Time development with Agfapan APX 100

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Photo-gear, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. Photo-gear

    Photo-gear Member

    Messages:
    355
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Location:
    Montréal (Qu
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
  2. Jim Noel

    Jim Noel Member

    Messages:
    2,165
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    You have a "New" roll.
     
  3. piu58

    piu58 Member

    Messages:
    805
    Joined:
    May 29, 2006
    Location:
    Leipzig, Ger
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Agfa never made different versions of APX. The last huge batch was coated in 2005, when Agfa Photo bankrupted. Agfa used the old recipes.
     
  4. Rhodes

    Rhodes Member

    Messages:
    493
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Location:
    Figueira da
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Rodinal 1:50 12m, the best!
     
  5. skahde

    skahde Member

    Messages:
    427
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Location:
    Germany
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I second Uwe: Agfa never changed APX100. So wherever different times are reported, take it with a grain of salt.
     
  6. David Lyga

    David Lyga Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,943
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
  7. Richard S. (rich815)

    Richard S. (rich815) Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,954
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  8. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    David, if it's a stop slower, wouldn't it need extra development time?
     
  9. Photo-gear

    Photo-gear Member

    Messages:
    355
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Location:
    Montréal (Qu
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Even though the distinction is made by the Massive Chart?
     
  10. David Lyga

    David Lyga Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,943
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 3, 2012
  11. NB23

    NB23 Member

    Messages:
    1,072
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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!!
     
  12. David Lyga

    David Lyga Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,943
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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