Time development with Agfapan APX 100

[Photo-gear]

On the Massive Chart, there are two sets of time for Agfapan APX 100 (and for 400 too I assume), one for the old version and the other one for the "new" version.

I have one 100ft roll of Agfanpan APX 100 in the fridge (expiration time: 2010) and before using it, I was wondering how I could differentiate this roll from the "new" and the old version.

Massive Chart:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=APX+100&Developer=&mdc=Search

 

[Jim Noel]

You have a "New" roll.

 

[piu58]

Agfa never made different versions of APX. The last huge batch was coated in 2005, when Agfa Photo bankrupted. Agfa used the old recipes.

 

[Rhodes]

Rodinal 1:50 12m, the best!

 

[skahde]

I second Uwe: Agfa never changed APX100. So wherever different times are reported, take it with a grain of salt.

 

[David Lyga]

Maybe some will disagree but I have always found APX 100 to be an honest stop slower than 'standard' (ie, PX or TMAX 100 or FP4 +) ISO 100 films, with a commensurate increase in 'lack of grain' and acutance. More similar to Pan F, it needs less development than the 'standard' 100 ISO by about, say, 10% to 15%. I have determined this by closely monitoring shadow detail. - David Lyga

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Rodinal 1:50 12m, the best!

I've found this to be very close too:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38698047@N00/1366426720

 

[NB23]

David, if it's a stop slower, wouldn't it need extra development time?

 

[Photo-gear]

Even though the distinction is made by the Massive Chart?

 

[David Lyga]

NB23: No, it's a bit slower and gains contrast rapidly, thus needs a little less development time, just like Pan F needs less development time than does Plus X. - David Lyga

 

[NB23]

NB23: No, it's a bit slower and gains contrast rapidly, thus needs a little less development time, just like Pan F needs less development time than does Plus X. - David Lyga

Only if you overespose, otherwose you end up with an impossibly thin neg.

Lately I've been shooting apx100 at 50iso and developing it in rodinal. The results I get are extraordinary. Loving one's own results like this should be illegal!!

 

[David Lyga]

Yes, that is what I inferred, NB23. You, obviously, must (as you say) 'overexpose'. But when you think about it, if it is slower than ISO 100 you would not really be 'overexposing', would you? You would be CORRECTLY exposing, despite what the manufacturer says. Truisms are not always true. Sometimes we must take matters into our own hands.

In summation, rate at EI 50. - David Lyga