PDA

View Full Version : New at Photokina 2012: ADOX SILVERMAX 35mm film 135/36



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

cmo
09-10-2012, 07:57 AM
And you trust every person who is not MACO?

No, that was just a pun to say that I have more trust in every other vendor. Maybe you don't like my humour.


Aren't you naive?

No. I don't fall easily for marketing bla. If I were naive my last sentences above would be different, more like the nonsense that claqueur trolls post in forums.


Fotokemika has just announced the ceasing of their production, and a few days later, a new film is announced to replace the ISO 100 !

Do you know how a film is made, and how long maturation is?

Please, think twice !

Do you?

Well, Photokina is 'fun' every two years. They found a good point of time for the announcement. The death of Plus-X would have been another good opportunity. At least they don't call it "the APX successor" or make similar use of other companies' achievements.

I guess it won't be as cheap as the last remainings of APX. They will not only max the silver content but also the price if they can show it's better.

georg16nik
09-10-2012, 08:11 AM
Aurelien,
If You want to story-tell your mind to Adox (or any other company)..this is the wrong thread, many of us, film enthusiast, would not understand You properly.
Lets try the film first, then talk/conspire, OK?

Thanks

MDR
09-10-2012, 08:12 AM
Actually they do, Mirko called it a modified version of APX, this means APX successor, does it not. Marketing is lies I don't trust Maco's marketing nor do I believe in the Fairy Godmother. More Silver than original APX means different than original APX.

Dominik

ath
09-10-2012, 08:21 AM
If this film is a modified APX100 it might be the closest thing to APX100 we have today.
Personally I'm not interested in APX100 (too grainy for my taste) and the need to use the special developer to get the claimed advantages is a minus for me.
If the (claimed) finer grain is achievable with standard developers like XTOL, I might test it and see if I like the combination of image and price.

Michel Hardy-Vallée
09-10-2012, 09:29 AM
OK, let's stop bickering about the pointless and complicated life of eastern European photo companies, and think about the film instead.

I'll repeat what I posted on other forums, but I don't see the point of this film.

It sounds interesting in theory, but what's the point of having 14 zones if your paper can't print them all?

All photographic films can be already be developed to cover a range of densities that is commensurate with the exposure range of a paper. That's why you can have full black, full white, and all the grey tones in between.

So what are you going to do? Develop to a lower contrast? But then you'll end up with the same Dmax as any other film, and bad tone separation.

You don't need extra zones to print silver gelatin. The only reason I know to have film developed to a very high Dmax is when you are printing on a soft-contrast paper, such as platinum/palladium, Van Dyke brown, etc.

But these processes are mostly sensitive to UV light, and are very slow, which preclude enlargement printing, unless you have a UV-source light in your enlarger. 35mm contact prints are a bit tiny.

It could be a film designed to do slides (in which case you do need the extra Dmax); it could also be a film designed to do copy work (like the late Tech Pan, which could build an impressive contrast), but I see nothing to this effect in the press release.

I smell a gimmick.

ath
09-10-2012, 09:33 AM
It sounds interesting in theory, but what's the point of having 14 zones if your paper can't print them all?


For me the point is burning in e.g. a sky.
But so far Acros and Delta 100 had more that sufficient headroom for this.

Michel Hardy-Vallée
09-10-2012, 01:29 PM
For me the point is burning in e.g. a sky.
But so far Acros and Delta 100 had more that sufficient headroom for this.

Good point--but as you say, current films can build enough density before hitting the shoulder in the H&D curve.

I expect something about the murky concept of "tonality" to soon pop up as explanation...

Michael R 1974
09-10-2012, 01:59 PM
This might be a minor point, but FP4+, HP5+, Delta, TMX/TMY, Tri-X, Acros etc can all hold "14 zones" of exposure. And Acros develops to very high densities/highlight contrast before shouldering, even with soft development. So this business about "silver rich" should be taken with a grain of salt. It may or may not be a fine film, but the hype is suspect.

DREW WILEY
09-10-2012, 03:43 PM
There's a distinction between a film being able to hold a long range of values due to compression ("minus" and/or compensating development with its inevitable compression of midtone microcontrast)
and a film which will actually carry a very wide range of values upon a relative straight part of the
curve. To my knowledge, the only current ultrafine-grained film which will do this is the now defunct
Efke 25 (about 12 stops). Otherwise, you're speaking about old-school thick-emulsion coarse films like Super-XX, Bergger 200, and Fomapan 200. I obviously have no idea of how the new film in question factors into this.

DREW WILEY
09-10-2012, 03:47 PM
Oh, and Michel - tonality is the name of the game. The distinction I just referred to makes a significant difference in real world printing. There's nothing murky about it. And no, you can't do the
same kind of thing with Delta 100 or ACROS etc (fine films in their own right, but not the same kind
of thing at all).

zsas
09-10-2012, 03:55 PM
There's a distinction between a film being able to hold a long range of values due to compression ("minus" and/or compensating development with its inevitable compression of midtone microcontrast)
and a film which will actually carry a very wide range of values upon a relative straight part of the
curve. To my knowledge, the only current ultrafine-grained film which will do this is the now defunct
Efke 25 (about 12 stops). Otherwise, you're speaking about old-school thick-emulsion coarse films like Super-XX, Bergger 200, and Fomapan 200. I obviously have no idea of how the new film in question factors into this.



Drew - Forgive my basic question, but when you say compression are you talking about a traditional film (eg PanF+, Tri-X) vs a tabular (Tmax, Delta, Acros)? If yes, do you think this new film is a traditional film (I believe Mirko said it was based on APX100)?

ADOX Fotoimpex
09-10-2012, 04:53 PM
It could be a film designed to do slides (in which case you do need the extra Dmax); it could also be a film designed to do copy work (like the late Tech Pan, which could build an impressive contrast), but I see nothing to this effect in the press release.

Taken from our press release:

"SILVERMAX is coated onto clear triacetate and can be reversal processed"

So, yes, this is ofcourse one of the reasons for the extra silver and DMAX.
We tried to make a film for good negative and reversal processing.

Mirko

ADOX Fotoimpex
09-10-2012, 05:00 PM
Wish they hadn't told us about it until they had some for sale. The suspense is too much!


Bruce,

this is an annoncement one week prior to the release of the film at Photokina.
Ofcourse I could have released it the day Photokina starts, but the whole point is to attract people to our booth at the show so I figured one week ahead wouldn´t hurt ;-)
I am typing this while the machines are spooling in a night shift....

Mirko

DREW WILEY
09-10-2012, 05:41 PM
Zsas - no, compression is related to how one develops the film to obtain lower overall contrast. But
doing so with most films will simply result in a loss to perceptible contrast in the shadows and midtones, unless one is resorting to something like platinum printing. If you give ordinary development
to a typical film like FP4, for example, for an extremely contrasty scene, it means little to have a certain amt of information at the extremes if it becomes almost impossible to print them by ordinary
means. Tabular versus traditional grain has nothing to do with this. TMYT400 is a tabular grain film
with a very long straight line way down into the low shadows, Delta 100 is not (being mainly a mid to
high value film with a long toe versus a straight line in the lower section). I'm not implying that one
of these films is "better" than another. It's nice to have a real selection. But extreme contrast scenes present a particular set of problems.

Felinik
09-10-2012, 05:54 PM
I am typing this while the machines are spooling in a night shift....

Mirko


Bulk rolls?

Price?

:)

Michel Hardy-Vallée
09-10-2012, 07:44 PM
Taken from our press release:

"SILVERMAX is coated onto clear triacetate and can be reversal processed"

So, yes, this is ofcourse one of the reasons for the extra silver and DMAX.
We tried to make a film for good negative and reversal processing.

Mirko

Ah, I stand corrected, and that makes indeed sense.

Michel Hardy-Vallée
09-10-2012, 08:00 PM
There's a distinction between a film being able to hold a long range of values due to compression ("minus" and/or compensating development with its inevitable compression of midtone microcontrast)
and a film which will actually carry a very wide range of values upon a relative straight part of the
curve.

I'm going to try to reformulate what you said in terms of characteristic curve.

Let's say we have film A, which is "a film being able to hold a long range of values due to compression."

Compressed development only means that the 14 zones of exposure translate into a density range that is printable on a given grade of paper following less development than normal.

If you develop film A normally, unless the 14th zone of exposure reaches the shoulder (in which case it will be unprintable because it will be undistinguishable from the nearby 13th zone of exposure), you will have 14 zones of exposure nicely lined up on the straight line of the characteristic curve, you will have excellent tone separation, but totally unprintable highlights. Which will require you to either a) burn down the highlights or b) print on a soft contrast paper (silver gelatin 00, platinum, etc).

There is no such thing as film B, which would be "a film which will actually carry a very wide range of values upon a relative straight part of the
curve" that is distinct from film A, because it's ALREADY film A.

If you have a film such as "film B" then you could very well end up with unprintable highlights. Unless it's inherently a low contrast film. In which case you only need to develop it normally for it to translate a 14 zone exposure range into a printable density range.

The only advantage of such a film compared to a typical film undergoing reduced development is if its curve happens to be more nicely SHAPED than the curve of a normal film developed less than normal.

I know that some compression/expansion regimens, even though they allow one to fit 14 zones of exposure range onto a grade 2 paper, might give unsatisfactory results because of the SHAPE of the resulting characteristic curve.

So, if this film is a "killer app" for something, it would be because it has an interesting characteristic curve SHAPE for a situation in which one needs to translate 14 stops of exposure range into a printable density range, without the need for burning in, and by avoiding some side-effects (distortion of the characteristic curve).

But until I see densitometric data from ADOX, I will just stay with the fact that this film might be great for B&W reversal; in the absence of a characteristic curve, we're left with vague concepts.

ADOX Fotoimpex
09-11-2012, 01:29 AM
It sounds interesting in theory, but what's the point of having 14 zones if your paper can't print them all?

it´s a 35mm film. Usually in shooting 35mm you end up with a lot of different contrast situations on the same roll.
The more your film can capture in the first place, the more you can later decide what to bring to your paper (by burning and dodging).
Also "some" people scan today nd the chips can capture this range. The film is especially well suited for scanning due to it´s clear base.
And last but not least, as mentioned above, if developed to a transparency, in the projection you can see it all.

Mirko

georg16nik
09-11-2012, 08:29 AM
Mirko, Thanks for the effort with this film and the updates!!!
The news about it came right on time!


There's a distinction between a film being able to hold a long range of values due to compression ("minus" and/or compensating development with its inevitable compression of midtone microcontrast)
and a film which will actually carry a very wide range of values upon a relative straight part of the
curve. To my knowledge, the only current ultrafine-grained film which will do this is the now defunct
Efke 25 (about 12 stops). ...

Drew, Agfa Copex Rapid made by Agfa-Gevaert can hold 14 stops (if You need), on top of that., Copex Rapid is finer grained and sharper than Efke 25 and is faster.

I expect Adox Silvermax to be like a faster brother to Copex Rapid and having its own character.

Henning Serger
09-11-2012, 03:12 PM
Who was this film manufactured by? Was it made at Fotokemika before the accident?

Hello Patrick,

no, it has not been made by Fotokemika. This film is one result of the cooperation between Adox and InovisCoat.

The film is currently in the test phase here in my lab. First results look good. The spectral sensivity of this film is identical to the Agfa APX 100.

Best regards,
Henning