Evidently. But for what purpose? The argument I heard, and never verified in any way, was that the cadmium deliberately or by accident prolonged the product's life. Was this in fact the case? Out of all people in this thread, you're in the best position to say something about this.
You see, I wouldn't be surprised if it was there for a totally other reason, just like certain rare earths still play a role in sensitization in today's emulsions, because they apparently play a crucial role in how the silver-halide lattice creates developable sites.
No worries, didn't take it that wayI just meant to say: it's a good question and frankly, I don't see the practical use for capturing a 14-stop range.
Don't rule out "by accident".
Hello everyone ...
A higher silver content in the films (such as those of the 50s / 60s), made them qualitatively better?
What peculiar characteristics were due to more silver, compared to thin modern ones?
Many thanks.
the kind of accident that makes people deep in their retirement say "I never thought it would pan out like this".
It is interesting to note that another Adox film which was promoted as being designed specifically for reversal processing - Adox Scala 160 - is also claimed to have "an increased silver content."
One interpretation of 14 zones may be a 14-stop scene range.
Oh no, certainly, I don't. But your case is very clear - the addition of rare earths and probably (?) cadmium back in the day is a matter of photon efficiency primarily. If it so happens to extend the useful lifetime of a material far beyond the manufacturer's reasonable interest (the Agfa paper example), it's truly an unanticipated accident. Not the kind of accident in terms of "we don't know why it works, but it does", but the kind of accident that makes people deep in their retirement say "I never thought it would pan out like this".
The way you get 14 zones is you take the 10 zones and make them smaller.
Hmmm...I sometimes use Zone -I and occasionally Zone -II...but that might just be my imagination...when I make carbon prints. Due to the raised relief of the process, I can get a zone or two of image-related pure-black texture at or below Zone 0 on the print. Kinda of fun. Expose for detailed deep shadows, give extra development to expand the mid-tones and high lights -- then print the shadows down.No worries, didn't take it that wayI just meant to say: it's a good question and frankly, I don't see the practical use for capturing a 14-stop range.
Adox even say so: "14 Blenden"
Why would Henning Serger be a candidate for such a question?
This film is one result of the cooperation between Adox and InovisCoat.
The film is currently in the test phase here in my lab. First results look good. The spectral sensivity of this film is identical to the Agfa APX 100.
In our product description for Silvermax we claim that it has more silver than comparable films and that this leads to a higher DMAX and the possibility to get an extended copy range out of it if developed in Silvermax developer.
This is all true.
If you manufacture a film there are certain things you can do to get the desired characteristics. It starts with making the emulsion and it "ends" with the amount of emulsion you apply per sqm. The more you apply, the higher is the silver content and the higher will be the DMAX which the film can build up (same emulsions compared with each other).
So if you don´t object the costs, you can make a "better" film this way if there wouldn´t be an affect on the contrast as well.
Your contrast is also increasing and this limits you in using this as a means of achiving a superior quality.
The aim when manufacturing this film was to achieve a better DMAX on the clear base so the film would be good for reversal processing but not putting too much so it can also be used as a regular negative film.
As said before it is based on Agfa technology and very similar to APX but on a clear base and with a thicker coating (silver rhich).
The spectral sensitivity is the same as identical sensitizers were used (up).
So compared to APX you will get more DMAX and a slightly higher contrast apart ofcourse from the different base.
This is why we formulated the Silvermax developer with it. This developer is soft working similar to our ADOTECH developer and optimized for Silvermax.
If you use both you get instantly very good results and (hopefully) can see the difference to "normal" fims.
While "normal" in this context means a film designed as a negative film with just as much coating (silver cotent) as nevessary to achive good DMAX for regular printing work.
..
Mirko
(off topic) Laser- do you know what changes Kodak made to Panatomic X in the last years of its run? Did they remove the cadmium long before it was discontinued? What changes did the film get in its last years, or was it basically the same with minor tweaks all its life? Is it a film Kodak could technically make today, if they so chose to? And what made this perticular film so stable from aging, unlike most other films? You can use decades old Pan X at its rated speed with no issues.
Hmmm...I sometimes use Zone -I and occasionally Zone -II...but that might just be my imagination...when I make carbon prints. Due to the raised relief of the process, I can get a zone or two of image-related pure-black texture at or below Zone 0 on the print. Kinda of fun. Expose for detailed deep shadows, give extra development to expand the mid-tones and high lights -- then print the shadows down.
Favorite image is a 13+ stop SBR inside a sea cave looking out into the sunlight. I actually kept the development close to normal for that one.
Not really. Zone II is lighter and receives less exposure than Zone 0. So how can my "Zone -I " be Zone I or II if it gets more exposure than Zone 0? I get textural detail in the form of raised relief in areas of pure black (Zone O). I call it Zone -1, it gets more exposure than Zone 0 and is as black as the material can get.@Vaughn, my apologies tor being pedantic, but that's not zone -I or -II. By definition, these don't exist. You get shadow differentiation that the process allows for and this enables you to create zones I and II, which happen to be at higher densities than they would be in a silver gel print etc. But that wouldn't expand the zone range. It's a matter of definitions.
That's because he appears to be very knowledgeable about Adox's products and way back in 2012 he was testing this film:
And BTW the questions were answered by Mirko:
Just because something is "technically" better doesn't make it better for every purpose. Frankly older films had more life and better tonality. You can see it. Look at Tri-X for example. It kept getting "improved" to the point where it doesn't look anywhere near the same as it used to. Some people think that is a good thing, but in today's world I'd argue it isn't really.
Seems to me by limiting silver and also thinning the emulsion films have become rather generic and digital looking. I wish someone would rewind the clock and make a film that was more malleable, like old films used to be. If I want grainless I can just use a digital camera, which at this point has eclipsed film for "grainless" purposes.
Seems to me by limiting silver and also thinning the emulsion films have become rather generic and digital looking.
The use of less silver is a desired result of using the silver more efficiently. Adding silver only to have it ending up in the fixer doesn't accomplish much.
Zone II is lighter and receives less exposure than Zone 0. So how can my "Zone -I " be Zone I or II if it gets more exposure than Zone 0?
I just invented the term Zone -I, so it now exists!
Correct!! That is exactly what I mean!No no, that's not what I meant
Zone 0 is dmax of your process. Zone -I or -II would mean a deeper black than dmax. See the problem?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?