Agfa APX 100 & 400 back for good - new batch!!!

[zsas]

Wow! I am even more excited hearing that the APX 400 might be more like the pre-2003 formulation! Thabks Photo-Smith for the intel! I've never tried the 400, but the APX 100 I've been shooting as of late, is just magic in Rodinal 1+50. Lets hope some US importer can get a sweetheart deal. Heck we have all seen the threads where UK folks buy Ilford film from the US and still come out ahead. I'm going to reserve my judgement till 1) a new roll of this stuff is in hand 2) it checks out like the old stuff and last 3) the price is right.......hopefully bulk rolls are possible to offset....

 

[sepiareverb]

March 2013 price : 2,61 EUR
new price : 3,81 EUR
hurts and makes pretty much 45 per cent increase.
Insane!

Not actually insane. Film has become a specialty product. Kodak and Fuji show that mega volume production can't work anymore. Mirko is approaching this differently (wisely IMO) with a smaller scale method, which does cost more.

I am a big supporter of Adox for this reason. Everyone who is looking at a way forward for silver materials deserves our support, and Adox is really putting a lot on the line.

 

[zsas]

Well said ^

 

[HHPhoto]

March 2013 price : 2,61 EUR
new price : 3,81 EUR
hurts and makes pretty much 45 per cent increase.
Insane!

No, that is not at all insane. It is exactly the opposite.
Because:
Old AgfaPhoto APX 100, the material Lupus Imaging offered the last years, was all material from insolvency at Agfa in Leverkusen Germany. They bought this films extremely cheap, for less than the manufacturing costs at Agfa.
That was the reason why this film could be sold at such extremely low prices for all the years.
No one today can make a fresh BW film so cheap that he could sell it for 2,60€ and make a profit from it.

Lupus Imaging now have to buy new stuff, and at today's real manufacturing costs.
Therefore they have to raise prices.

As for the new stuff: Concerning Lupus' statement it is made in Europe.
My guess it is from Ilford, because Agfa-Gevaert has no panchromatic ISO 100 and 400 film in their portfolio, Foma has exclusive contracts with FS, Adox still cannot coat any film in their plant on an industrial level (official information from Adox), and Filmotec also has other contracts which forbid them such a deal.

For those who want to continue using the original Agfa APX emulsion: Just use Adox Silvermax, it is almost identical. You cannot divide results from both films in a side by side comparison.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes I was aware of that, just reminding Chris that the version prior to 2003 needed 20 mins in Rodinal 1:50.
The 2003-demise version was different, there was a whole warehouse full of that stuff-not sure what Lupus have been selling recently, could be Mortsel, Wolfen or any other EU factory.

I just dug out AGFA tech publications from 1999 and 2002 and both say the developing time is 11 minutes at 68(20C) degrees for APX 400 in Rodinal 1+50.

Interestingly, I have two Rodinal instruction sheets (the sheets that come in the Rodinal package), both say the chemical is made by A&O Imaging solutions and that they're using the AGFA name under license. These are pretty recent. One says the time should be 20 minutes and the other says it should be an absolutely insane 30 minutes (both for Rodinal 1+50 at 68 degrees for APX 400). These do not have dates marked on them.

 

[Jan Pedersen]

Very confusing information to say the least.
I just checked my original Rodinal from before A&O started manufacturing.
1+50 11 minutes
1+25 7 minutes

 

[Photo_Smith]

Jan
The info is pretty straight forward.
According to Agfa Technical data sheet C-SW56-E17, 06/04 (17th edition) the times for Rodinal 1:50 for a gamma of 0.65 (considered normal contrast) the times are:
1:25 12 mins
1:50 20 mins

the times you stated are for the lower gamma of 0.55 for the 2003 on emulsion, also you may like to note some Agfa literature uses the 1:50 for 30 mins that's not really insane at all but par for the course for the earlier emulsions.

Chris I have the Agfa data sheets for 1990's published in the pamphlet 'Action, Emotion, Memories'
The B&W manual of Agfa Products.
They clearly state on page 29:
Film speed at gamma 0.65
APX 400 1:25 15min ISO 320/26°
APX 400 1:50 30min ISO 400/27°
I have found a PDF version here:
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/pdf/agfa_bw_manual.pdf

I can categorically state that the times are correct for the old emulsions, developing to your times with the pre '03 emulsions would give lower contrast say 0.55 gamma or lower.
I think people here are conflating two issues, the change of emulsion (early 2000's) and the lower gamma.

 

[zsas]

Can one of you German folks please call Lupus and get to the bottom of this?

I emailed them but they prob trashed my email considering it was English:

Contact
So you can reach us:
Lupus Imaging & Media GmbH & Co. KG

Address:
Leichlinger Straße 14
D-40764 Langenfeld
Germany

Phone: +49(0)2173/20890-0

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Jan
The info is pretty straight forward.
According to Agfa Technical data sheet C-SW56-E17, 06/04 (17th edition) the times for Rodinal 1:50 for a gamma of 0.65 (considered normal contrast) the times are:
1:25 12 mins
1:50 20 mins

the times you stated are for the lower gamma of 0.55 for the 2003 on emulsion, also you may like to note some Agfa literature uses the 1:50 for 30 mins that's not really insane at all but par for the course for the earlier emulsions.

Chris I have the Agfa data sheets for 1990's published in the pamphlet 'Action, Emotion, Memories'
The B&W manual of Agfa Products.
They clearly state on page 29:
Film speed at gamma 0.65
APX 400 1:25 15min ISO 320/26°
APX 400 1:50 30min ISO 400/27°
I have found a PDF version here:
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/pdf/agfa_bw_manual.pdf

I can categorically state that the times are correct for the old emulsions, developing to your times with the pre '03 emulsions would give lower contrast say 0.55 gamma or lower.
I think people here are conflating two issues, the change of emulsion (early 2000's) and the lower gamma.

The tech publications I have from AGFA clearly state the times are for .65 gamma. I think AGFA is confused! I used a lot of APX 400 in the late 1990s and always developed it for 11 minutes at 68 degrees and got negs that printed flawlessly on grade 2 paper with a diffusion enlarger, which is what you would expect from film developed to gamma .65

That PDF you linked to has no date on it. I suspect it is later than the tech pubs I have.

 

[Photo_Smith]

The tech publications I have from AGFA clearly state the times are for .65 gamma. I think AGFA is confused! I used a lot of APX 400 in the late 1990s and always developed it for 11 minutes at 68 degrees and got negs that printed flawlessly on grade 2 paper with a diffusion enlarger, which is what you would expect from film developed to gamma .65

That PDF you linked to has no date on it. I suspect it is later than the tech pubs I have.

The paper linked to is from 1994, the printed copy says so on the last page.
I too developed lots of APX 400 between 1978-date and always used the 20 min time I don't remember having to print them on anything but grade 2 (sometimes depending on mood/ conditions 1 or 3).
So I don't think they are confused at all 🙂
I think what you are seeing from them are recommendations, rather than set in stone values, certainly the older emulsion needed more development than the one that was current when Agfa went bust.
Certainly all the literature I have from the era 1970-90's including the inside of the boxes have the longer times.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The paper linked to is from 1994, the printed copy says so on the last page.
I too developed lots of APX 400 between 1978-date and always used the 20 min time I don't remember having to print them on anything but grade 2 (sometimes depending on mood/ conditions 1 or 3).
So I don't think they are confused at all 🙂
I think what you are seeing from them are recommendations, rather than set in stone values, certainly the older emulsion needed more development than the one that was current when Agfa went bust.
Certainly all the literature I have from the era 1970-90's including the inside of the boxes have the longer times.

I just double checked the PDF you referenced and it does not have a date. The documents I have DO have clearly marked dates. I just noticed you are in Britain. I wonder if the films or the Rodinal sold in the USA was different than that sold in Europe. I have documents, both paper and PDF all clearly marked with dates from the 1990s and none show the long times. All these were obtained from AGFA's US subsidiary, not from AGFA Germany.

 

[rodinal]

I used to use APX 400 a lot; this stuff cannot be the same, the Rodinal 1+50 time they list is DOUBLE the time the old version I used required. They're saying 21 minutes at 1+50? That's insane, I cannot think of any film by any manufacturer needing such a long developing time in Rodinal 1+50. APX 400 used to require 10 minutes.

Chris,

Did you ever read the instructions leaflet of Rodinal ?

Rodinal 1+50: APX100, 13min; APX400, 30 min.

I'm not saying those are my times, but they were the "official times".

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris,

Did you ever read the instructions leaflet of Rodinal ?

Rodinal 1+50: APX100, 13min; APX400, 30 min.

I'm not saying those are my times, but they were the "official times".

Yes, I have several of them in my files going back 20 years. Those before about 2006 all give times of 11 minutes for APX 400 in Rodinal 1+50. Every one. no exceptions. The leaflets match the other tech publications I have from those time periods from AGFA's US office.

 

[johannielscom]

Pretty interesting.

Seems there possibly was a difference between Agfa400 sold in the US and in the EU...😱

At least when it came to developing films in Rodinal.

Maybe it was the Rodinal that was different!?

Anyway, I'm not jumping the wagon for this APX400 stuff until it's settled what the correct developing times in Rodinal are, and also that it is not an Ilford product. I've tried Delta100, Kentmere400 and HP5+ in Rodinal and disliked all of them for too flat images with too much grain...

The original APX100 I develop in Rodinal OTOH is stellar so if it's anything related to that, I'll stock up!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Pretty interesting.

Seems there possibly was a difference between Agfa400 sold in the US and in the EU...😱

At least when it came to developing films in Rodinal.

Maybe it was the Rodinal that was different!?

Anyway, I'm not jumping the wagon for this APX400 stuff until it's settled what the correct developing times in Rodinal are, and also that it is not an Ilford product. I've tried Delta100, Kentmere400 and HP5+ in Rodinal and disliked all of them for too flat images with too much grain...

The original APX100 I develop in Rodinal OTOH is stellar so if it's anything related to that, I'll stock up!

I'm thinking the same thing, that the film or developer AGFA sold in the US was different than that sold in Europe. No other way to explain instructions in the UK saying to develop twice as long as the USA instructions said!

For films that develop well in Rodinal, Ilford Pan-F and Kodak Tmax 100 are both very beautiful developed in Rodinal 1+50.

 

[PMCC]

Chris,

Did you ever read the instructions leaflet of Rodinal ?

Rodinal 1+50: APX100, 13min; APX400, 30 min.

I'm not saying those are my times, but they were the "official times".

Interesting and puzzling. Whatever formulation of Rodinal this is, the leaflet shows suggested developing times for APX100 and APX400 as significantly different from Rollei Retro 100 and Rollei Retro 400, which I had always assumed were the rebadged versions of their respective Agfa counterparts. I believe the last direct Agfaphoto Leverkusen production of Rodinal ceased before the marketing of Rollei Retro films began, but I don't know if the formula remained the same thereafter. I've read reports that some later versions of Rodinal don't have forever shelf-life; in my experience, the original Agfa stuff seems immortal (I'm still using it).

 

[johannielscom]

I'm also using the (EU?) old Agfa Rodinal, have been developing RR100 and APX100 in it and treated them equally: no difference.

Now, I have developed RR400 in it but not APX400 so I cannot be positive, but the 100asa results at least suggest RR100 and 'current old-batch' APX100 is identical.

 

[shadowfox]

I thought I'd read some cheering and celebrating that new films are still being manufactured and marketed.

Instead I read confusing and conflicting development talks.

Who cares? Shoot your films, come up with your own development routine and tweak it. What you consider beautiful may not be the same as the one I regard as so.

 

[clayne]

I thought I'd read some cheering and celebrating that new films are still being manufactured and marketed.

There are new films being developed. ADOX PAN 400 is APX400 - done better. ADOX PAN 100 is in the pipeline but totally gated by these APX100 games from Lupus. The root issue is that people want to have access to APX100 again, but as long as Lupus is in the picture and playing product name games, ADOX produce an economically viable product.

What I do wonder is if the Lupus APX100 isn't actually the Agfa emulsion anymore, why Mirkko doesn't just start on ADOX PAN 100, knowing that that it's the only true replacement for APX100 and advertising that fact far and wide.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

RPX 100 and RPX 400 are "retail" € 3,- per roll. They are the best available 100 and 400 iso BW materials available now. RPX 100 is very close to Acros 100 and RPX 400 to TRI-X.
What more can you ask ??