NEW Agfa APX400

[miha]

All the published times that are on the Kentmere site match the Massive Dev times...
http://www.kentmere.co.uk/Webfiles/20091291714152280.pdf

Exactly, and there are more developers listed on the Kentmere site that match those given by Maco.

 

[zsas]

But my analysis is focused on the info that Macodirect.de published re the New APX 400. That is the baseline dataset....

 

[miha]

Sure, sure, sure... My point was that Kentmere times come from the horse's mouth, are verified and tested by the manufacturer, and - as you've pointed out earlier - match those for the new APX given by Maco (and surprisingly not by AgfaPhoto).

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Did you try looking at the distributor, Lupus Imaging? See: http://www1.lupus-imaging-media.com/en/kategorie-download.html
Direct link for APX 400: http://www1.lupus-imaging-media.com/images/downloads/apx400gb.pdf

You can also see that there is a "New Emulsion" APX 100.

 

[miha]

Thanks Ricardo, I couldn't find the data myself.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

You're welcome!

BTW, this is looking like a detective's investigation! LOL

 

[zsas]

Ok this is looking more and more odd to me
Ricardo, thanks for the links to the Lupus downloads section, I never would have thought a company would put the dev charts in a separate section of their website and not on the tech details of the APX product page....geeezeee Lupus Imaging, way to make it easy for your customers to find the info they need.....maybe your webmaster should imbed those PDFs on the product details pages for the new APX 100/400....

Anyway, soo, with the above link sleuthed by Ricardo, it seems to me that APX 400 is identical to the properties of Kentmere 400*

*Except for Rodinal

So Macodirect.de is off the hook propagating an error at this point....

Ricardo - Re that Dx database, well I'd tend to believe that it is a web page that stopped being updated in early 2004, which means (to me) drawing conclusions from that site maybe hard cus the data is so stale....

 

[MattKing]

It is certainly possible that Lupus could contract with Harman to manufacture film that responds to various developers in the same way as Harman's Kentmere offerings.

That says nothing about spectral sensitivities, anti-halation, grain, acutance, backing support, etc., etc.

 

[zsas]

Matt all could be true. Now I wanna get some Kentmere 400 to see if there's any difference.....based on the strange, almost 100% match btw APX 400 and Kentmere 400....

Such an odd exercise here, Lupus doesn't have any graphs and whatnot like most films do??? Something doesn't seem right here...I guess from a customer perspective. Seems like a lott'a work for folks to just but this film and know what to do?

 

[brianmquinn]

Matt all could be true. Now I wanna get some Kentmere 400 to see if there's any difference.....based on the strange, almost 100% match btw APX 400 and Kentmere 400....

Such an odd exercise here, Lupus doesn't have any graphs and whatnot like most films do??? Something doesn't seem right here...I guess from a customer perspective. Seems like a lott'a work for folks to just but this film and know what to do?

Remember developer times are just starting points. I’m sure Lupis did not do ANY testing of this film. They just reposted old times that should be “close enough”.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Remember developer times are just starting points. I’m sure Lupis did not do ANY testing of this film. They just reposted old times that should be “close enough”.

Very true. I'm sure fine prints can be made with either Kentmere or the new APX 400. In the end, the choice of developer and technique will probably have a bigger impact on the results.

 

[ndrs]

Not that it's terribly important but whoever packaged this most likely used the same tube/canister design as for their other products. The answer is in the cap.

 

[zsas]

I agree with all the above but were still talking about good 'ol fashioned customer service and if Lupus doesn't do their homework, I might buy elsewhere...

I wanted to run some thru HC-110 and when seeing their times (in my estimation) merely copy and pasted from prior benchmarks from the film industry, it's just not that fuzzy feel that Ilford, Kodak and ADOX provide....those are my main films....just wanted to try out APX 400 considering that the APX100 was a great film, I thought I'd see what it's like.....throwing away $20 (2 rolls a film and shipping) seems like a big amount of waste to me to dial in my dev, contrast, etc....

Might'a just talked myself out of even considering this film due to what I perceive is bad cust serv via poor marketing, web site clarity....etc

Am I over reacting? Just trying to justify $6 a roll....this stuff better be the bees knees to continue buying it....

Anyone dev a roll yet?

Fwiw, I was quite excited to mess with a new film but this apparent (my estimation) sloppy work by Lupus has me wondering why bother....

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Andy,
Yes, the DX database is out of date. But, when you told that APX 400 is 017712, that first part (0177) identifies the manufacturer which is used by the Kentmere films. It was just the proof that it is made by the same manufacturer.
Also, another clue was in the expiry date: almost 5 years from now. Most of Ilford/Kentmere films have 5 years of shelf life. Oh, and the lettering of that expiry date on the box is the same style.

I have some Kentmere 400 and I'm just waiting for APX 400 to arrive to try them together in 2 identical cameras and lenses.

 

[zsas]

Very interesting intel Ricardo...

So I've a roll of Walgreens branded color print film here, it says made in Japan (ie Fuji), the dx code is 706253, is that the Fuji manufacturing number?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Yes, some of the numbers identify the manufacturer. See Pascal de Brujin posts here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157634758592012/
And this here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157634429783414/

 

[AgX]

See here [for the DX-number]: http://www.imageaircraft.com.au/DXsim/
It comes up as ORWO Media Gmbh! lol It is using an unallocated bar code, just like the Kentmere films. The database in that DX simulator dates from 2005, if I'm not mistaken.

ORWO Media GmbH was never involved in film manufacture or marketing.

 

[Chris Livsey]

This DX Code list is from 2008:

http://www.yumpu.com/it/document/vi...lm-international-imaging-industry-association

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Come to think of it, does anybody else here think it's dishonest and misleading to use an old established (and highly desirable) brand name, in order to sell a product that is something different?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Come to think of it, does anybody else here think it's dishonest and misleading to use an old established (and highly desirable) brand name, in order to sell a product that is something different?

I don't particularly mind it for hardware (Cosina Voigtlander, I'm looking at you), when there's no way the old and new products can be mistaken for one another. I know the difference between a half-century-old 15cm Apo-Lanthar and my 90mm f/3.5 few-years-old Apo-Lanthar.

But for film I don't particularly like it, not because it's dishonest or anything, but if it's a different recipe and the dev times are different then that's just asking for confusion...

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

But for film I don't particularly like it, not because it's dishonest or anything, but if it's a different recipe and the dev times are different then that's just asking for confusion...

That's probably why the "new" APX 100 and 400 come with a label on the box saying "new emulsion". Even if you don't have the box any more, the new products only come in 135 format and it is easy to look at the bar code on the cassette and see who is the manufacturer.
But, no, I also don't like it when it is the same name, different emulsion.

 

[Chris Livsey]

But, no, I also don't like it when it is the same name, different emulsion.

But what is probably worse is the above from the same manufacturer. How many formulations have e had of Tri-X? Some with no admission or notification of a change?

 

[AgX]

Come to think of it, does anybody else here think it's dishonest and misleading to use an old established (and highly desirable) brand name, in order to sell a product that is something different?

I do.
(Even the sales guy in one of the most prestigious photo shop in Germany did not realize the change to something different.)

But that misleading already started with resorting to other manufacturers and their emulsions for Vista and Precisa colour films. And there was not even a hint at a change of emulsion as with the new APX.

The same for all the other rebranding under "AgfaPhoto".

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

But what is probably worse is the above from the same manufacturer. How many formulations have e had of Tri-X? Some with no admission or notification of a change?

There has been one change to Tri-X in recent times, and that was in 2001 when Kodak changed the manufacturing and consolidated production into the current facilities. They certainly did not make a secret out of that one, and it still comes out of the same factory, and from the same company.

What irks me about this 'new' APX line of films is that it feels a little like taking advantage of the brand name, and milking it in order to make people buy it. Business wise it's probably better than coming up with a new name of the film, but at the same time it's an indication of the sad state of our economy, where profit and sales trump everything.

 

[railwayman3]

What irks me about this 'new' APX line of films is that it feels a little like taking advantage of the brand name, and milking it in order to make people buy it. Business wise it's probably better than coming up with a new name of the film, but at the same time it's an indication of the sad state of our economy, where profit and sales trump everything.

I'm not too worried by the fact that Vista and Precisa color films are now made by another manufacturer, but under the same name (after all, C-41 and E6 are standard processes and both films seem of similar high quality to the old Agfa products). But B&W products which don't perform similarly, and needs different handling for best results is another matter. Bit like someone supplying FP4+ packed as Plus-X now that Kodak no longer supplies this ....both fine films but definitely not the same.