Adox CMS 20 info / Realistic Inkjet Printing conditions and limits

[bene]

Hi all I have been searching the net for Adox CMS 20 to see if I should work with it for Landscapes. I decided to write this to compile information from user experiences and knowledge to let myself and others know this film's true realistic possibilities and constraints.





Adox site suggests insanely high resolving power of “500 megapixel” / printable of 2.5m diagonal that’s 1.38 * 2.07 meters or 54 by 81 inches ! (Very rough approximates…) IT pretty amazing if this is true.. with 300K+ pixel per inch…
PS: I may have made some error anyone who knows better please correct me.
It is clear to be able to print this big…. It must be inkjet prints print and we would need a scanner….
SO the limits of Adox CMS should be in the scanning which I now ask
1. How big can a drum-scanned Adox CMS Print? For those once in a life time pictures or major exhibitions… ?

2. Realistically what can an average photographer actually print? Suppose a V700, Leica Lenses ASPH, Zeiss ZMs,
The next question is… what alternatives are, given the same weight constraints.
So the question is which would be better in terms of resolution?
1. M7+ Adox or M9 or Nex 7 + RF lenses?

2. 6X9 Fuji RF or D800E with Zeiss primes?

Notes:
Adox CMS 20 is actually real iso of 6


Can get better quality than 6x9 (at what print size and scanning is unknown) on “normal” iso 100films.


Erwin Puts suggests : Adox cms with the v2 developer is better than the M9 http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html

 

[loquax ludens]

Adox site suggests insanely high resolving power of “500 megapixel” / printable of 2.5m diagonal that’s 1.38 * 2.07 meters or 54 by 81 inches ! (Very rough approximates…) IT pretty amazing if this is true.. with 300K+ pixel per inch…
PS: I may have made some error anyone who knows better please correct me.

That does seem unlikely. Can you reference the source (i.e., provide a link)?

It is clear to be able to print this big…. It must be inkjet prints print and we would need a scanner….

Not so clear. B&W images have been printed the size of jet hangars. That was a pinhole image, but the point is that the very large images can be printed. Beyond a certain point, it is more of an engineering effort than a purely photographic one.

http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/photographers/the-worlds-largest-pinhole-photograph

The largest size B&W paper commonly available that I know of is 42 inch wide and comes in very long rolls. But that is not a limit. You can print on paper as large as you can source. You just have to sensitize the paper.

 

[redisburning]

at the 400 lp/mm that Zeiss says it got with the ZM 25, that will easily smash the current crop of super high res 35mm sensors which arent even 150 lp/mm right now.

a UK online mag did a comparison of a bunch of different formats in a film vs digital comparison and two things were clear as day: 6x7 makes 35mm digital look like a joke and even multi-shot backs still have a long way to go before they can compete with large format. And this was with Portra 400 and TMax, neither of which are even close to Adox in terms of potential resolution.

Are you trying to shoot 35mm landscapes with Adox? It comes in 120 now, I would suggest a Hasselblad and a tripod, to be honest. Still on Adox; get a 100/3.5 planar, 250 SA or other similar spec lens.

 

[oftheherd]

I haven't use any Adox film in 30 years. Back then, using D-76 as it was all I could get, I did get some amazing photos and print sizes.

I recently purchased some CMS 20, but have yet to use it. I look forward to doing so and seeing what kind of prints I can get.

 

[Fotohuis]

Adox CMS 20 is actually real iso of 6

Which is of course a very big limitation.

ATP1.1 is a bit faster, iso 15-20.
Or Agfa Copex with the modular SPUR developers: E.I. 32-40.

So far ATP1.1 in the new Rollei ATP1.1 A/B divided (also made by SPUR) in my M7 can not compete with my C.V. Bessa III 667 and an Efke 25 film or a Rollei Retro 80S film (E.I. 32-40) in 6x7cm roll film format.

It's just one step to far. Apart from the problems when you're shooting in contrastly light conditions which is a problem with all those micro films.

In fact not so difficult to test: Same test conditions two camera's. Enlargement in Split Grade on 40x50cm and there you have your test result.

 

[ath]

AFAIK Zeiss reported 400lp/mm on CMS20 / Orthopan UR (same film).
Personally I achieved with moderate effort 180lp/mm with lenses like the Canon 70-200/4L and the 50/1.8 with mirror prefire on a tripod.
180lp/mm on 35mm translates into 112 Megapixels.
Even with the actual resolution of a Coolscan V of "only" 3600 ppi you can clearly see a much cleaner picture compared to conventional films.

The side effects of this film (6 ASA, very small exposure latitude, special and expensive developer) drove me away and today I simply shoot 645 if 35mm is not grainfree enough.

 

[sojournerphoto]

The microfilms have very high resolution, but, as others have pointed out, they usually have difficult (high) contrast and tonality. I think it's generally easier to move to a larger format and use something like Tmax or Delta 100. A Mamiya 7 can make very nice high resolution prints with a bit of care.

The difficulties are not just in the film, getting a decent high resolution scan of 35mm or a stable enough enlarger to make a big wet print is not a trivial task.

An alternative film might be Rollei 80S (Agfa aviphot pan), but it still needs a bit of care. I'm currently exposing at 64asa and developing in D76 1+3 for 20 to 24 minutes at 20C and with agitation every 5 minutes. Dilute xtol is also good. Rodinal is difficult.

Mike