New at Photokina 2012: ADOX SILVERMAX 35mm film 135/36

The problem with Anchell is that he misinterprets a lot of information. I have his cookbooks, and what he says about cubic v. tabular grains is not exactly sound science, even though he has a lot of otherwise useful information. Prakel makes the same mistake as Efke: TXP is a modern, thin-emulsion film. Not a thick-emulsion film. One of the reasons why silver amounts went down was increased efficiency of emulsions, not just cheapness.

zsas said:

Michel in my original post above I cited my references. Here they are again:The Darkroom Cookbook, Third Edition, by Steve AnchellBasics Photography: Working in Black & White By David PrakelPrakel said that tabular films, when printed, "...have a different look, when printed up, from an old-fashioned silver-rich film such as Kodak Tri-X Pan..."Anchell says that silver rich, "...usually indicates an older formulation."In my post above I had a link to Prakel's book, here it is again:http://books.google.com/books?id=x4...=onepage&q="silver rich" film tabular&f=false

Click to expand...

georg16nik said:

Its fun getting too giggly too quick, isn't it?
What if Adox found a way to make it possible?

Click to expand...

Well, if they did - congratulations!

As for me being disparaging about the advertisment text - obviously I should have expressed myself in a more eloquent way in my first post.

Henning have already explained it in this thread that the Silvermax spectral sensitivity is identical to Agfa APX 100

Henning Serger said:

... 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. Best regards, Henning

Click to expand...

Same way as Scala 200X emulsion is based on the APX 100 emulsion. So, Adox Silvermax, Agfa Scala 200X and Agfa APX 100 share absolutely identical spectral sensitivity. Adox Silvermax sports modified APX 100 emulsion, so does Agfa Scala 200X, so what? The fact that those 3 films share identical spectral sensitivity does not mean they performs the same.

rich815 said:

zsas, it's beyond just a descriptor to highlight a factually different aspect, they use it to strongly imply its superior. Like saying, this car is red. Red cars run better and last longer.

"SILVERMAX has an increased silver-content compared to regular films.
This enables him to built up more DMAX and reproduce up to 14 zones in our dedicated SILVERMAX Developer.
This way SILVERMAX catches it all for you: brightest highlights and deepest shaddows."

Click to expand...

Kodak makes claims of superiority of its tabular grained films, reduction in grain and increase in resolving power, based on its characteristics. Does this bother you too?

rich815 said:

Call me a skeptic but I'm waiting for proof it's not APX100...

Click to expand...

How it be bad if it were to be APX100, perhaps in a red dress instead of blues jeans.

michaelbsc said:

How it be bad if it were to be APX100, perhaps in a red dress instead of blues jeans.

Click to expand...

I've still got a decent amount stockpiled in 35mm and 120 but it's still be great. If it is though then it should just be said.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

The problem with Anchell is that he misinterprets a lot of information. I have his cookbooks, and what he says about cubic v. tabular grains is not exactly sound science, even though he has a lot of otherwise useful information. Prakel makes the same mistake as Efke: TXP is a modern, thin-emulsion film. Not a thick-emulsion film. One of the reasons why silver amounts went down was increased efficiency of emulsions, not just cheapness.

Click to expand...

Well at this point we are going to have to agree to disagree, Anchell and Prakel support my point, that traditional films are more silver rich. Your opinion that they are incorrect possibly due to your opinion of these authors making inaccuracies in their texts (not necessarily explicitly related to this topic no less) is taken. If you have a book I can read re this topic, let me know its ISBN.
Look, when Mirko says that this is a silver rich film that has a clear base, it has possibilities that not many films have (1, it is theoretically good for reversal and 2, good for scanning). So with that said, those two attributes, that I dont believe other makers have (I am not sure if Lucky SHD 100, Kentmere 100 and Foma 100 have clear base) are worth calling out. Thus ADOX’s claim that these virtues are worth considering, is fine in my book. If you only print b/w negs in a darkroom using an enlarger, then sure, this film might be no different than the rest, but, it could be different. Heck there are folks round here that can smell the difference between Plus X and HP4+.....
How about some folks actually try the film and let it speak for itself instead of trashing and debating semantics…

Thankfully we are talking about a $4 box of film and not a car or a monochrome M....

If anyone is in Germany for the camera show this week, give Mirko a pat on the back for creating a new film/dev.
I feel like Aggie right now….all she wanted to do is discuss Silver Rich and a massive drama unfolded….:munch:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Well, what can I say: science IS about semantics.But I don't care enough to say rude or uncouth things like others, so let it be.

As there seems to be confusion about the "silver rhich" claim we make for Silvermax I would like to point out again what has been actually claimed and why.

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.

Since all of this is true and since we do feel that we made a very good film here I really see no point why one should be upset about the claim we made.
We are not saying that other films are inferior.
The film is not outrageously priced and what we claim is what <b>differs</b> this film from others.

Even though I said all of this before I think it is good to repeat as well:

- The introduction of this film has nothing to do with what happened at Fotokemikas. The crossing of the timeline is coincidence.
- This film is something special and not our replacement for CHS films
- The fact that we bring this expensive to manufacture film (the clear base allone is 5 times as expensive than PET base) now in 35mm only does not mean that we are not working on other films which then shall be made available in other formats

Have fun taking pictures on whichever film you prefer ;-)

Mirko

Well explained, Mirko and yes based on the price I saw that was quoted it is very competitively priced. Best of luck with sales. We need companies to develop such products

pentaxuser

I think we should also add: ALL HAIL THE NEW SCALA!Which is excellent news.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

I think we should also add: ALL HAIL THE NEW SCALA!Which is excellent news.

Click to expand...

You still got Agfa Scala 200x http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme-...-diafilmbragfa-scala-13536-bw-slide-film.html Happy New Year and thanks for trashing the thread I started. Next time I will remember where the kids hang out.

ADOX Fotoimpex said:

...
- The fact that we bring this expensive to manufacture film (the clear base allone is 5 times as expensive than PET base) now in 35mm only does not mean that we are not working on other films which then shall be made available in other formats

...
Mirko

Click to expand...

Mirko, having just ordered a good number of rolls of 35mm, your last point leads me to hope for bulk 35mm and 16mm film, and there are others looking for 120 and larger sizes from what I have read in this thread. I hope sales of ADOX products are such that these other sizes come to fruition.

ADOX SILVERMAX: Please share a D Log E curve.

It would save a lot of writing if you would just share a D vs LogE curve.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Would you look at that!

Compare that spectral sensitivity to the APX 100 and Scala. It's EXACTLY the same.

Click to expand...

Yes, Thomas, it is the same.
APX 100 and Scala 200X have the same spectral sensivity. That has never been a secret. Agfa has published the data, and all photographers who have used both films and compared them have seen it.
Shoot the Kodak colour test chart with both films and you see immediately that the colour transfer to grey tones is identical.
Not surprising as Scala 200X is based on the APX 100 emulsion.

And I've done that recently in my lab with the Silvermax film and compared it to Scala and APX, and the spectral sensivity results of the three films are identical.
My test results so far: The overall performance of Silvermax is very close to the APX 100 (good news for photographers who like APX 100), and close to Scala 200X, if the film is reversal processed.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Yes, Thomas, it is the same.
APX 100 and Scala 200X have the same spectral sensivity. That has never been a secret. Agfa has published the data, and all photographers who have used both films and compared them have seen it.
Shoot the Kodak colour test chart with both films and you see immediately that the colour transfer to grey tones is identical.
Not surprising as Scala 200X is based on the APX 100 emulsion.

And I've done that recently in my lab with the Silvermax film and compared it to Scala and APX, and the spectral sensivity results of the three films are identical.
My test results so far: The overall performance of Silvermax is very close to the APX 100 (good news for photographers who like APX 100), and close to Scala 200X, if the film is reversal processed.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Thanks, Henning.

I was comparing APX100/Scala spectral sensitivity to that of the chart of the new film (post previous to mine). I knew that APX100 and Scala were identical from that perspective.

- Thomas

georg16nik said:

You still got Agfa Scala 200x http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme-...-diafilmbragfa-scala-13536-bw-slide-film.html Happy New Year and thanks for trashing the thread I started. Next time I will remember where the kids hang out.

Click to expand...

That's old stock.

Edit: boo-hoo. It actually made Mirko come out and explain what the real point of "silver rich" instead of letting the usual half-truths hang around.

Boo-double-hoo.

My bad, You are probably right.

Henning might be able to share some more info as well.

Henning Serger said:

My test results so far: The overall performance of Silvermax is very close to the APX 100 (good news for photographers who like APX 100),

Click to expand...

Realizing that you probably were not testing with Rodinal, let me ask for an educated guess about performance with Rodinal.

Could I shoot it like APX 100 and develop in Rodinal and get "almost" like old times?

Ok, so I'm a Luddite. Shoot me. After all, I still use film, so I must be crazy. (But look at the company I keep.)

It is kind of an interesting prospect to think about to use one film for old school and new. TMax gives us 14 stops, but sometimes it's honest to the point of being brutal.

This film might play both roles by changing developer. The specialized developer for long range and the old school developer for the archaic.

I gotta get some.

georg16nik said:

My bad, You are probably right.

Henning might be able to share some more info as well.

Click to expand...

Well yes, the Agfa Scala 200X currently sold is original material from the last production run made 2005 in the Agfa plant in Leverkusen, Germany.
It is the same with the current sold AgfaPhoto APX 100: Also original material from the last production run made 2005 in the Agfa plant in Leverkusen, Germany.
In both cases the film stock has been frozen, and due to demand the frozen stock is continuously defrosted and cut, spooled and distributed by Lupus Imaging in Germany.
Due to Mirko Böddecker

http://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme-...-diafilmbragfa-scala-13536-bw-slide-film.html

they expect Scala 200X stock to last until 2017.

Best regards,
Henning

michaelbsc said:

Realizing that you probably were not testing with Rodinal, let me ask for an educated guess about performance with Rodinal.

Could I shoot it like APX 100 and develop in Rodinal and get "almost" like old times?

Click to expand...

Hello Michael,

so far I have not tested this film with Rodinal.

But here are the recommendations from Adox:

Starzeiten für andere Filmentwickler bei 20°C:

ADONAL/Rodinal 1+25: 8 Min.
ADONAL/Rodinal 1+50: 12 Min.
ATOMAL: 8-10 Min.
D 76/ID 11: 9 Min.
HC-110: 7 Min.
FX-39: 8 Min.
XTOL: 7 Min.
_____________________________________
Kipprhythmus:
Die ersten 30 Sekunden kippen und danach 4 mal die Minute.
Für andere Entwickler als Startzeit die Angabe für APX 100 verwenden und in 10% Schritten reduzieren!

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

Hello Michael,

so far I have not tested this film with Rodinal.

But here are the recommendations from Adox:

Starzeiten für andere Filmentwickler bei 20°C:

ADONAL/Rodinal 1+25: 8 Min.
ADONAL/Rodinal 1+50: 12 Min.
ATOMAL: 8-10 Min.
D 76/ID 11: 9 Min.
HC-110: 7 Min.
FX-39: 8 Min.
XTOL: 7 Min.
_____________________________________
Kipprhythmus:
Die ersten 30 Sekunden kippen und danach 4 mal die Minute.
Für andere Entwickler als Startzeit die Angabe für APX 100 verwenden und in 10% Schritten reduzieren!

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

APX100 times...

rich815 said:

APX100 times...

Click to expand...

Well, it depends.....
The original Agfa recommendations (data sheet) for Rodinal 1+50 for example are 12:30 Min. for a Gamma of 0,55; 14:30 Min. for a Gamma of 0,60; and 17:00 minutes for a Gamma of 0,65.

Best regards,
Henning

As someone who has never tried APX, scala or otherwise, I am just happy that there is a new film coming out. I can't wait to get my hands on it! I am very much looking forward to trying out this film.

Henning Serger said:

Well, it depends.....
The original Agfa recommendations (data sheet) for Rodinal 1+50 for example are 12:30 Min. for a Gamma of 0,55; 14:30 Min. for a Gamma of 0,60; and 17:00 minutes for a Gamma of 0,65.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

No news there. Of course developing time alters contrast. That would be true for the newer recommendations from Agfa, (but perhaps not published), and film and developer combinations in general, regardless of manufacture.

In this sheet - Click link - Agfa give only the processing starting times for γ 0.65, which is, incidentally, 17 minutes at 1+50 dilution of Rodinal, like you suggest above.

I think the developing times in combination with the spectral sensitivity being identical to Agfa's published information for APX 100 is just further evidence of one of two things:
1. Either ADOX was very lazy in the way they published their information, and simply copied Agfa's numbers for APX 100, hoping nobody would notice.
2. It is APX 100.

All we need now is a film characteristic curve, lain right next to one of the APX 100 to cement that this is in fact nothing other than APX 100 film.