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

[Craig]

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

That does work, as Plus X was 125, Super XX was 200 and Tri-X was 400, So roughly one stop faster for each X. Panatomic X was originally called Panatomic Pan (no X), so I don't think part of the series. I'm not sure, as we are going back to the 1930's here, and that naming convention was later abandoned, but the names kept.

Sometimes, when things were improved an X was added, Like the change from Microdol to Microdol-X developer. I think that might have happened to Panatomic-X, making it out of the sequence. Matt probably knows more.

However, keeping a thought in the back of your head about the number of X's is a simple way to remember which is a T grain emulsion and which isn't - no triple X for T grain, as it was not part of that naming convention.

 

[bluechromis]

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.

Not to mention that Kodak used the term Ekta or Ektar to a wide range of entirely different products, cameras, lenses, etc. My biggest peeve is Kodak giving Tmax developer and Tmax films the same name. There are reviewers who are still saying that Tmax developer must be the best for Tmax films because Kodak made it especially for those films.

 

[bluechromis]

Regarding questions about the effectiveness of Adox's Speed Boost treatment of HR-50, they published a comparison of the curves of HR-50 compared to untreated Aviphot stock. I realize that such curves may not tell the whole story of how a film works in practice. But do we accept that the curves they share are objectively accurate? https://www.adox.de/Photo/hr50-en/

 

[Prest_400]

I actually have a problem with stupid Kodak naming:

Then there is Verichrome pan, which is IIRC due to it being panchromatic and not a color (chrome reversal slide) film

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.

As a youngster who grew around here and for BW Tri-X has been on a pedestal, it has always been amusing how the very long gone films are well cherised. Perhaps by now the T-Max family has been longe on the market than some of those classics. And film BW is already classic whatever the grain of the emulsions are.

I like the purple sheen of the T-Maxes, and when squeezing 35mm, they are very useful. For availability and priced (OT) I have however been using Ilford instead.

 

[chuckroast]

All that this says is that you weren't testing to ISO standards -

That's right. Because using ISO speeds as the EI for metering the shadows consistently produces thin negatives lacking shadow detail. This is not just my experience, but the experience of looking at hundreds, if not thousands of other people's negatives. Not only that, I've done these tests with various developers, various films, various meters and the results is always approximately the same: Using ISO as your EI yields weak shadows, at least in my workflow. But this is a consistently observed thing.

Now, if I were measuring for laboratory purposes or if everything were illuminated a nice gray 18% reflectance, the ISO speed might make sense. But that's not reality.

ISO is useful in the same way mileage estimates on new cars is useful: It's a standard everyone involved has to follow and therefore useful for doing inter-product comparisons. But both are far less useful predictors of realistic use.

Declaring that most people should be "kept well away from densitometers" is effectively declaring that theory trumps measured reality. This never ends well.

 

[Pioneer]

My 9 rolls of Adox CHS 100 II showed up in my mailbox a couple of days ago. As soon as I get the opportunity I'll put a roll or two to work and see what it can do.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My 9 rolls of Adox CHS 100 II showed up in my mailbox a couple of days ago. As soon as I get the opportunity I'll put a roll or two to work and see what it can do.

Quite happy with it in 4x5.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Impressed by its latitude in 135

 

[Udor]

CH2II is a really great film. It's not always available, but when it is I always buy a few rolls. It has a very classic look that's hard to describe. I think it has to do with how it is colour sensitized. I don't know how it compares to its previous iterations though.