As there seems to be confusion about the "silver rhich" claim we make for Silvermax I would like to point out again what has been actually claimed and why.
In our product description for Silvermax we claim that it has more silver than comparable films and that this leads to a higher DMAX and the possibility to get an extended copy range out of it if developed in Silvermax developer.
This is all true.
If you manufacture a film there are certain things you can do to get the desired characteristics. It starts with making the emulsion and it "ends" with the amount of emulsion you apply per sqm. The more you apply, the higher is the silver content and the higher will be the DMAX which the film can build up (same emulsions compared with each other).
So if you don´t object the costs, you can make a "better" film this way if there wouldn´t be an affect on the contrast as well.
Your contrast is also increasing and this limits you in using this as a means of achiving a superior quality.
The aim when manufacturing this film was to achieve a better DMAX on the clear base so the film would be good for reversal processing but not putting too much so it can also be used as a regular negative film.
As said before it is based on Agfa technology and very similar to APX but on a clear base and with a thicker coating (silver rhich).
The spectral sensitivity is the same as identical sensitizers were used (up).
So compared to APX you will get more DMAX and a slightly higher contrast apart ofcourse from the different base.
This is why we formulated the Silvermax developer with it. This developer is soft working similar to our ADOTECH developer and optimized for Silvermax.
If you use both you get instantly very good results and (hopefully) can see the difference to "normal" fims.
While "normal" in this context means a film designed as a negative film with just as much coating (silver cotent) as nevessary to achive good DMAX for regular printing work.
Since all of this is true and since we do feel that we made a very good film here I really see no point why one should be upset about the claim we made.
We are not saying that other films are inferior.
The film is not outrageously priced and what we claim is what <b>differs</b> this film from others.
Even though I said all of this before I think it is good to repeat as well:
- The introduction of this film has nothing to do with what happened at Fotokemikas. The crossing of the timeline is coincidence.
- This film is something special and not our replacement for CHS films
- The fact that we bring this expensive to manufacture film (the clear base allone is 5 times as expensive than PET base) now in 35mm only does not mean that we are not working on other films which then shall be made available in other formats
Have fun taking pictures on whichever film you prefer ;-)