Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,904   Posts: 1,521,237   Online: 1086
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    CMS 20 and Spur developer is best match, shoot at less than ISO 10.
    Most scanners would be challenged to scan CMS20 negative at best, so most of what You see on the net is not even close to the real result on negative (or decent optical print).

    As Uwe mentioned Agfa Copex Rapid is another option, much faster and exceptional scale.

    These are the 2 films Zeiss AG Camera Lens Division are using to benchmark their optics.
    Regards,
    Georg

  2. #12
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    People usually disagree with me on this film but I will give you my two cents based on the testing I've done with it (35mm only).

    5. No matter what developer and process you use, these films do not have long exposure scales. Therefore they are best used under low to medium-low contrast conditions.

    6. **I have never seen an example (scan, print etc) that looks like it was made with anything other than a high contrast copy/document film. Shadow detail is always poor, and highlights are blank. People will tell you the high resolution and ultra-fine grain of films like Tech Pan, CMS20 etc can make 35mm negatives print like medium or large format. But I have never seen any evidence of this. In practice these films promise much more than they deliver. If you value tonality, you are much better off with a general purpose fine grained film such as TMax 100. Even if you could take advantage of the high resolution capability of CMS20, there is a lot more to image quality than resolution.**

    Hope this helps.
    Hi Michael,

    I've read several comments about Agfa Copex Rapid having excellent tonality, is this an exaggeration ? Is it more similar to Techpan or Tmax ?

    Paul

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,532
    Much more similar to Tech Pan than TMax. That is not to say it is all that similar to Tech Pan, just that it bears zero similarity to TMax (or any other medium speed general purpose film for that matter - I just used TMax 100 as an example because it is the finest grained general purpose film I know of).

    "Excellent tonality" is highly subjective, and also relative. Perhaps relative to CMS20, Copex Rapid has excellent tonality. But any general purpose film will spank it. Note also the exposure scale is very important - ie how long a subject luminance range the film can record/render.

    I think it is important for people to see the "big picture" here. When you use a film like Tech Pan, or Copex, or CMS20 or Imagelink etc for general photography, you are working against the film. That is, you are using it for purposes for which it wasn't really designed. People want to try to make these films work because they are exceedingly fine grained. But you don't get something for nothing. In exchange for micro-fine grain you get relatively poor, harsh tonality, a short exposure scale, abysmal speed, odd spectral responses (Tech Pan for example), and zero flexibility.

    This is not to say you shouldn't use these films, and I've seen some good examples here and there - but these have always been examples that made use of the inherent high contrast properties of the film. They might be useful for very low contrast subjects, special effects etc. But when it comes to the notion you can substitute these films for general purpose films and make prints from smaller negatives look like they were made from larger negatives, not gonna happen.

    All I can suggest is try them for yourself. Do some careful testing, expose and process very carefully, and decide if they give you the results you want. Everyone sees things differently so they might work perfectly well for you.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 02-26-2013 at 01:16 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: typo

  4. #14
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Much more similar to Tech Pan than TMax. That is not to say it is all that similar to Tech Pan, just that it bears zero similarity to TMax (or any other medium speed general purpose film for that matter - I just used TMax 100 as an example because it is the finest grained general purpose film I know of).

    "Excellent tonality" is highly subjective, and also relative. Perhaps relative to CMS20, Copex Rapid has excellent tonality. But any general purpose film will spank it. Note also the exposure scale is very important - ie how long a subject luminance range the film can record/render.

    I think it is important for people to see the "big picture" here. When you use a film like Tech Pan, or Copex, or CMS20 or Imagelink etc for general photography, you are working against the film. That is, you are using it for purposes for which it wasn't really designed. People want to try to make these films work because they are exceedingly fine grained. But you don't get something for nothing. In exchange for micro-fine grain you get relatively poor, harsh tonality, a short exposure scale, abysmal speed, odd spectral responses (Tech Pan for example), and zero flexibility.

    This is not to say you shouldn't use these films, and I've seen some good examples here and there - but these have always been examples that made use of the inherent high contrast properties of the film. They might be useful for very low contrast subjects, special effects etc. But when it comes to the notion you can substitute these films for general purpose films and make prints from smaller negatives look like they were made from larger negatives, not gonna happen.

    All I can suggest is try them for yourself. Do some careful testing, expose and process very carefully, and decide if they give you the results you want. Everyone sees things differently so they might work perfectly well for you.
    It seems most people using these document films are only concerned with resolution; most of the examples on the net show a problem with contrast.

    I wanted to test a few rolls of Rollei/Agfa Retro 80s but my RLS developer was DOA. Several people have compared Retro 80s it to APX 25 - I'm curious to see the results. Do you have any experience with this film ?

    Paul

  5. #15
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    584
    > Copex Rapid having excellent tonality, is this an exaggeration
    No. With SPUR developer Copex works fine and has a good tonality. What you sacrify, however, is the flexibility of conventional films. But ther is no "contrast problem" anymore with that dev.

    > When you use a film like ... Copex, or CMS20.., you are working against the film.
    Yes, that is right. But the SPUR dev ist the solution at least for copex. It is quite expansive, of course. But Copex + spur is an all purpose combination. You have real 40 asa what is not too far away form the widely used 100 asa film (which may have 50..80 asa in reality). And you have a good tonality.

    BTW, I found Agfa Avi Pan 80 = Rollei Retro 80s having not much more grain than copex. But with that film you have a chance subduing it with conventional devs. And you have additional the IR capability. RR80s is my reason for leaving copex.
    Last edited by piu58; 02-26-2013 at 11:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,532
    Quote Originally Posted by fatso View Post
    It seems most people using these document films are only concerned with resolution; most of the examples on the net show a problem with contrast.

    I wanted to test a few rolls of Rollei/Agfa Retro 80s but my RLS developer was DOA. Several people have compared Retro 80s it to APX 25 - I'm curious to see the results. Do you have any experience with this film ?

    Paul
    Well, resolution is only one component of sharpness, and plays a relatively small role in overall subjective print quality. This is not to say resolution isn't important. But it's not as though general purpose medium speed films have poor resolution. On the contrary. So when comparing something like TMX to CMS20, what we're really talking about is high resolution versus ultra-high resolution. Further, can we actually take advantage of the very high resolution of a film like CMS20 beyond shooting a 2 dimensional target on an optical bench? Consider all the variables involved in making an actual photograph. Subject depth, tiny focusing errors, flatness variations at the film plane, vibration, enlarger alignment etc all conspire to obliterate lines per mm.

    I have not used the specific Rollei film you mentioned so I can't comment on it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine - Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    304
    Ultra high resolution is interesting when you can shoot with an excellent lens wide or almost wide open. Going down in aperture the resolution went down quickly. All micro films have a problem in high contrast light situations. Good results I had with the Rollei Retro 80s E.I. 50 with different developers. For a cubical type film the grain is extremely small. Recommended and available in 135-36, 30,5m/100ft and 120 roll film.
    My favorite store: http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl

  8. #18
    fatso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Well, resolution is only one component of sharpness, and plays a relatively small role in overall subjective print quality. This is not to say resolution isn't important. But it's not as though general purpose medium speed films have poor resolution. On the contrary. So when comparing something like TMX to CMS20, what we're really talking about is high resolution versus ultra-high resolution. Further, can we actually take advantage of the very high resolution of a film like CMS20 beyond shooting a 2 dimensional target on an optical bench? Consider all the variables involved in making an actual photograph. Subject depth, tiny focusing errors, flatness variations at the film plane, vibration, enlarger alignment etc all conspire to obliterate lines per mm.

    I have not used the specific Rollei film you mentioned so I can't comment on it.
    TMAX/XTOL so far seems to offer the best combination of overall tonality and fine grain. I tried some Rollei Pan 25 and my results are mixed. I don't find the grain any finer and the quality control of the emulsion is pretty poor and the film is terribly curly, though the comparison may not entirely be fair since the Pan 25 was developed in Rodinal. The TMAX was definitely finer grained than Delta 100/D76... As fine grained as the TMAX is my lenses are still out-resolving the film and looking back at my old APX 25 and Techpan negative they have 'significantly' more detail.

    I shot a few rolls of Retro 80S over the weekend - when my RLS developer arrives I'll post some results...


    Paul

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Ukraine - Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    304
    I shot a few rolls of Retro 80S over the weekend - when my RLS developer arrives I'll post some results...
    RLS/CG-512 is an ultrafine grain type developer which should be used on 24C. So for an acurate processing you need a Jobo processor or something like that. And like all ultra fine grain type developers you have to over-expose the film +1F stop which means an E.I. 25-32 for the Retro 80S film.
    My favorite store: http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    3. Adotech I was not a very good developer, in particular because uniformity was terrible. People argued with me on this, citing the claims Adotech I was "perfectly matched" to CMS20. Since Adox then reformulated it, my guess is it was not "perfectly" matched after all. I have not tried Adotech II. Hopefully it is better. I would try that first.
    If that is your reasoning then you may be mistaken. Adotech was probably matched for batches of CMS20. I have used CMS 20 in 120 format and I remember when I bought my first rolls Freestyle had a big warning on their website to only use Adotech I with 35mm CMS 20. They told us to wait for Adotech II for our 120 rolls. My understanding was there was something different about the 120 rolls. That change may have eventually occurred with the 35mm rolls. It doesn't make sense for Freestyle to be pushing Adotech I wholeheartedly for 35mm while telling everyone in big bold letters to wait for Adotech II for 120 unless there was some difference in the actual CMS 20 emulsions.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin