at all. For me it delivers the same quality (with minor differences of course) as fp4 but at 2/3rd of the price. (In Germany at least)

Here an all Adox image (CHS II contact printed on MCC 110 fiber based paper)

 

[Xmas]

Me not. Too many pinholes. Won't buy it again. I'm using the CHS II now and no issue at all. For me it delivers the same quality (with minor differences of course) as fp4 but at 2/3rd of the price. (In Germany at least)

Here an all Adox image (CHS II contact printed on MCC 110 fiber based paper)
View attachment 81315

HiSebastian
Never had pinholes in Formapan 100 or 400 or the CHS I Adox.
Do you use an acid stop?
FP4 is 0.16 GBP dearer than Adox here, Id be tempted by the Adox at your price difference.
I liked the CHS I.
Noel

 

[ntenny]

That was the bit that confused me, this is an intro price?

It is still on the PET base which I could tolerate but Formapan 100 is cheaper and not on a PET base

Fomapan is an outlandishly cheap film and I don't think it makes much sense to use it as a pricing baseline. I like it too, but it behaves quite differently from the old Efke 100 and I've missed having the choice between them. (Especially in 9x12, where Fomapan 100 is now the *only* emulsion readily available in the States.)

Anyway, I really think Mirko was almost absurdly thorough about warning the world to expect a price rise. Efke had all kinds of reasons for being inexpensive, including the antiquated facilities and equipment that eventually failed and took them down---it seems hardly reasonable to expect Adox to wave a magic wand and match that historic price point. They have neither the legacy-equipment benefits of Foma/Efke nor the economies of scale of Kodak/Ilford.

Oodles of people have stayed with Trix and HP5 ignoring the better tabulars.

Oddly enough, some people are quite aware of the tabulars and prefer the traditional-grain films. "Better" is a pure matter of opinion. Not sure of the connection of this statement to the thread, anyway.

-NT

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Adox CHS II prices vary quite a bit.
Here in the UK there are 2 suppliers. AG is selling it at £4.98, with FP4+ being £4.71, Silverprint is selling CHS II at £4.52 and FP4+ at £4.68.
So, in one is more expensive than FP4+, in the other it is cheaper.

 

[StoneNYC]

Fomapan is an outlandishly cheap film and I don't think it makes much sense to use it as a pricing baseline. I like it too, but it behaves quite differently from the old Efke 100 and I've missed having the choice between them. (Especially in 9x12, where Fomapan 100 is now the *only* emulsion readily available in the States.)

Anyway, I really think Mirko was almost absurdly thorough about warning the world to expect a price rise. Efke had all kinds of reasons for being inexpensive, including the antiquated facilities and equipment that eventually failed and took them down---it seems hardly reasonable to expect Adox to wave a magic wand and match that historic price point. They have neither the legacy-equipment benefits of Foma/Efke nor the economies of scale of Kodak/Ilford.



Oddly enough, some people are quite aware of the tabulars and prefer the traditional-grain films. "Better" is a pure matter of opinion. Not sure of the connection of this statement to the thread, anyway.

-NT

I think people prefer the flexibility of older emulsions, t-grain tends to be finicky

 

[Roger Cole]

Oddly enough, some people are quite aware of the tabulars and prefer the traditional-grain films. "Better" is a pure matter of opinion. Not sure of the connection of this statement to the thread, anyway.

-NT

Agree (and with Stone below) - I shoot mainly conventional, or more accurately semi-conventional, Tri-X and FP4+ and some Pan F+ in 120 and occasionally in 35mm. I shoot TMY-2 mainly in 4x5 where I'm working slower, with a spot meter, and can vary development for different sheets. Oh the tabulars are certainly workable for roll film, don't get me wrong, but I've just settled into this way of working, and it works for me.

 

[chip j]

With Arista EDU 100{Fomapan}, I get lint-like clear marks in my film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just ordered a couple of boxes of 4x5 from Jacques at Argentix (Quebec, Canada), as he just got some new stock in. Looking forward to seeing what this stuff looks like in Pyrocat-HD.