Adox HR-50 & speed boost developer

[Skiff]

Preflashing or hypersensitizing. Or just marketing hype like selling Rollei Retro 80s as Rollei RPX 25. Who knows?

You don't know, because you have not used neither this film nor its base material.
But lots of experienced photographers who have already used this film and its base material do indeed know.
And they really do know very well that this film has nothing to do with a "marketing hype" (and by the way, Adox has not done any marketing for this film so far).

I have tested both this film and its original film / base material. And the Speed Boost technology makes a real difference.
I've already described that in one of my postings above:
"This spring Adox first introduced the Adox HR-IR Pro film.
This autumn then at Photokina they have introduced the improved Adox HR-50 film. Both films have the same base film material. But the HR-50 has the "Speed Boost" technology, which results in a bit higher real speed (sensivity) and improved shadow detail.
I have tested both films. And I can confirm that this Speed Boost technology indeed works: Shadow detail is improved, the overall tonality is better because of a more linear characteristic curve.
AFAIK Adox is currently the only manufacturer who has the capability to do such an enhancement as a second production step on an industrial scale."

 

[Steve M.]

Just a quick reply here. People may indeed get shots from 35mm film that are of higher quality than medium format shots (and this is somewhat of a subjective thing), but you won't be able to get the large prints w/ the smaller negatives. In the old days of racing, we used to say that there's no substitute for cubic inches. By the same token, there is no substitute for large negatives when it comes to large prints. It's just physics.

 

[Skiff]

Just a quick reply here. People may indeed get shots from 35mm film that equal or surpass medium format shots (and this is somewhat of a subjective thing), but you won't be able to get the large prints w/ the smaller negatives. In the old days of racing, we used to say that there's no substitute for cubic inches. By the same token, there is no substitute for large negatives when it comes to large prints. It's just physics.

Physics is that Adox CMS 20 II can resolve up to 800 lp/mm with an extremely, invisible fine grain.
And physics is that FP4+ can resolve only up to 120 lp/mm with a very visible grain.
That is the reason why huge enlargements from 35mm CMS 20 II have a much higher resolution and finer grain compared to 6x6/6x7 medium format FP4+ enlargements.

I've done all that several times. Showed the huge prints to other experienced photographers. In blind tests. All have said the difference is big and they have chosen the 35mm CMS 20 II prints because of their superior quality.

 

[css9450]

I've done all that several times. Showed the huge prints to other experienced photographers. In blind tests. All have said the difference is big and they have chosen the 35mm CMS 20 II prints because of their superior quality.

I am confused. Are these the same blind tests Argentia did, or another set of tests?

 

[DominikDUK]

Skiff I admit I was wrong in my previous posts confusing CMS with HR-50, etc.. but those 800 lp have to be brought onto the paper and you can't really do that the paper doesn't have the resolution neither does the lens btw. Close down more than 4.5 and most lenses even very good one will be outresolved by the film. So those 800 are a nice marketing gag but nothing else. Also it's interesting that you and Argentia keep comparing it to FP4 which is very far from a modern film. Also isn't HR-50 based on a film that was not made by Adox (say Aviphot 40 or 80) but bought by Adox who applied their "speed boost" technology (which many believe to be just a fancy word for pre-flashing). If indeed the film is based on aviphot those 800 lines are only possible at an object contrast of 1000:1 = 400 line pairs or 800 dots/mm.

Lower contrast gives still an impressive resolution of about 1/4

TOC 1,6:1 = 125 line pairs or 250 dots/mm.

But those numbers do not beat a higher Resolution MF film (Tmax 100) even 4.5 negatives are more than 3 times the size of 35mm.

 

[Jerevan]

You don't know, because you have not used neither this film nor its base material.
/ ... /
And they really do know very well that this film has nothing to do with a "marketing hype" (and by the way, Adox has not done any marketing for this film so far).

I was suggesting the obvious - that the so called "technology" might not be more (very oversimplified, indeed) than turning on the light in room where the master roll is or dunking it in another silver nitrate solution.

The rest of the matter ... well, sir - just do not fall off that high horse. It might hurt a good bit.

 

[Skiff]

I am confused. Are these the same blind tests Argentia did, or another set of tests?

I did my own tests. And Argentia did his own tests.
Doing such blind tests is common and well-proven technique for decades. Using that photographers have a very good tool to check performance of materials in direct comparison in an objective and not biased way.
We are doing that regularly with a group photographer friends, and its also often done in my local photo club.

 

[Skiff]

Skiff I admit I was wrong in my previous posts confusing CMS with HR-50, etc.. but those 800 lp have to be brought onto the paper and you can't really do that the paper doesn't have the resolution neither does the lens btw.

That is the wrong idea how resolution in an imaging chain works.
It works this way:
1/system resolution = 1/lens resolution + 1/ film resolution.
The higher the film resolution, the higher also your system resolution (final/end resolution).

That is by the way also the reason why you get higher resolution (an improvement in resolution compared to conventional films) with CMS 20 II even with mediocre lenses.

Close down more than 4.5 and most lenses even very good one will be outresolved by the film.

With this film you can reach the physical limits of lens resolution: the diffraction limit.
Zeiss has done that and published the results with its 25mm ZM Biogon some years ago: 400 lp/mm at f4 with this film.
You will find further test results here (post 19):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
I have tested some of my 50mm standard lenses with CMS 20 II at the best aperture 5.6 and also reached the diffraction limit for white light (250 lp/mm).

So those 800 are a nice marketing gag but nothing else.

Completely wrong!! You need this extremely high resolution of the film to fully exploit the lens resolution and reach the diffraction limit of the lens at the optimal aperture. See formula above.

Also it's interesting that you and Argentia keep comparing it to FP4 which is very far from a modern film.

I cannot speak for Argentia, but I have choosen it because it is the most popular medium speed BW film.
I've also done tests with Delta 100, Acros, TMX. With these films there is in several cases a small advantage for 35mm CMS 20 II compared to medium format T-grain film (4,5x6), in one case a minimal advantage for MF (6x7 with Mamiya II and Delta 100 and TMX).

Also isn't HR-50 based on a film that was not made by Adox (say Aviphot 40 or 80) but bought by Adox who applied their "speed boost" technology (which many believe to be just a fancy word for pre-flashing). If indeed the film is based on aviphot those 800 lines are only possible at an object contrast of 1000:1 = 400 line pairs or 800 dots/mm.

1. You are again mixing the two films up: CMS 20 II and HR-50 are completely different films.
2. The resolution function is not linear from medium contrast up. So the resolution difference between 1000:1 (10 stops) and 32:1 (5 stops) is minimal and not field relevant.
Zeiss made their resolution record (see above) also at a quite low object contrast of about 4 stops.
Your comments here demonstrate that you never had proper resolution tests done by yourself.

 

[Skiff]

I was suggesting the obvious - that the so called "technology" might not be more (very oversimplified, indeed) than turning on the light in room where the master roll is or dunking it in another silver nitrate solution.

I don't know which technology Adox is using. But I do know
- that ii works because of my tests
- that it must be sophisticated technology to get good results in higher volume industrial production.
Let's assume pre-flashing technology is used: I've done that the first time some decades ago in my darkroom.
First runs in a similar, very simple way as you have described it: "Turning the light on", and also using a flash:
The results: It does not work this simple way!
Pre-flashing a whole film needs a lot of testing and fine-tuning. And you simply cannot pre-flash a whole master-roll that way.
Besides all these technological barriers this "by hand" techniques would require too much work, the film price would explode.

If you would do pre-flashing in an industral production process to get highest, constant quality and reasonable costs you would need special machinery for that. You would have to invest in that machinery and in the know-how to operate it properly.
At Photokina I have talked to the Adox people: They said
- it took about two years from first tests to final production quality for their Speed Boost technology
- they needed to invest in special machinery for that; it's a tricky and sophisticated process
- they did not tell whether it is a pre-flashing technology or something else; it is a company secret, because they are the only ones doing that technology.

The rest of the matter ... well, sir - just do not fall off that high horse. It might hurt a good bit.

On the high horses are all those people who have never tested this film by themselves, but nevertheless claiming the photographers who have tested the film are wrong.

 

[kram]

From the above, I can't wait to use the HR-50. ATP 1.1 was my go to slow film (used at 40 Asa). CMS at 16 ASA was just too slow for me. Doing moderate enlargement showed up slight camera shake 1/30 it 80mm on 6x7. The extra 1+ 2/3 extra speed of 50 Asa will be a big help to avoid that. On 35mm I use the Zeiss zm 35mm f2 @ f4, stunning results.

 

[Skiff]

From the above, I can't wait to use the HR-50. ATP 1.1 was my go to slow film (used at 40 Asa). CMS at 16 ASA was just too slow for me. Doing moderate enlargement showed up slight camera shake 1/30 it 80mm on 6x7. The extra 1+ 2/3 extra speed of 50 Asa will be a big help to avoid that. On 35mm I use the Zeiss zm 35mm f2 @ f4, stunning results.

You won't be dissappointed in 35mm with your Zeiss ZM and Adox HR-50. A combination capable for making huge prints.
120 format HR-50 will be introduced next year.
6x7 enlargements from this film: The sky is the limit.
I've got excellent results with the Adox HR-50 DEV developer.

 

[HHPhoto]

News:
Adox HR-50 is now also available in bulk, 30.5 meter:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/adox-hr-50-13536-mit-speed-boost-meterware.html?cache=1545526941

120 format is scheduled for first quarter 2019 due to Adox.

Cheers, Jan

 

[sepiareverb]

My next order will have this in it.

 

[retinax]

Do more people have results with this film now? How does it behave in developers other than the dedicated one? Does it actually reach ISO 50 in the HR-50 dev or in e.g. Xtol? How does it compare to CHS 100-II?

 

[Skiff]

Do more people have results with this film now? How does it behave in developers other than the dedicated one? Does it actually reach ISO 50 in the HR-50 dev or in e.g. Xtol?

My results with HR-50 DEV at box speed are very good. I will continue using it that way.

How does it compare to CHS 100-II?

HR-50 is
- much sharper
- much higher resolving
- much finer grained.

In comparison CHS 100 II has
- better shadow detail
- higher speed
- perfect characteristic curve in standard developers.

The films are very different. Both have their own character. I am using both dependent on the subject. Horses for courses.

 

[retinax]

My results with HR-50 DEV at box speed are very good. I will continue using it that way.

HR-50 is
- much sharper
- much higher resolving
- much finer grained.

In comparison CHS 100 II has
- better shadow detail
- higher speed
- perfect characteristic curve in standard developers.

The films are very different. Both have their own character. I am using both dependent on the subject. Horses for courses.

Thank you. If CHS 100 II has better shadow detail, doesn't that mean that in practical terms, HR-50 would need to be downrated in speed for an accurate comparison? I guess this will get very technical quickly with the ISO norm and curve shapes...

Expanding the horizon of this thread a little, I've also been wondering how CHS 100 II and Silvermax compare, somehow Adox don't really talk about this...?

 

[Skiff]

Thank you. If CHS 100 II has better shadow detail, doesn't that mean that in practical terms, HR-50 would need to be downrated in speed for an accurate comparison? I guess this will get very technical quickly with the ISO norm and curve shapes...

HR-50 has a S-shaped characteristic curve. Box speed and HR-50 DEV gives you the optimal compromise between speed, curve shape and shadow detail.
CHS 100 II has a more linear curve shape with higher density / shadow detail in Zone I and II.

Expanding the horizon of this thread a little, I've also been wondering how CHS 100 II and Silvermax compare, somehow Adox don't really talk about this...?

Silvermax has a bit finer grain. Resolution and sharpness are almost identical. Spectral sensivity is also almost identical.

 

[Pyrogal]

I am using Adox CMS 20 II on sunny days at ISO 12/12° without a tripod: With shutter speeds in the range of 1/125s to 1/320s and apertures in the range of f2.8 to f5.6.
The big advantage of CMS 20 II:
With 35mm film you get quality surpassing 6x6 medium format!
So instead of using medium format you can use 35mm film with all its advantages, but without any compromises in picture quality.

The detail rendition of Adox HR-50 is not so outstanding as Adox CMS 20 II.
But nevertheless Adox HR-50 has such a fine grain that you will have difficulties to distinguish 35mm HR-50 from 6x6 FP4+.

This is encouraging to me, but also puzzling. Resolution is gained by medium apertures and very fast shutter speeds. I don't know what lens you are using, but 1/125s is at the threshold of visible camera shake in 8x10 enlargements with a 50mm lens. Even with a tripod (and light tripods don't gain the user much leeway), you're going to be getting camera motion with shutter speeds of 1/60th, 1/30th, etc.

So the low sensitivity of small-grain film is always working against true sharpness and resolution in practice. Second, small grain cannot make up for the greater area of a medium format negative. A 100 speed 6x6 negative will effortlessly capture detail that Tech-Pan level 35mm film will struggle to achieve (see Barry Thornton's comparison in his Edge of Darkness book). Finally, resolution and apparent sharpness are two very different things, and grain greatly abets apparent sharpness in low and medium enlargements when an acutance/non-solvent developer is used.

 

[kram]

Guys (and gals) is there any news on the Adox HR-50 in 120. I thought it would be out by now.

 

[Freakscene]

Guys (and gals) is there any news on the Adox HR-50 in 120. I thought it would be out by now.

Adox have their 120 spooling machine fixed, but are still working on slitting: The best things in life are analog |

Once they are fully automated I assume they will get to it with their full range of films. They are very serious about all of this; no other company has done as much or set up as much infrastructure as they have since 2010.