CD4-LC low contrast developer for scanning

[Alan Johnson]

Since my pile of silver gelatin prints got too big I have been storing my "prints" on Flickr , more recently on Flickr Pro which allows a maximum of 6144 pixels in the long direction. This gives about 85 lppm to the viewer. My film is 35mm CMS 20 II Pro scanned at 7200 [true~3600] setting on a Plustek 8100, which I measured as giving about 80 lppm output to Flickr Pro.
So I think you are seeing about 80 lppm from the negative on your screen.

 

[Alan Johnson]

This pic shows the change in appearance of CD4-LC from freshly made to a few months old, stored under a butane/propane mix.
There was no detectable change in pH as measured by pH paper, slightly under 8.

 

[Alan Johnson]

I compared two Adox high resolution 35mm films in CD4-LC, noting that the results are likely limited by my scanner at about 80 lppm.

CMS-20 II Pro required contrast reduction in scanner software.
HR-50, an Aviphot 80 derivative, the scanner was left on auto.
Both are sharpened equally.

Adox CMS 20 II Pro, EI=20


Adox HR-50, EI =50


Comparison of two crops, attachments, shows that the CMS 20 result is effectively grain free,
HR-50 shows small grains.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You can really see the difference in resolution.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The Flickr Pro scans of 35 mm negatives linked above have a resolution corresponding to 6144/300 =20.4 inches wide printed at 300 dpi.
To get a comparison for more often used print sizes I made prints 14 inches wide from the CMS 20 and HR 50 scans linked, at 720 dpi.

Conclusions from viewing these prints at 10 inches distance:

The HR-50 print shows small grains in the sky and slight irregularities due to grain in the straight edges of the buildings.
If it is intended to make a print that looks like it is from fine grain film, HR-50 is closer.

The CMS 20 print shows no grain in the sky and the straight edges of the buildings appear straight on the print.
It is close to results from a moderate or high resolution digital camera.

In the old days Kodak would have assembled a room full of independent observers to decide which of these two is to be pronounced sharpest.

 

[destroya]

I wanted to try out this developer as I have some CMS-20 and tech pan that I never use as I could never find a developer that I could obtain easily. so went for a walk yesterday and shot a roll of RR80, tech pan and CMS-20 with my contax G1. I took the shots why walking the Stanford Dish trail.

I forgot how curly the CMS 20 film is. I usually do quick scans in 35mm with my Minolta Dimage 5400. but I had troubles getting the film to sit flat in the holder. no issues with the RR80 or tech pan. So broke down during the early football games and fired up the flextight. It made a difference with the CMS film as it keeps it tight and sharp. California has been in drought like conditions, so my enlargers are packed away in the garage and most of my printing is now done via scan and print.

I had also mixed up the 2 bath developer Alan posted, but have only used it with the RR80. I feel that contrast is a little lower, but there is more grain and it is slightly sharper.

I posted the straight scan and a crop or 2 from each shot. the uncropped shots would be 100% at 20.5 inches by 14 inches. I did resize them to make the up-loadable (is that a word??) .

I always thought that the rollie retro films and tech pan had a clear base. But I forgot just how clear the CMS film is. WOW. my next project will be to try and develop a roll as slides and see if I can tame the contrast. would love to see it projected.

John
First, Rollie Retro 80s, metered at 64. I had to finish a roll from a prior walk, so I included a bridge shot from a few weeks ago.

 

[destroya]

Next, the CMS 20 shots, metered at 20. The detail is amazing. making out indivdual cables on the point of the telescope and the detail and lack of grain i the steel girders, really impressive. the negs needed some contrast reduction, but not much. I need to shoot another roll in a more tradiontal landscape setting to really give it a workout. But I am impressed

john

 

[destroya]

lastly, Tech Pan, Metered at 25. first shot looking back towards the campus. one crop is the distant Dumbarton bridge which is about 15 miles away.

Tech Pan needed a small amount of contrast reduction, but less than the CMS.

John

 

[destroya]

I really want to give a really big thank you to Alan for his work with the low contrast developers that have allowed me to finally shoot the rolls of CMS and Tech pan that I have.

john

 

[destroya]

Formula from the other thread:

CD4-LC
Metol........................................1g
Sodium Sulfite anh...........30g
CD-4.......................................12g
Borax........................................4g
Water to...................................1L.....pH~8...............store in glass bottle under inert gas.

The developer is used with 5 inversions at start then 2 inversions every 3rd minute, adding 30% to the times given below, temperature correction according to the chart at Ilfordphoto.com.
Film 1 9m , 2 9.5 min, 3 9.9 min,4 10.5 min, 5 11 min,6 11.5 min, 7 12min, 812.7min, 9 13.2min, 10 14 min, all times for 20C. Reduce times if negatives too dense. Fix 2 min, wash 5min, Photoflo.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks John, I like to note that later I changed the times for re-use of CD4-LC as follows:

The times given for the re-use of CD4-LC were found to give rather thin negatives after 10 films and the following are proposed as better:
Film 1 =N min
Film 2 =N + 10% min, Film 3 = N+ 20% min, Film 4 = N +30% min, etc, the time increasing by 10% for each later film. Add 30% for minimal agitation every 3 min.

This is what Ilford use for ID-11. Tests on a full 10 rolls re-use are still in progress. I am using a start time N = 9 minutes 20C at present, corrected for temperature using the chart at Ilfordphoto.com.
If the results are too contrasty for silver gelatin printing it is suggested to reduce the EI at which high contrast films are shot but there is no actual data at this time.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Alan, I hope you don't mind me posting my video here. I played around with your developer for the past couple of weeks...

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks Andy for a thorough investigation. I am still using CD-4LC with Adox CMS 20 II Pro and Spur Utra R 800 in 35mm.
Always on the lookout for a lamp post to lean on or a wall or fence to support to avoid camera shake.

 

[relistan]

@Alan Johnson These all look great and it's nice to see some other folks using it. I have a few rolls of CMS-20 I will try out with it once my house move is done. Hopefully by then I can still find enough sunlight on this island.

 

[destroya]

Andy, great video. I always thought that a film like CMS 20 wold be overkill in sheet film, but now that I can make a suitable developer for it, I might pick up a box or to to try out.

john

 

[Alan Johnson]

I was curious to see how an inexpensive 1990s consumer zoom ** would perform. Under ideal conditions, sunlit subject, f11, both arms resting on a fence , 4 out of 6 shots were shake-free using Spur Ultra R 800 @ EI=25 [very similar to Adox CMS 20].



Conclusion: It seems preferable to use prime lenses that can be opened up to give a faster shutter speed without losing resolution or an image stabilized/vibration reduction modern zoom.
** Pentax PZ 28-80

 

[Alan Johnson]

2 pics with P&S cameras, each having a 5-element lens and the ability to be set to 25 ISO.

Pentax PC35-af + Adox CMS20 II Pro EI=25


Ricoh FF-70 + Spur Ultra R 800 EI=25


Some P&S cameras will work at EI =25 if an EI sticker is attached to the cassette.
Some EI=25 can be set manually.
Adox CMS 20 II Pro and Spur Ultra R 800 are not DX coded.

 

[ic-racer]

Not sure why one would need any special developer when converting film to the digital domain. Once it is all numbers, math can achieve any result imagined.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

One needs a special developer when working with this film, though

 

[L Gebhardt]

Not sure why one would need any special developer when converting film to the digital domain. Once it is all numbers, math can achieve any result imagined.

My guess is with a normal developer at reasonable development times the highlights will all reach dmax before the shadows develop. So the info for the math to work with won't be in the scan.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here Andy explains that "ordinary" developer Xtol gives excess contrast with the microfilm type Adox CMS 20 compared to selected developers intended for use with microfilm types.

 

[JWMster]

Intrigued to follow this thread and the thread on PC112-Borax by Karl Matthias. Have worked a lot with D23 and with ID11 recently, but mostly after a broad range grays for scanning whether MF(645) or 4X5... or even 35mm "sketches". Generally don't see Microfilms sold much these days, so most of my films are Ilford Delta, FP4, HP5 and Adox CHS 100. Have tried Foma and also bought some of the China films from Catlabs and eBay. As a relative newby to homebrew mixes and efforts to match for scanning and inkjet prints, I'm curious whether your efforts here will apply more generally beyond the low ISO films? In any case... I've enjoyed the read and admire the pioneering (or re-invention) for our contemporary era.... and availability of chems and the like.

 

[Alan Johnson]

CD4-LC has mainly been used to develop films of microfilm type because these have special properties, eg:

Thoughts on Adox' film offer (as opposed to their chemistry offer)

Thanks for the help everyone. I now have 9 rolls of CHS 100 II film on the way. GregY should contact Argentix and get his sales commission. :D Jacques at Argentix is great. I just wish he could scale up the availability of what he has on offer.

www.photrio.com

There are other films of somewhat less high contrast like Ferrania P-30 [post 17] and Adox HR-50 [post 28] that give more pictorial contrast without the need for manual contrast reduction in software. [Quite likely all the Aviphot derivatives would do this]. Maybe they could be printed on silver gelatin without too much difficulty, I did not try it.

All other films don't generally need a low contrast developer, no point in using CD4-LC for these as far as I know.

 

[JWMster]

Thanks! I'm an inkjet printer ("Yes, one of THOSE!")... 'cause it's what I got and can be reasonably proficient with.
Curious where you've found microfilm... think I've seen it at the FPP perhaps, but seldom anywhere else (all 2 or 3 places these days!).
I love B&W... especially if I can get the subject into full tones and the rest in muted grays... a goal I've seen elsewhere that looks cool.
Dust is the ultimate vermin!

 

[Alan Johnson]

CMS 20 is fairly widely available in continental Europe and rather less so in the UK.
I found this supplier in the US:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1626165-REG/adox_30945_cms_ii_iso_20.html