What is the status of Scala 160/Silvermax 100?

[Film-Niko]

Which would be your preferred option? I liked Silvermax very much.

The best successor for Silvermax is the ADOX CHS 100 II, because the spectral sensitivity is almost identical. Sharpness is also identical. And I could not find significant differences in resolution either.
I have made optical prints of 24x30cm size of Silvermax and CHS 100 II of the same subject made under identical conditions. And then showed these prints to other very experienced photographers of my local photo group.
All of them had huge difficulties in differentiating the prints, and identifying the films. Because they are so close.

Therefore I will continue the series I have started on Silvermax with CHS 100 II. Because it just works. I keep calm, and carry on.......

 

[m00dawg]

I'll need to go back and look at my Silvermax negs. I found CHS ii in 35mm to be more grainy than I expected. I may have mis-exposed though. CHS looked a bit more vintage to me than Silvermax? Definitely not an A/B though and I never made film curves of the Silvermax I had to say one way or another.

CHS 100 ii though is a beautiful film! It's my favorite for large format photography souped in XT3. I do want to try CHS in D23 now that I've been playing around with mixing D23 from scratch just to see. Quite a nice film though! And I applaud Adox for being able to bring it to market. I believe this is "their own" film top to bottom? As in it is made entirely in house?

 

[Henning Serger]

I'll need to go back and look at my Silvermax negs. I found CHS ii in 35mm to be more grainy than I expected.

I tested both films in my standardized scientific film test programme under exact identical conditions. In comparison CHS 100 II is indeed a little bit grainier, but the difference is not so big that it worries me (especially as I want some grain when using this film; for my subjects when extremely fine grain is needed I have Delta 100 and Acros II in that sensitivity class).
Sharpness is on the same level. And concerning resolution I could find a very slight advantage (5-10%) to Silvermax. But to see this difference a 100x magnification (under the microscope) was needed. So for practical reasons, in daily photography even with very big prints you will not see a significant difference in resolution.
Also the spectral sensitivity is so very close that you won't be able to see differences in the prints.
Therefore CHS 100 II is the best solution for the Silvermax users when their stock is depleted. And CHS 100 II also works very well as an Agfa APX 100 (the real one from Agfa Germany production) and Kodak Plus X replacement.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[JPD]

Therefore CHS 100 II is the best solution for the Silvermax users when their stock is depleted. And CHS 100 II also works very well as an Agfa APX 100 (the real one from Agfa Germany production) and Kodak Plus X replacement.

I'm far from a scientist, but when I test a film in a new developer I take a couple of photos with different exposures, +3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 (0 = the rated ISO), and then I guess the developing time, and afterwards I look at the negatives. I tested Efke 100 and APX 100 this way and developed in Agfa 44, and I was surprised that the differences in the Efke 100 negatives were small. It was a very forgiving film compared to APX 100. The Adox CHS II is very similar to Efke 100 but of higher quality and I think the grain is a little finer.