New, very low ISO film for anyone interested

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

T
Raghu has said that most users of CMS 20 II report its speed as being closer to 6 in other than the Adotech developer and yet Donald shot his CMS 20 II in Caffenol at 20 with no loss of film speed or problem with grayscale either. The problem I have is while there may be something special in the dedicated Adotech developer a speed boost of nearly 2 stop makes me a little sceptical about a speed of 6

Here's a sensitometric test report by @piu58. He got a speed of 6. Others have reported between 6 and 12 but no graphs.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Henning Serger: very nice result you got from the Adox film! Could it be that people reporting lower than 20 speed are primarily shooting at exposure longer than 1/10s and hence facing reciprocity problem? Adox tech specs, however, recommend a correction of only 1/2 stop.

 

[Henning Serger]

......... so Donald and Henning can I ask what you have to do in terms of exposure with CMS 20 II that is not required with say TMax or D100 and how difficult is it to achieve a full range of tones?
Thanks
pentaxuser

For the combination of highest sensitivity and best tonality / best characteristic curve my clear recommendation is to use the dedicated ADOX Adotech IV developer. The CMS 20 II is a "highest-performance-film" concerning resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain. It's like a formula 1 race car: If you are making races with it you will use the best material, the best tires, the best mechanics etc. to achieve the full performance.
No one would use the weels and tires of a VW Golf for a formula 1 race car....... And using other standard developers for CMS 20 II is like that .
In projection I have enlarged this film in 35mm to a width of 5 meters. I put my nose on the screen and could see the finest details! This film has no limits in enlarging. Under a miscroscope with 100x enlarging factor (2.4 meters x 3.6 meters) its absolutely fascinating how sharp and extremely high resolving this film is.
Well, after school and before studying at university I worked in the car industry. At that time all spare part lists were archived on microfilm. When you have seen thousands of parts on only one small sheet of microfiche, you know what extreme resolving power microfilm has .

With Adotech IV you can use this film in a range from EI 3/6° to 25/15°. This film-developer combination is very flexible if you know the Zone system and proper developing. With 3/6° and 6/9° you get a more linear charactaristic curve. With 12/12° and 20/14° you get a more S-shaped curve, but in a quite unproblematic way: Very good mid-tone and highlight detail, and less shadow detail in Zone I, II and III. But there is a simple trick to get the shadow detail: Use a fill-in flash and by that give the shadows just so much light that they get 1-2 Zones higher.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

@Henning Serger: very nice result you got from the Adox film! Could it be that people reporting lower than 20 speed are primarily shooting at exposure longer than 1/10s and hence facing reciprocity problem? Adox tech specs, however, recommend a correction of only 1/2 stop.

What I have seen so far the biggest problem is just that lots of photographers are raping this film with wrong developers. It simply does not work with about 99% of the developers. Period. But lots of people don't want to listen, think they are much more clever than all the film emulsionists and film photography experts using microfilms for many decades.
You can use Adotech IV (best overall results, because this developer is designed only for this film). That is the "formula 1 car + best tires + best brakes" solution.
Or you can use higher diluted Rodinal (1+75, 1+100), or POTA, or Caffenol. That is "formula 1 car + mediocre tires + mediocre / bad brakes" solution.

In my experience it is waste of time and money to limit the performance of this film by not optimal or even bad developers.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Henning. There seems little doubt that the dedicated Adotech developer is by far the best one so in your case I should have added when I asked my question: What are the things you need to be careful about when taking a picture with CMS 20 II using the latest Adotech developer and it would seem that there are not any real difficulties

There will be occasions where fill-in flash needed to improve shadow detail is not possible if it is a scene where the shadow detail is too far away for a flash to be effective but I think in those cases the important phrase is "less detail" in Z I, II and III and not "no detail" i.e. the print will not be "soot and whitewash" with little in between

It always seemed likely to me that in such a film with the properties of CMS 20 there has to be a price to be paid for exposing it at 20 and getting good negatives from which to print and that price is being prepared to pay for the right developer

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

Does anyone have a comparison between this ISO 8 film and CMS20? My question is prompted by my thinking as follows: You pay a heavy price in film speed such that while on a reasonably bright day an ISO 20 film is handholdable, an ISO 8 is not. So for the sacrifice of speed you really do have to gain something that shows up in a print of "normal size" and not have to wait until you are into the realms of prints appreciably over say 20" x 24" before any difference becomes apparent

Thanks

pentaxuser

ISO 8 is totally handhold able, all the photos I posted above were hand held. ISO 8 = 1/500 sec @ f2 in bright sunlight. Or 1/60 @ 5.6 etc

 

[Huss]

Adox CMS 20 ii requires a special developer to give full speed. Most users who use other developers have reported a speed of about 6.

I shot CMS 20 II @ ISO 6 and developed in TMAX, looks great.

 

[Huss]

ADOX CMS 20 II, ISO 20/14°, handheld, developed in dedicated ADOX Adotech developer:

View attachment 251177

Did you use a flash for that hand held shot? Looking at the catchlights in the eyes and the shadows.

 

[pentaxuser]

ISO 8 is totally handhold able, all the photos I posted above were hand held. ISO 8 = 1/500 sec @ f2 in bright sunlight. Or 1/60 @ 5.6 etc

Thanks and you are right. It can be done although we in the U.K. get a lot less days of bright light than other areas like CA and large aperture are not always possible . I should have said that a drop to ISO 8 reduces exposure flexibility quite a lot. The point of my question prompted by my train of thought remains however. There has to be a counterbalancing advantage over a film that is ISO 20 to make up for that lack of exposure flexibility

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think he is saying that the Fantome film which is what the tread is about is intrinsically better at capturing the full range of gray scale whereas the likes of CMS 20 II is not and to get anywhere close to Fine Grain Release Positive which is what I assume the Fantome film to be you have to be more careful. It may be faster in its own tailor-made developer but it is more difficult to get the same quality of shots unless you are very careful

Have I got this correct Donald?

<snip>

Raghu has said that most users of CMS 20 II report its speed as being closer to 6 in other than the Adotech developer and yet Donald shot his CMS 20 II in Caffenol at 20 with no loss of film speed or problem with grayscale either. The problem I have is while there may be something special in the dedicated Adotech developer a speed boost of nearly 2 stop makes me a little sceptical about a speed of 6

It may be that Donald is much better/more careful over exposure than the average user which might suggest that CMS 20 II is much less forgiving than Fantome so Donald and Henning can I ask what you have to do in terms of exposure with CMS 20 II that is not required with say TMax or D100 and how difficult is it to achieve a full range of tones?

The example I posted didn't seem to me to be anything special, other than a demonstration that (old) CMS20 was capable of good to excellent tonality while maintaining the sharpness it was designed for. However, I did shoot at EI 20, metered with the built-in TTL meter in my Spotmatic (at that time, freshly repaired with Pentax 67 meter cells, which themselves are no longer available now). What I suspect makes the difference in film speed is method: I have only ever used Caffenol LC+C with reduced agitation. My time is 15 minutes, with agitation only every 3rd minute. The low agitation (just below the region often called "semi-stand") lets local exhaustion of the very "weak" developer rope in contrast while the long period in the developer lets the shadows develop as far as they're going to (or at least that's my hypothesis -- I haven't the equipment or degrees to test it well enough to consider it a fact). Essentially, the combination of the developer (my own modification of an ordinary Caffenol variant, specifically intended to control contrast in document films) gives much of the same effect as specialty developers like H&W Control (which I have mixed and used, and found very little if any speed increase over Caffenol LC+C in films like Imagelink HQ and Copex Rapid). Henning's differs from mine, I think, mainly in the subject -- instead of seeking the detail, hoping to get a large format look from miniature film, Henning went for a portrait, showing off a different quality of the film/developer combination.

I've never had much luck getting people (never mind stunningly beautiful people) to sit for me -- so I shoot for the subjects I have access to.

 

[Huss]

Thanks and you are right. It can be done although we in the U.K. get a lot less days of bright light than other areas like CA and large aperture are not always possible . I should have said that a drop to ISO 8 reduces exposure flexibility quite a lot. The point of my question prompted by my train of thought remains however. There has to be a counterbalancing advantage over a film that is ISO 20 to make up for that lack of exposure flexibility

pentaxuser

Of course. To be honest I am just having fun using all these different types of film. But if push came to shove, and I had to pick just one B&W film, it would be rated ISO 400...

 

[Henning Serger]

Did you use a flash for that hand held shot? Looking at the catchlights in the eyes and the shadows.

Yes I did. Nikon SB-800. But with significantly reduced power. Just a little fill-in light. I used it because of two reasons:
1. It was a very sunny day, around noon, with very harsh lighting. I wanted a softer, more even light.
2. I wanted that little catchlight in the eye. It looks more vivid and pleasing this way.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

There will be occasions where fill-in flash needed to improve shadow detail is not possible if it is a scene where the shadow detail is too far away for a flash to be effective but I think in those cases the important phrase is "less detail" in Z I, II and III and not "no detail" i.e. the print will not be "soot and whitewash" with little in between

Fill-in flash is probably one of the most overlooked / ignored techniques by current film photographers. Unfortunately. But it is one of the best and most powerful - and most easy to operate - techniques you can use to improve tonality in pictures. With my little compact Nikon SB-800 flashes it can be used even up to a distance range of about 20 meters.
If shodow detail in distances more far than 20 meters is needed I recommend for CMS 20 II using an Exposure index in the range of 3/6° to 6/9° (max 12/12°). You can further increase it by pre-flashing / diffuse pre-exposure (easily doable in the field with every camera that has a double-exposure function).
And then of course using the classic landscape photography techniques like reducing the overall contrast by a gradual filter or a polarisation filter.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Henning Serger: As you very nicely explained with the race car analogy, it might not make sense to use any developer other than Adox's own for getting the best results out of CMS 20 ii. However, when it comes to speed (and speed alone), it does seem from your posts that if one is unable or doesn't want to use fill flash, then the recommended EI is 3-6. Now, users who reported EI of ~6 with other developers might not have used fill flash and or pre-flashing. It remains open whether they can also get a speed close to 20 by using fill-flash and pre-flash. Have you or @Team ADOX done a test comparing Adox's developer with any of the known low contrast developers under identical exposure?

I shot CMS 20 II @ ISO 6 and developed in TMAX, looks great.

Nice! You might want to try EI:20 and incorporate Henning's suggestions on fill-flash and pre-flash.

 

[Henning Serger]

However, when it comes to speed (and speed alone), it does seem from your posts that if one is unable or doesn't want to use fill flash, then the recommended EI is 3-6. Now, users who reported EI of ~6 with other developers might not have used fill flash and or pre-flashing. It remains open whether they can also get a speed close to 20 by using fill-flash and pre-flash.

No, you can also use a bit higher EIs with acceptable compromise in shadow detail. Important is that you limit or reduce the overall contrast of the scene. As explained above, there are also other measures / tools like gradual filters, pol filters. Even a yellow / orange / red filter in landscape photography is sometimes helpful in this regard as it darkens the (light) sky and reduces the overall contrast. Adotech gives in general a compensating characteristic curve in the highlights - flattening the curve in Zone XIII to X. This also helps.

Have you done a test comparing Adox's developer with any of the known low contrast developers under identical exposure?

When ADOX CMS 20 II was introduced, I did lots of comparison tests with other developers. All of the standard developers I've tested (with the exception of Rodinal) failed at least in one category so badly, that I decided for me it doesn't make sense to use them. As said above, Rodinal can be used in higher dilutions and less agitation, and POTA and its derivates or certain Caffenol recipes did work as well. But the best overall performance - best balance of parameters - I've got with Adotech. And reversal processing in the Scala reversal process of professional lab Photo Studio 13 in Stuttgart, Germany (they also do international business and shipping) also worked very well. I will show some examples in the posts below.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

ADOX CMS 20 II, ISO 20/14°, no fill-in flash or preflashing, harsh direct sun in the summer, developed in Adotech, Nikon F6:

 

[Henning Serger]

ADOX CMS 20 II, ISO 20/14°, fast handheld snapshot on a classic-car meeting, Nikon F90X, developed in the Scala reversal process of Photo Studio 13 in Germany:

 

[Henning Serger]

ADOX CMS 20 II, ISO 20/14°, fast handheld snapshot on a classic-car meeting, Nikon F90X, developed in the Scala reversal process of Photo Studio 13 in Germany:

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Nice pictures Henning! Almost scarry how sharp they are!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Nice pictures Henning! Almost scarry how sharp they are!

If I did more 35mm I'd try some.

 

[Huss]

Some have said Eastman 5234 is the same as Lomo Fantome 8.
Well, my 5234 came in today, and it is obvious they are not the same:
Lomo on the left is purple, Eastman on the right is grey/black.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Lomo on the left is purple, Eastman on the right is grey/black.

The Lomo film looks very similar to Astrum's Mikrat Orto negative film in colour. Last year I bought some metres of Astrum film at approximately $1.25 per metre. There's not much to complain about the film except its slow speed. I think @paulbarden has also used this film and gotten some fantastic pictures from it. Is Lomo repackaging the same film?

 

[foc]

Some have said Eastman 5234 is the same as Lomo Fantome 8.
Well, my 5234 came in today, and it is obvious they are not the same:
Lomo on the left is purple, Eastman on the right is grey/black.

Can you show a photo of the Lomo film with the film tongue showing fully, please?
Does the tongue look like this. (note the notch at the end)?

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Ernst-Jan,

Nice pictures Henning! Almost scarry how sharp they are!

to really judge and enjoy them you to have to look at the originals!! At the prints and the slides.
This here are just massively reduced files of the less than 2MP (because of the given upload limitations here). If you want to have a look at the orginal drumscan files please contact me via conversation here.

Looking at pictures on computer monitors is the most worse thing we can do from a quality point of view. It is by far the worst presentation medium for photographs, because of its
- extremely low resolution; much much lower than the originals
- the complete lack of depth and three-dimensionality
- the lack of tonality, because monitors cannot deliver real halftones.

As film photographers the best we can do to get optimal quality is
- making prints via optical enlargement on silver-halide photo paper
- projection of slides.
These are the two best imaging chains with the lowest lost in quality.
And with digital files it is making prints with high-resolution printers, like the new Noritsu 600 dpi mini-lab printer for RA-4 paper.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Tom,

If I did more 35mm I'd try some.

with ADOX CMS 20 II in 35mm you surpass in most cases medium format quality with conventional standard films. With this film developed in Adotech I have reached the diffraction limit of my 50mm standard lenses at f5.6: about 240 lp/mm !! And that already at a relatively low object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). You would need a digital 35mm sensor with more than 190 (!!) megapixel to get that resolution in digital.

I do organise photographer meetings on a regular basis (well, before Corona of course......). And show my pictures and test results there. Often I do "blind tests": The audience don't know what materials I have used, and have to assess the quality just by evaluation of the prints / slides they are looking at. No influence at all by any information before the examination.
And I have often presented there optical prints from 35mm ADOX CMS 20 II and from medium format standard films. The audience should then pick the prints with the best detail rendition. So far in all these blind tests the photographers have all selected the CMS 20 II 35mm prints as the best. Always, no exceptions. And all thought theses photographs were made with medium format film.

Best regards,
Henning