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

[chuckroast]

I remember Mirko saying that if you want to support a photo manufacturer, buy paper from them. Paper sales are what keep the factory doors open. I hope Adox will be able to ramp up its paper offerings.

The problem is that - per their website -they've suspended paper manufacturing due to material and labor costs, at least for now. The only paper Freestyle shows in stock is Lupex.

It might be time for Adox to consider a subscription service to crowdfund a run of their materials.

 

[JPD]

And was I surprised to figure that out when I first tried PL100M. Most every film I've ever tested on a densitometer, shows an actual usable EI of about 1/2 box ASA speed (except when processed with standing techniques, which is a whole other discussion).

I was therefore interested to measure the PL100M at a usable EI of 100 ... only to discover that it's daylight speed was - as you say - actually rated at ASA 200.

"As in the Scheiner system, speeds were expressed in 'degrees'. Originally the sensitivity was written as a fraction with 'tenths' (for example "18/10° DIN"), where the resultant value 1.8 represented the relative base 10 logarithm of the speed. 'Tenths' were later abandoned with DIN 4512:1957-11, and the example above would be written as "18° DIN". The degree symbol was finally dropped with DIN 4512:1961-10. This revision also saw significant changes in the definition of film speeds in order to accommodate then-recent changes in the American ASA PH2.5-1960 standard, so that film speeds of black-and-white negative film effectively would become doubled, that is, a film previously marked as "18° DIN" would now be labeled as "21 DIN" without emulsion changes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

I believe that this may have been the cause for this, that Adox decided not to rename their popular films.

 

[chuckroast]

"As in the Scheiner system, speeds were expressed in 'degrees'. Originally the sensitivity was written as a fraction with 'tenths' (for example "18/10° DIN"), where the resultant value 1.8 represented the relative base 10 logarithm of the speed. 'Tenths' were later abandoned with DIN 4512:1957-11, and the example above would be written as "18° DIN". The degree symbol was finally dropped with DIN 4512:1961-10. This revision also saw significant changes in the definition of film speeds in order to accommodate then-recent changes in the American ASA PH2.5-1960 standard, so that film speeds of black-and-white negative film effectively would become doubled, that is, a film previously marked as "18° DIN" would now be labeled as "21 DIN" without emulsion changes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

I believe that this may have been the cause for this, that Adox decided not to rename their popular films.

That's quite possible. I do know that film speeds magically doubled at some point around that time. For most shooters, that Tungsten rating is actually a good approximation of the real daylight speed when Efke is processed conventionally. I find no film that will hit a useable EI at box speed unless I used extended, dilute development.

 

[JPD]

That's quite possible. I do know that film speeds magically doubled at some point around that time. For most shooters, that Tungsten rating is actually a good approximation of the real daylight speed when Efke is processed conventionally. I find no film that will hit a useable EI at box speed unless I used extended, dilute development.

When I was using lightmeters of the brand Capital (also sold as Soligor) I was happy with the films box speed, but then I upgraded to a Gossen Sixtomat Digital that is more "optimistic" and wants me to expose one stop less. I tried it and had to adjust my developing times, but lost too much shadow detail. Now when I use the Sixtomat Digital I expose at half the box speed (according to the meter). I don't have a densitometer, so I have to trust my eyes.

 

[MattKing]

That's quite possible. I do know that film speeds magically doubled at some point around that time. For most shooters, that Tungsten rating is actually a good approximation of the real daylight speed when Efke is processed conventionally. I find no film that will hit a useable EI at box speed unless I used extended, dilute development.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that you are using Zone System speed criteria here. I and many others achieve higher quality prints if we work with the higher, industry standard (for more than 6 decades) ASA/ISO speed criteria.

 

[chuckroast]

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that you are using Zone System speed criteria here. I and many others achieve higher quality prints if we work with the higher, industry standard (for more than 6 decades) ASA/ISO speed criteria.

And - at the risk of repeating myself - can you show me an image where you metered using box ASA as your EI, and placed the shadows appropriately thereafter?

I have-, and can continue to show examples of where I placed for shadows using what I claim to be the "real" EI of the film - 1/2 box speed for conventional development, full box speed for long semistand and EMA. Just this weekend, I processed some T-Max 100 in dilute Pyrocat for an hour, agitating only 3 times (EMA), having placed the dark shadows on Zone III. I have printed none of this, but inspection under a loupe shows correct exposure was achieved.

It's also not as simple as "You're I'm using Zone system (not quite) and you aren't." This has everything to do with what you consider to be a sufficient level of shadow detail, how you meter, how you place, how you print and so forth.


But the EI that gives you 0.1DU-ish above FB+F simply ensures your exposures will end up on a responsive and more linear part of the film H/D curve. In theory, very long straight line films don't need this. In (lots and lots and lots) of testing, every film I ever tested did. That includes Tri-X in various incarnations, Plus-X, Agfapan APX 100, Efke, Ilford, ad infinitum ad nauseum. Is the useful EI exactly 1/2 box speed in every case? No, but I don't think measuring film speed to 3 decimal places when there is an ordinary variation in leaf shutters (mostly what I shoot) 1/3-2/3 stop is at all useful. Ad that's on a new shutter, older ones are worse.

 

[koraks]

It might be time for Adox to consider a subscription service to crowdfund a run of their materials.

That suggestion was offered to Adox here on the forum a few months ago. Mirko made clear that they don't want to shift the financial risk of production runs towards customers.

 

[MattKing]

And - at the risk of repeating myself - can you show me an image where you metered using box ASA as your EI, and placed the shadows appropriately thereafter?

This one would be a good example of the sort of rendition I aim toward, and is more my type of image than what I sense you prefer, based on the images you seem to post here.

Here is a couple that I think are closer to your preferences:

FWIW, The last one is a scan from a print, while the first two are negative scans adjusted to be similar to the corresponding darkroom prints.
I rarely use a spot meter, and have a preference for incident light metering.

This one was definitely done with an incident meter:

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I remember Mirko saying that if you want to support a photo manufacturer, buy paper from them. Paper sales are what keep the factory doors open. I hope Adox will be able to ramp up its paper offerings.

I thought profit on chemicals is much higher.

 

[chuckroast]

This one would be a good example of the sort of rendition I aim toward, and is more my type of image than what I sense you prefer, based on the images you seem to post here.
View attachment 348773

Here is a couple that I think are closer to your preferences:
View attachment 348774

View attachment 348775
FWIW, The last one is a scan from a print, while the first two are negative scans adjusted to be similar to the corresponding darkroom prints.
I rarely use a spot meter, and have a preference for incident light metering.

This one was definitely done with an incident meter:
View attachment 348776

OK, first of all, all of those are fine images and my following comments should not be read in any way to detract from that.

Note, however, that in every one of these, the deep shadows have gone almost/completely black. Shadow detail has been lost.


Compare that to something like the following. Again, neglecting aesthetics, note that the deep shadows have held a bit of detail. That comes from shooting at 1/2 box ASA:

I again note - your shooting, metering, and printing style have as much to do with this as the EI you selected.

The only thing relevant about the Zone system calibration is to ensure you can reproduce the darkest shadows if and where you want to. Once could equivalently meter at box speed but place the darkest shadows only down one stop ((Zone IV) as opposed to two stops (Zone III).

I should also note that these days, I just shoot at box speed since almost everything I do is now done in stand/EMA development.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, on my recently calibrated lap top screen, your deep shadows also have gone almost completely black. Internet sharing of this sort of stuff is a challenge.
My shovel picture was one where I chose to put some of the shadows into black, but the others show more detail in the shadows.
What is more important in almost every print is how the mid-tones and highlights render. That is where most of the "quality" in a good print resides.

 

[chuckroast]

FWIW, on my recently calibrated lap top screen, your deep shadows also have gone almost completely black. Internet sharing of this sort of stuff is a challenge.
My shovel picture was one where I chose to put some of the shadows into black, but the others show more detail in the shadows.
What is more important in almost every print is how the mid-tones and highlights render. That is where most of the "quality" in a good print resides.

My approximately calibrated screen also show "almost" black but there is detail there that is absent in your images. Again, I'm not being critical of the work, merely pointing out that you're losing detail that could be there. You can check this by cranking up your brightness temporarily.


Yes, mid tone local contrast and protected highlights is where the sizzle lives. But I try to make negatives that give me maximum choices, shadow detail, midtone contrast, and detail in the highlights. That's why for the past several years I've been learning to manipulate long standing development in highly dilute developer.

 

[koraks]

Again, neglecting aesthetics, note that the deep shadows have held a bit of detail.

The highlights in that scan, however, are totally blown out. Since it's negative film, I trust something is there alright, but on the digital side of things, something is surely awry pretty badly in that image.

 

[chuckroast]

The highlights in that scan, however, are totally blown out. Since it's negative film, I trust something is there alright, but on the digital side of things, something is surely awry pretty badly in that image.

Yes, that was an early attempt at print scanning on my part some years ago and I was still learning how to get this right - which clearly I did not. I'll have to revisit this when I have time.. The print does not display this artefact.

 

[koraks]

I see what you mean. Also sorry for barging in on it, and your point was of course about the opposite end of the tonal scale.

 

[chuckroast]

I see what you mean. Also sorry for barging in on it, and your point was of course about the opposite end of the tonal scale.

No apology needed. I'd not looked at that image in ages. It's a good reminder to go clean up my messes

 

[MattKing]

My approximately calibrated screen also show "almost" black but there is detail there that is absent in your images. Again, I'm not being critical of the work, merely pointing out that you're losing detail that could be there.

The detail is there in my negatives, and on my prints. Just as I'm sure it is with yours.
The internet representation of the shadows on both of our uploaded images is very similar on my screens, and I'm sure most people's screens - you just can't reach reliable conclusions on subtle differences based on what survives the vagaries of individual displays and the Photrio downloader.
I've no doubt that what you do satisfies your wants and needs. But your methods and preferences do not throw into doubt for everyone else the long accepted and reliable standards that the photographic industry has been using for more than half a century.
I have a feeling you would either get along well or be at loggerheads with Bruce Barnbaum .

 

[chuckroast]

The detail is there in my negatives, and on my prints. Just as I'm sure it is with yours.
The internet representation of the shadows on both of our uploaded images is very similar on my screens, and I'm sure most people's screens - you just can't reach reliable conclusions on subtle differences based on what survives the vagaries of individual displays and the Photrio downloader.
I've no doubt that what you do satisfies your wants and needs. But your methods and preferences do not throw into doubt for everyone else the long accepted and reliable standards that the photographic industry has been using for more than half a century.
I have a feeling you would either get along well or be at loggerheads with Bruce Barnbaum .

I long ago learned that consistency is more important than accuracy in chemical photography. If your workflow works at your settings and does so consistently, you're dialed in properly. The truth is that all this measurement stuff - meters, exposure, EI, and so forth need to be set for your way of working and your way of seeing and there is no one, canonical way of working. I merely recommend 1/2 box speed to people to help them avoid overly thin negatives - something I see all too often.

Barnbaum does nice work. He needs to put the bleach bottle down once in a while

 

[Ivo Stunga]

I actually have a problem with stupid Kodak naming:
TRI-X or T-MAX - for the love of god I can never recall which one of these is a T grain film - all of them have T's and X's in their name, legit confusing to me.

Bad.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

What you have there is a technical problem with no immediate solution: you are too young. I know that Tri-X already existed when I started photographing*, and I vaguely remember a hoo-ha in the camera magazines when new-fangled shaped grains came along. The being-too-young thing will sort itself out.

*along with Plus-X and Panatomic-X.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

: D

 

[psmithp]

I actually have a problem with stupid Kodak naming:
TRI-X or T-MAX - for the love of god I can never recall which one of these is a T grain film - all of them have T's and X's in their name, legit confusing to me.

Bad.

T-MAX for T grain. T grain in T-MAX. You have to figure out some mnemotechnics, possibly in your own language, that Tri-X is more than 70 years old.

 

[Craig]

I actually have a problem with stupid Kodak naming:
TRI-X or T-MAX - for the love of god I can never recall which one of these is a T grain film - all of them have T's and X's in their name, legit confusing to me.

Bad.

T Max is for the T grain emulsion.

The Kodak naming using X's dates from before world war 2. In that X meant the speed. Thus Panatomic X was the slowest (one X), Super XX was twice as fast (2 X's), and Tri X ( 3 X's) was triple the speed of Panatomic X. Yes, I know that don't quite work out, and Pan X might not have been the "originator" or the series, but you get the idea.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

T Max is for the T grain emulsion.

The Kodak naming using X's dates from before world war 2. In that X meant the speed. Thus Panatomic X was the slowest (one X), Super XX was twice as fast (2 X's), and Tri X ( 3 X's) was triple the speed of Panatomic X. Yes, I know that don't quite work out, and Pan X might not have been the "originator" or the series, but you get the idea.

What about Plus X, that's also only one X

 

[Lachlan Young]

Most every film I've ever tested on a densitometer, shows an actual usable EI of about 1/2 box ASA speed

All that this says is that you weren't testing to ISO standards - and why most people should be kept well away from densitometers. And that there might be allowances for real world usage effects (i.e. flare/ internal halation etc) on effective speed, such that the eventual negative complies with what most end users think (or say) they want in terms of aesthetics. An awful lot of exposure systems (patent medicine, zone or otherwise) are very reliant on emulsion latitude and a failure to understand that negative speed is effectively shadow keyed.

Sometimes old films cannot be resurrected because the materials are unavailable or prohibited. Panatomic X & cadmium.

Except that Tmax 100 does the same thing, better. That it's slightly less tolerant of gross user ineptitude is the price you pay for better overall quality. The reality is that with modern emulsion technology you can essentially create any characteristic curve shape you want - similarly with colour sensitivity, depending on your willingness/ ability/ market demand bring able to support the requisite custom organic synthesis.