Wasn't it said to be Kentmere 100?
If you're talking about AGFAPHOTO (and NOT Agfapan )APX 100 - I used to use it all the time. It is widely believed to be repackaged Kentmere 100. Either way, it's fantastic stuff. It used to be drugstore film in a few countries here in the EU and was widely available and extremely cheap. For example I saw it in Germany sold for 4 Euro or so until a couple of years ago. Unbeatable at that price. Now it's shot up to almost double that on the high street, so it makes more sense to just buy bulk Kentmere 100 or Foma 100/200 from online retailers.
Solid stuff, sadly the naming backfired a bit, because whenever it gets mentioned online someone will attempt to draw a comparison with the 'old/legendary' AgfaPAN 100. I wasn't around when that film was popular so the comparison is meaningless to me. All I know is that I enjoy Agfaphoto APX 100.
Here's a couple of negative scans. I don't use or know Pyro I'm afraid, but I like how the film looks in my (linear, flat, raw) negative scanning workflow using sulphite developers (D76 1+1) and Rodinal 1:50 regularly inverted (not stand, not semistand)
Agfaphoto APX 100 in an Olympus OM2n + Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 (if I remember correctly)
Did it backfire? Surely the reason AgfaPhoto was chosen as the name was that new users would think that it was like the legendary AgfaPanSolid stuff, sadly the naming backfired a bit, because whenever it gets mentioned online someone will attempt to draw a comparison with the 'old/legendary' AgfaPAN 100.
In my memory the old Agfapan 25 was legendary. The APX line was a bit too bright for me, or how can I explain, it was as if the midtones weren’t at the party, very thin negatives too. But I do not recognize this at all in these scans: beautifull!
Yes! But as others pointed out above, it is not at all certain that the APX which is now on the market is the same film as the last APX line made by AGFA themselves
?! Nobody even came close to saying that this is the same film as former APX produces by Agfa.
Thank you Otto. When you say APX, are we talking about the same film? To clarify, this is the film I was talking about and to which the examples above refer:
That version seems to have "Made in EU" on the top side of the box.
Which might mean it is n old illustration of a product that can no longer say that, because of Brexit.
Or it may mean that it is an entirely different product.
FWIW, I have used the Rollei RPX100 and found it to be virtually identical to Kentmere 100, right down to the base dye. I expect the "Agfa" product is also in this family of films.
Well spotted on the 'made in the EU'. I wonder what the implications, if any, are.
Only two threads from this one is a thread with a list by Film Niko on which films are made by or are identical to other named films. It is worth a look
pentaxuser
OK GregY It was just that retina-restoration said this :
"FWIW, I have used the Rollei RPX100 and found it to be virtually identical to Kentmere 100, right down to the base dye. I expect the "Agfa" product is also in this family of films"
You thanked him for the response and all I was trying to do was to say why his response was what it was. Namely that according to Film-Niko the films are identical so any time you see someone giving their experience with Kentmere you can take it that this pertains to Rollei RPX 100 as well. At the same time I thought I'd say what other films Film-Niko also mentioned that were identical to other non manufactured films whose difference is simply the name it has
If this information is of no value or little value to you then that's fine as well. I'll try and remember this as there's no point in me responding if it not required or helpful
pentaxuser
I was actually more interested in what development & printing results people had, than in the who-made-it & what does the print on the box say. What are its characteristics? How does it hold shadow detail? Does it in any way resemble the lost & lamented Silvermax 100? What developer did you find worked best? Do you like it more/less than FP4+ for example. Has it become your favourite 100 iso film. It seems it hasn't made much impact on the market
That may be, but still it does not compare to what was APX. It is not APX so the labeling is nothing less than fraud. If it is a good emulsion why not simply sell it as what it is instead of suggesting it is something better?
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?