replacement for APX 100???

What film currently manufactured do you think is closest to the characteristics of Agfa APX 100? What about Fuji Acros 100?

Tmax 100 is the closest except it's a full stop slower to achieve the same tonality. I used the two extensively for about 12 years, same dev times, same tonality, sharpness etc just the speed difference APX100 is/was a full 100 ISO emulsion whereas Tmax 100 is really 50, which was the recommended EI in the Kodak data sheets for full tonality.

Ian

Are any places still selling Rollei Retro 100 - isn't that actually repackaged old stock APX 100? or something like that?

RB

Ps. I miss APX 100 as well. Esp for male portraiture. Love the carved out of metal look I got with it in the upper mids. I do agree that various ways of shooting/processing TMX can get you really close (I use TMX for just about everything now with various treatments - it is a very flexible film)

I want to do a lot more work on it, but I'm really happy with Rollei Retro 100 as well as the 80s especially. I suggest starting there.
Ian offers great advice too, that's a guy who knows!

rwboyer said:

Love the carved out of metal look I got with it in the upper mids.

Click to expand...

Me too. I don't know other film with that look. Luckily I still have some APX 100 in the fridge and Fotoimpex still has it in stock. I just printed some negatives in the darkroom and this film keeps amazing me.

I think I heard that Fomapan Creative 200 exposed at E.I. 100-125 has similar look, just search the forums. I'm going to try it in 4x5.

Ian Grant said:

...Tmax 100 is really 50, which was the recommended EI in the Kodak data sheets for full tonality.

Click to expand...

Where did you find THAT in the datasheet...?

cmo said:

Where did you find THAT in the datasheet...?

Click to expand...

I don't know about the Kodak datasheet, but half rated ISO is a good rule of thumb for me.

Fomapan 100 is supposed to look similar to APX 100.

Why change ?

Why change at all there is plenty available - I get mine from here
http://www.mailshotsuk.co.uk

didn't see any 120

I disagree with Ian re the tonality of APX100 and Tmax 100. I do not like Tmax 100 one bit but loved APX 100! Tmax is much finer grained and will not respond the way APX did with rodinal or other acutance developers due to the extremely low grain and IMHO inherently poor acutance. APX was odd in that it went from smooth as a baby's botty in Xtol to crisp and hard in Rodinal in a much more polarised way than say Fp4+. Foma 100 is the same. Its great in rodinal and the grain also vanises in Xtol 1+something such that it ends up far finer grained in that brew than Fp4+.

+/- with foma 100:

QC can be iffy.
thin and negs pop easily if you dont use double glass carrier
35mm dries flat as a pancake
120 on blue polyester base that curls like a party streamer.
35mm dries with drying marks no matter what I do (I cannot get distilled water here), so I dry off the back with kitchen towel when I hang it and get perfect negs
A bit slower than APX. I rate it about 1/3-1/2 stop slower than FP4+.
If you were a rodinal user, I really would go for Foma 100 as a good match.

I don't think TMX has anything to do with APX100, and neither does acros. I don't see the similarity it all, in fact I would consider them examples of how different two films could be. Foma and Plus-X are the closest I've come to replacing APX100, and the foma is quite slow.

FWIW TMX is also a 50 speed film for me even though TMY is a good solid 400.

Why not just use APX 100 ?
http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/agfa-film-re-introduced-in-north-america/

cmo said:

Where did you find THAT in the datasheet...?

Click to expand...

On about the 3rd page of the original printed version that I've kept back in the UK.

Ian

Bijesh said:

Why not just use APX 100 ?
http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/agfa-film-re-introduced-in-north-america/

Click to expand...

Because it's not available, in 120 and sheet film sizes. I switched to Tmax when Agfa dropped it in sheet film sizes

Ian

I believe the Rollei Retro 80S is the "new" APX 100. You can get it in 120, 127 as well.

http://macodirect.de/rollei-retro-c-1_6_56_479.html

ninjarider said:

I believe the Rollei Retro 80S is the "new" APX 100. You can get it in 120, 127 as well.

Click to expand...

There is not the slightest similarity between APX 100 and the relabeled Agfa Aviphot 80 aerial film:

#1: APX 100 has a normal base, Aviphot has a polyester base, e.g. it is mainly made for automatic machine processing. To make this more fun, Aviphot comes in two different thicknesses, 0.10mm or 0.06mm. Normal 35mm film has ca. 0.14mm, Tech Pan had 0.10mm. Let's hope the relabeling factory knows about the difference.

#2: APX 100 has a normal, panchromatic emulsion and renders colors into black and white in a normal way. Aviphot 80 has a reduced sensitivity for blue and a higher sensitivity for red, and that creates a totally different image. And there is more:
- Our lightmeters do not have the same spectral sensitivity, most of them are probably calibrated for normal films.
- I could not even guess what happens by using filters because the exposure factor engraved on the filters will simply not fit.

So, no matter what the marketing bla tells us, this film is NOT a child of APX 100, it's a distant relative.

cmo: Thanks, If I read the product info it confirms your "extra red" sensitivity:

"Extended red sensitivity up to 750 nm, and therefore also capable for infrared photography."

So, not a "normal" B&W film then...

cmo said:

#2: APX 100 has a normal, panchromatic emulsion and renders colors into black and white in a normal way. Aviphot 80 has a reduced sensitivity for blue and a higher sensitivity for red, and that creates a totally different image. And there is more:
- Our lightmeters do not have the same spectral sensitivity, most of them are probably calibrated for normal films.
- I could not even guess what happens by using filters because the exposure factor engraved on the filters will simply not fit.

Click to expand...

This "normal" is hard to define. If one looks at the the IlfordPhoto curves (wedge spectrograms though), the curve for the Kodak T-Max 400, or the Fuji Neopan Acros one will see reduced blue sensitivity too.

Sure. But how strong is that? Their red sensitivity is normal, and they are somewhat normal films in all other respects.

I am speaking about the relation blue/red peaks. There are films with an upswing of the curve in the blue section, rising above the red peak, there are films with blue and red peak at one level, and films with blue sensitivity lower than the red one.

Of course you are right that all current production b&w Agfa camera films have extended red sensitivity wavelength-wise.

BetterSense said:

I don't think TMX has anything to do with APX100, and neither does acros. I don't see the similarity it all, in fact I would consider them examples of how different two films could be. Foma and Plus-X are the closest I've come to replacing APX100, and the foma is quite slow.

FWIW TMX is also a 50 speed film for me even though TMY is a good solid 400.

Click to expand...

Just a note on the TMX and APX films - Way way way back my standard slow film was panatomic-x I reluctantly switched to TMX when Kodak discontinued Panatomic-X and slowly surely just like any film learned to make it respond to what I needed/wanted. Looking back I still have a fondness for Panatomic-X but in reality TMX was a more than worth replacement and is supremely flexible in ways that Panatomic-X was not. So... Time marches on...

In the 80's and 90's my medium speed films were PXP and APX 100 - a practice that I usually avoid for simplicity's sake - and yes both PXP and APX 100 are faster than TMX in the developers I use. I really liked APX 100 for some subjects as I mentioned before but... To my eyes PXP and APX were totally different beasts in terms of spectral sensitivity, curve, etc. Again with my developers.

When APX went away I found ways of making TMX do what my APX 100 used to do for me - yes it is a bit slower but for me has the flexibility to more or less do the things in the upper mid tones and highlights that APX 100 used to do for me. I think that TMX's reputation of only having one look is not at all accurate or deserved. I have found it to be one of the most flexible films I have ever used - ever. As long as you can deal with the speed range not only can you manipulate the CI to an idiotic degree compared to other emulsions but.... Unlike a lot of other films it is not too hard to manipulate the curve shape either.

If TMX is not giving you that "bite" that APX used to in Rodinal (and I do know what you are talking about here) I would suggest that you try a really high acutance developer for TMX - personally I use a home brew pyro/elon developer that can give you as much bite as you can possibly stand. Hence TMX can be a a reasonable substitute for what you liked about APX in Rodinal but you probably will not dial it in in the first try nor will it happen using the same thing you used to use with APX.

RB

Ps. It took me a while when Panatomic-X was dropped to stop complaining about TMX but eventually I saw the light.

I have Rollei Retro 100 (not the 80s version) in 120. Got it at B&H. Currently hanging in my bathroom, practically curled itself into a tube.

That type 120 conversion has no backcoating.

I swear when I posted that just a week ago, I double-checked to make sure Rollei Retro in 120 was still available. Lo and behold--today I look again and it is discontinued. Not on Freestyle (where it was still available at some point in the fall, but at least a month ago that it was no longer there) or at B&H, where I am pretty sure it was still listed as available one week ago. I have 9 rolls left. I feel like this keeps happening!--only got 5 rolls left of 400UC, etc. Guess I'll try the Fomapan this week. Haven't shot TMX in years, quite a bit pricier than re-branded Fomapan so I'm hoping that one works out.