tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
Dear All,
I just picked up 3 rolls of APX25 in 120, which I understand to be sort of like the Kodachrome of black-and-white -- legendary, beautiful, and with some cult status.
So what kind of imagery is this film particularly good at rendering? I've only got three chances and want to do it right...
Developers I have on hand are D76, D-19, DD-X, Rodinal (as well as formulary p-aminophenol), and HC-110.
Any suggestions?
Conor
I just picked up 3 rolls of APX25 in 120, which I understand to be sort of like the Kodachrome of black-and-white -- legendary, beautiful, and with some cult status.
So what kind of imagery is this film particularly good at rendering? I've only got three chances and want to do it right...
Developers I have on hand are D76, D-19, DD-X, Rodinal (as well as formulary p-aminophenol), and HC-110.
Any suggestions?
Conor
furcafe
Veteran
Absolutely nothing. 
Sorry, couldn't help quoting from the Edwin Starr song.
APX 25 is good for whatever you normally would use a slow (ISO 100 or less) B&W film for, i.e., when you want the highest resolution & finest grain, i.e., really big enlargements. What that means specifically for you will depend on your preferred subject matter.
If you've never used a slow film before & are accustomed to Tri-X, etc., negs/photos may actually appear on 1st glance to be less sharp than what you're used to, since the grain is so small &, IME anyway, it's a relatively low-contrast film (kind of like using an uncoated lens) & a lot of perceived sharpness comes from grain & contrast. However, once you look @ the negs/photos w/a loupe you'll see lots of fine details (assuming you're using proper technique).
I can't help you w/development, as I have my film developed by a local lab that uses Ilfotec & X-tol (which have apparently worked fine w/my APX 25).
This photo.net thread may be a good start:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KcKN
Sorry, couldn't help quoting from the Edwin Starr song.APX 25 is good for whatever you normally would use a slow (ISO 100 or less) B&W film for, i.e., when you want the highest resolution & finest grain, i.e., really big enlargements. What that means specifically for you will depend on your preferred subject matter.
If you've never used a slow film before & are accustomed to Tri-X, etc., negs/photos may actually appear on 1st glance to be less sharp than what you're used to, since the grain is so small &, IME anyway, it's a relatively low-contrast film (kind of like using an uncoated lens) & a lot of perceived sharpness comes from grain & contrast. However, once you look @ the negs/photos w/a loupe you'll see lots of fine details (assuming you're using proper technique).
I can't help you w/development, as I have my film developed by a local lab that uses Ilfotec & X-tol (which have apparently worked fine w/my APX 25).
This photo.net thread may be a good start:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KcKN
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Supposedly is ideal for portraits. That's at least what I have read about it.
In any case, have fun with it!
In any case, have fun with it!
sepiareverb
genius and moron
This film is probably not worth your trouble. Why don't you send it to me?
Just kidding (sorta). This is a wonderful film- I've got only 2 rolls left in the freezer. I've used it mostly in the studio in a C2 holder- can render every bit of detail out of anything you want. This really is one of the greatest emulsions ever made- I'd just use it on any of your usual subjects- something you think you might want to print big. A 1620 is no problem for this stuff.
Just kidding (sorta). This is a wonderful film- I've got only 2 rolls left in the freezer. I've used it mostly in the studio in a C2 holder- can render every bit of detail out of anything you want. This really is one of the greatest emulsions ever made- I'd just use it on any of your usual subjects- something you think you might want to print big. A 1620 is no problem for this stuff.
R
rich815
Guest
I still have about 6 rolls of 120 and 12 rolls of 35mm. It's great for smoothness of tone, and practically grain-free images. Almost too grain-free for my taste sometimes. Amazingly it's great in Rodinal, still with almost no grain.
A few examples of things I've shot with it lately (in the title of the image you can see which developer I used (HC-110, D-76, if not mentioned it was Rondial), and times usually):
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=38698047@N00&q=APX25&m=text
.
A few examples of things I've shot with it lately (in the title of the image you can see which developer I used (HC-110, D-76, if not mentioned it was Rondial), and times usually):
http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=38698047@N00&q=APX25&m=text
.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
It has been so long since I had the pleasure of APX 25 (or Agfapan 25, the previous incarnation), that I cannot recall my processing regimen. But this film is the stuff of dreams ... in my mind, it is APX100 raised to the highest level.
Yes, Rodinal is good. You can use 1:25 if you need a bit of contrast boost, 1:50 if the scene is normal or slightly high contrast, etc. Other developers will do well too, of course, but a fine grain developer is not only not necessary but the solvent action will probably mush up (technical term) the sharpness.
If I were shooting it for portraiture I would make sure I got highlight values correctly metered/exposed and not worry too much about shadow values. Otherwise, I would do my normal Zone III/IV placement of shadows and check Zone VI/VII placements to help determine development parameters.
Yes, Rodinal is good. You can use 1:25 if you need a bit of contrast boost, 1:50 if the scene is normal or slightly high contrast, etc. Other developers will do well too, of course, but a fine grain developer is not only not necessary but the solvent action will probably mush up (technical term) the sharpness.
If I were shooting it for portraiture I would make sure I got highlight values correctly metered/exposed and not worry too much about shadow values. Otherwise, I would do my normal Zone III/IV placement of shadows and check Zone VI/VII placements to help determine development parameters.
JayGannon
Well-known
If anyone ever sees any for sale buy it, and I will buy it off you =)
Rhodes
Time Lord
Bought six rolls 2 weeks ago on bay.de! 120 format, can not wait to use it!
HHPhoto
Well-known
I was a big fan of Agfa APX 25.
Now I have found a real replacement. More precisely, not only a replacement, but indeed an even much better film:
Agfa Copex Rapid (also sold as Spur DSX), developed in the new Spur Modular UR developer.
Surpassing APX 25 in the following categories:
- ideal characteristic curve, better tonality
- higher sensivity: ISO 40/17° - 50/18°
- much, much higher resolution: I get medium format quality with 35mm film
- much better sharpness
- finer grain
- because of the clear base I can more easy judge the negatives after developing
- excellent archivability because of long term stable PET base
This film / developer combination is really outstanding.
Cheers, Jan
Now I have found a real replacement. More precisely, not only a replacement, but indeed an even much better film:
Agfa Copex Rapid (also sold as Spur DSX), developed in the new Spur Modular UR developer.
Surpassing APX 25 in the following categories:
- ideal characteristic curve, better tonality
- higher sensivity: ISO 40/17° - 50/18°
- much, much higher resolution: I get medium format quality with 35mm film
- much better sharpness
- finer grain
- because of the clear base I can more easy judge the negatives after developing
- excellent archivability because of long term stable PET base
This film / developer combination is really outstanding.
Cheers, Jan
Edward C. Zimmermann
Nerd
With all these fans of APX25 its strange that the sales figures were so dismal.
There are no replacements for APX25 as it was widely considered obsolete for most applications when it was discontinued--- the main applications were it was not was submin (such as Minox) where due to the dept-of-field (Minox: 15mm @ f/1:3.5 fixed) one could hand shoot ISO 25 even at slow shutter speeds without problems.
Microfilm is not a replacement for APX25. Its not even a substitution. Its beans and oranges. What they have is common is just slow speed.
The "tamed" Copex negatives one gets are also very thin and less suited to digitalization work-flows than some of the modern emulsions coming from Rochester .
No. That's were APX25 had its strength and where underdeveloping Microfilm has its weaknesses.
I could deliver--- and Heribert Schain as well--- a developer to provide higher speed with APX25.
APX25 at the time it was dropped was no longer considered a high resolution film. The TMax of the day delivered for pictorial applications 60-70 lp/mm compared to APX25's 80 lp/mm at 1/4 of its speed and less latitude.
You can never get MF quality from 35mm film: 56x56mm (3136 mm^2) versus max. 24x36 (<864 mm^2). Printing both to 8x10" the MF will never loose on tonality alone--- not to speak of some of the other "features" of film.
Copex is not fine grained. That's why it provides such excellent sharpness. Finest grain and sharpness don't go hand in hand!
Polyester bases are not just pluses..
Please note. I like Heribert and I think he makes outstanding developers--- some of the absolute best commercial developers on the planet--- and I'm quite a fan of his approach to taming Microfilms. The combinations are really good and he provides a great product and taken the approach pioneered by Marlyn Levy and advanced by Holden and Weichert to a new level. Levy, of course, did not start the game and one can find its roots decades prior in the work of Willi Beutler.
Taming the contrast of micro and document films is something quite different from APX25, TMax and all the other film designed for photographic applications. SPUR's Copex approach (film+developer) is a solution for those looking to shoot in miniature formats (35mm and smaller) and enlarge to beyond 20x-- I have a number of 12x16" prints (and some even larger) made from Minox (8x11mm) hand-held shots (even a few done indoors without flash!)....
Time, I think, has moved on from this approach for anything but submin applications and, of course, experimentation... On the one hand, with the increased resolution and decreased noise of digital sensors grain and other B&W film issues are no longer considered "undesirable".. and, on the other, modern emulsions coming out from Kodak are getting to the point that the effective system resolution is more or less almost as good but with higher speed and latitude.... and tuned to digital hybrid processes..
venchka
Veteran
When I finish my last roll of Kodachrome I plan to thaw my 7 rolls of 135-APX 25. Earl, dust off your APX 25 developing notes please. Rodinal at the ready. Agfa film in Agfa Rodinal. Could there be any other way?
Stand by.
Stand by.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
Agfapan 25:
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
good for shooting wide open with a 1.0 or 1.2 in broad daylight.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Dear Edward,
from your postings I have to conclude that you so far have not used Copex Rapid 35mm film in combination with the new Spur Modular UR developer.
I have used this combination, the predecessors Dynamicspeed 32 and 64, Orthopan UR (=Adox CMS 20) with all Spur developers, Kodak Imagelink and Technical Pan, Rollei ATP and Ortho 25.
And I have used APX 25, Efke 25, Rollei Pan 25 and Adox Pan 25 as well as TMX for years.
I am talking from experience.
Sorry, that may be your personal opinion that the film was obsolete. Obsolete for you, but not for other photographers.
The film was highly regarded for high resolution, very fine grained pictures and high magnifications.
And ISO 25 is not so slow. No problems with hand held shooting with 35mm cameras and 120 TLRs.
Kodachrome 25 was the standard film for many years in wildlife photography. Lots of animal action shots were shot on Kodachrome 25 by the way.
Sorry, that's wrong. You give general statements concerning microfilm. That is very problematic.
Microfilms are very different. Copex Rapid is different to Copex HDP, both are very different to Kodak Imagelink and Fuji minicopy and so on.....
I am talking about Agfa Copex Rapid (=Spur DSX) in Spur Modular UR developer.
And that is a completely different animal compared to all other Microfilm / developer combinations.
It is completely wrong to transfer results from other microfilm developer combinations to this film and developer.
What they (APX 25 and Copex Rapid) have in common is of course not only the speed.
It is very fine detail and tonality, and the possibility to make large prints.
That is the main reason for using these films.
And in this respect Copex Rapid in Modular UR is clearly surpassing APX 25, developed in fine grain / high resolution developers like CG512, Microdol, Perceptol etc.
That's wrong. I've got got much better scans from Copex Rapid compared to TMX.
Wrong.
With the Spur Modular UR developer (and also with the former Dynamicspeed developer) I can get an ideal characteristic curve.
Excellent shadow detail and excellent tone separation in the mid tones and highlights.
And a dynamic range of 13 stops.
Therefore much better results here than with APX 25 and TMX.
Which one? Even with Microphen the speed limit with APX was 40 ASA. But then you have to made compromises, grain was significantly coarser.
Copex Rapid in Modular developed I get real ISO 40/17° (even ISO 50/18° is good) with excellent shadow detail.
Grain is finer than APX 25 in Microphen, and dynamic range is much better as well.
Sorry, that's wrong again.
1. Even if APX would have had only 80 Lp/mm resolution for pictorial use the difference to TMX would be clearly visible.
2. But both APX 25 and TMX (and Delta 100, Acros) have significantly higher resolution values at moderate object contrast (which are most relevant for pictorial use) than 60 - 80 Lp/mm.
Friends and me have tested that: With different excellent prime lenses we have got values in the range of 120 - 160 Lp/mm resolution with TMX, Delta 100, Acros, Pan F+ etc.
APX 25 was at the top of the conventional films.
And Copex Rapid was at 200 Lp/mm with much better sharpness than APX and TMX.
Looking at the pictures the difference and the advantage of Copex is more obvious than looking at the numbers.
And we are not the only ones with this experiences. Look at the tests and reports from Pilz, Antora, Kahls, Seemann, Seeger and Ventzke which were reported on apug, photo.net and aphog.
Or at the tests published by Zeiss in the camera lens news.
They all have got very similar results.
No, that is not correct. I am using 35mm, 120 and sometimes 4x5".
I have made dozens of test shots with different films in different formats, and have compared them to Copex Rapid in Dynamicspeed and Modular.
Then I have made 30x40 and 40x50cm prints.
I have shown these prints to different photographers in a blind test: They should say, with which format the shots were made.
The 35mm Spur DSX (Copex rapid) shots were considered to be made with medium format film. All photographers judged it this way.
Fomapan 100 and Ilford FP4+ in 6x6 MF were rated much lower than Copex / Modular in 35mm by all photographers.
Concerning resolution, sharpness, grain and tonality. Fomapan and FP4+ were developed in CG512 fine grain / high resolution developer.
All of the photographers involved in this blind test had to admit that you get medium format quality with Copex Rapid / Modular, and better results compared to Fomapan 100 and FP4+ in 120.
Sorry, you are joking.
TMX is very fine grained and has excellent sharpness. Same with Delta 100. Same with TMY-2 in the 400 speed class.
Adox CMS 20 / Spur Orthopan (=Agfa Copex HDP) is the finest grain film and also the sharpest film, and the film with highest resolution.
Kodak Technical Pan was extremely fine grained and extremely sharp as well. Same with Rollei ATP.
Of course very fine or extremely fine grain and excellent sharpness can be combined.
Copex Rapid in Modular UR has significantly higher resolution and better sharpness than APX 25 and TMX. Grain is a bit finer.
With the Modular developer you can use Copex Rapid like any other film. You get fine tonal separation, better dynamic range, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to APX 25 and TMX (exposed at ISO 50 and developed in Microdol, Perceptol or CG512, so almost same speed as with Copex / Modular).
And you can see the difference also in smaller prints (20x30, 24x30cm, 30x40cm).
One main advantage of Copex Rapid (and ATP, CMS 20) in Spur developers is that you get much better resolution at very low object contrast (one or two stops). And that can be seen at lower magnification ratios and with subjects with fine, but low contrast detail.
I have to totally disagree here again. We have tested 24 MP DSLRs, and due to their physical limits (Nyquist resolution limit, Bayer limitations, demosaic algorhthms)
with 24 MP the highest resolution values were only 75 Lp/mm. Even with our best prime lenses.
Look at the scientific test report of Dr. Nasse, chief optic designer at Zeiss, published in the camera lens news. Same results, supporting our results. Or look at dpreview. You will not found higer values with 24 MP.
But Copex Rapid is in the 200 + Lp/mm range (depending on the lens).
It is a completely different world. The resolution test shots with 24 MP are looking like crap compared to Copex, ATP or CMS 20.
At the higher spatial frequencies you get excellent fine detail with the films, and only Moiré and artifacts with the 24 MP DSLR.
Cheers, Jan
from your postings I have to conclude that you so far have not used Copex Rapid 35mm film in combination with the new Spur Modular UR developer.
I have used this combination, the predecessors Dynamicspeed 32 and 64, Orthopan UR (=Adox CMS 20) with all Spur developers, Kodak Imagelink and Technical Pan, Rollei ATP and Ortho 25.
And I have used APX 25, Efke 25, Rollei Pan 25 and Adox Pan 25 as well as TMX for years.
I am talking from experience.
Sorry, that may be your personal opinion that the film was obsolete. Obsolete for you, but not for other photographers.
The film was highly regarded for high resolution, very fine grained pictures and high magnifications.
And ISO 25 is not so slow. No problems with hand held shooting with 35mm cameras and 120 TLRs.
Kodachrome 25 was the standard film for many years in wildlife photography. Lots of animal action shots were shot on Kodachrome 25 by the way.
Sorry, that's wrong. You give general statements concerning microfilm. That is very problematic.
Microfilms are very different. Copex Rapid is different to Copex HDP, both are very different to Kodak Imagelink and Fuji minicopy and so on.....
I am talking about Agfa Copex Rapid (=Spur DSX) in Spur Modular UR developer.
And that is a completely different animal compared to all other Microfilm / developer combinations.
It is completely wrong to transfer results from other microfilm developer combinations to this film and developer.
What they (APX 25 and Copex Rapid) have in common is of course not only the speed.
It is very fine detail and tonality, and the possibility to make large prints.
That is the main reason for using these films.
And in this respect Copex Rapid in Modular UR is clearly surpassing APX 25, developed in fine grain / high resolution developers like CG512, Microdol, Perceptol etc.
That's wrong. I've got got much better scans from Copex Rapid compared to TMX.
Wrong.
With the Spur Modular UR developer (and also with the former Dynamicspeed developer) I can get an ideal characteristic curve.
Excellent shadow detail and excellent tone separation in the mid tones and highlights.
And a dynamic range of 13 stops.
Therefore much better results here than with APX 25 and TMX.
Which one? Even with Microphen the speed limit with APX was 40 ASA. But then you have to made compromises, grain was significantly coarser.
Copex Rapid in Modular developed I get real ISO 40/17° (even ISO 50/18° is good) with excellent shadow detail.
Grain is finer than APX 25 in Microphen, and dynamic range is much better as well.
Sorry, that's wrong again.
1. Even if APX would have had only 80 Lp/mm resolution for pictorial use the difference to TMX would be clearly visible.
2. But both APX 25 and TMX (and Delta 100, Acros) have significantly higher resolution values at moderate object contrast (which are most relevant for pictorial use) than 60 - 80 Lp/mm.
Friends and me have tested that: With different excellent prime lenses we have got values in the range of 120 - 160 Lp/mm resolution with TMX, Delta 100, Acros, Pan F+ etc.
APX 25 was at the top of the conventional films.
And Copex Rapid was at 200 Lp/mm with much better sharpness than APX and TMX.
Looking at the pictures the difference and the advantage of Copex is more obvious than looking at the numbers.
And we are not the only ones with this experiences. Look at the tests and reports from Pilz, Antora, Kahls, Seemann, Seeger and Ventzke which were reported on apug, photo.net and aphog.
Or at the tests published by Zeiss in the camera lens news.
They all have got very similar results.
No, that is not correct. I am using 35mm, 120 and sometimes 4x5".
I have made dozens of test shots with different films in different formats, and have compared them to Copex Rapid in Dynamicspeed and Modular.
Then I have made 30x40 and 40x50cm prints.
I have shown these prints to different photographers in a blind test: They should say, with which format the shots were made.
The 35mm Spur DSX (Copex rapid) shots were considered to be made with medium format film. All photographers judged it this way.
Fomapan 100 and Ilford FP4+ in 6x6 MF were rated much lower than Copex / Modular in 35mm by all photographers.
Concerning resolution, sharpness, grain and tonality. Fomapan and FP4+ were developed in CG512 fine grain / high resolution developer.
All of the photographers involved in this blind test had to admit that you get medium format quality with Copex Rapid / Modular, and better results compared to Fomapan 100 and FP4+ in 120.
Sorry, you are joking.
TMX is very fine grained and has excellent sharpness. Same with Delta 100. Same with TMY-2 in the 400 speed class.
Adox CMS 20 / Spur Orthopan (=Agfa Copex HDP) is the finest grain film and also the sharpest film, and the film with highest resolution.
Kodak Technical Pan was extremely fine grained and extremely sharp as well. Same with Rollei ATP.
Of course very fine or extremely fine grain and excellent sharpness can be combined.
Copex Rapid in Modular UR has significantly higher resolution and better sharpness than APX 25 and TMX. Grain is a bit finer.
With the Modular developer you can use Copex Rapid like any other film. You get fine tonal separation, better dynamic range, higher resolution and better sharpness compared to APX 25 and TMX (exposed at ISO 50 and developed in Microdol, Perceptol or CG512, so almost same speed as with Copex / Modular).
And you can see the difference also in smaller prints (20x30, 24x30cm, 30x40cm).
One main advantage of Copex Rapid (and ATP, CMS 20) in Spur developers is that you get much better resolution at very low object contrast (one or two stops). And that can be seen at lower magnification ratios and with subjects with fine, but low contrast detail.
I have to totally disagree here again. We have tested 24 MP DSLRs, and due to their physical limits (Nyquist resolution limit, Bayer limitations, demosaic algorhthms)
with 24 MP the highest resolution values were only 75 Lp/mm. Even with our best prime lenses.
Look at the scientific test report of Dr. Nasse, chief optic designer at Zeiss, published in the camera lens news. Same results, supporting our results. Or look at dpreview. You will not found higer values with 24 MP.
But Copex Rapid is in the 200 + Lp/mm range (depending on the lens).
It is a completely different world. The resolution test shots with 24 MP are looking like crap compared to Copex, ATP or CMS 20.
At the higher spatial frequencies you get excellent fine detail with the films, and only Moiré and artifacts with the 24 MP DSLR.
Cheers, Jan
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
Slap three neutral density filters on your wide-angle lens of choice, stop down to f:16 and take long tripod-mounted exposures of your favorite urban landscapes without people.
venchka
Veteran
I don't have 3 ND filters. I do have Y-O (2 stops), red (3 stops) and ND (3 stops) filters. The Y-O & Red filters should yield interesting results. Thanks for the tip.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
APX is one of those many films that is very good if you like it, but doesn't live up to the more extreme claims made for it by its devotees. Delta 100 is probably sharper, though less fine-grained -- just as Delta 100 is sharper than Pan F, though less fine grained. Of course, sharpness and grain aren't everything. Tonality matters too.
HHPhoto's protestations notwithstanding, no microfilm looks particularly like it tonally, any more that T-Max 400 looks particularly like Tri-X. Nor are claims of 'MF quality' especially meaningful, unless you deliberately handicap the LF via film or developer choice, poor lenses, etc. Use the same film, and top-quality lenses, and -- surprise! -- the larger format is rarely hard to distinguish from 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
HHPhoto's protestations notwithstanding, no microfilm looks particularly like it tonally, any more that T-Max 400 looks particularly like Tri-X. Nor are claims of 'MF quality' especially meaningful, unless you deliberately handicap the LF via film or developer choice, poor lenses, etc. Use the same film, and top-quality lenses, and -- surprise! -- the larger format is rarely hard to distinguish from 35mm.
Cheers,
R.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi Roger,
Believe me, Delta 100 is not sharper than APX 25. I have used Delta 100 since its introduction in 1992.
It is a wonderful film, I love it. I think it is Ilford's best film.
D100 has excellent sharpness, same level as TMX (though TMX has finer grain). But both are not better concernig sharpness than APX 25.
Fully agreed.
Please read my posting. I have not talked about microfilm in general. I have talked about Spur DSX (Copex Rapid from Agfa) in dedicated developer Spur Modular UR.
And this combination delivers excellent tonality, even a bit better than APX 25 in CG512, ID-11 or Rodinal.
The DSX / Modular combination has an excellent characteristic curve, is suitable for zone system developing, and has higher dynamic range and highlight detail than APX 25 or TMX.
Please read what I have written: The test results with DSX / Modular in 35mm were significantly better than the classic combinations FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in 6x6.
Because I am using these films as rollfilm, it makes sense for me to compare them to the DSX film.
And this film is clearly surpassing them concerning sharpness, resolution and tonality.
And other photographers to which I have shown the pictures made the same conclusion.
When they saw the DSX prints they thougt it were prints from rollfilm.
FP4+ and Fomapan 120 shots in our test were not handicapped. Developed in fine grain / high resolution developers like CG512 and Perceptol and Mamiya and Zenza Bronica prime lenses.
DSX is only available in 35mm at the moment. Of course, if I have would have the possibility to use it in 120, the results in 120 would outperform the 35mm results. No question at all.
But I think you agree that Fp4+ in 120 gives very good quality.
Now I have the possibility with DSX / Modular combination, to outperform this quality level with 35mm film.
Cheers, Jan
Believe me, Delta 100 is not sharper than APX 25. I have used Delta 100 since its introduction in 1992.
It is a wonderful film, I love it. I think it is Ilford's best film.
D100 has excellent sharpness, same level as TMX (though TMX has finer grain). But both are not better concernig sharpness than APX 25.
Fully agreed.
Please read my posting. I have not talked about microfilm in general. I have talked about Spur DSX (Copex Rapid from Agfa) in dedicated developer Spur Modular UR.
And this combination delivers excellent tonality, even a bit better than APX 25 in CG512, ID-11 or Rodinal.
The DSX / Modular combination has an excellent characteristic curve, is suitable for zone system developing, and has higher dynamic range and highlight detail than APX 25 or TMX.
Please read what I have written: The test results with DSX / Modular in 35mm were significantly better than the classic combinations FP4+ and Fomapan 100 in 6x6.
Because I am using these films as rollfilm, it makes sense for me to compare them to the DSX film.
And this film is clearly surpassing them concerning sharpness, resolution and tonality.
And other photographers to which I have shown the pictures made the same conclusion.
When they saw the DSX prints they thougt it were prints from rollfilm.
FP4+ and Fomapan 120 shots in our test were not handicapped. Developed in fine grain / high resolution developers like CG512 and Perceptol and Mamiya and Zenza Bronica prime lenses.
DSX is only available in 35mm at the moment. Of course, if I have would have the possibility to use it in 120, the results in 120 would outperform the 35mm results. No question at all.
But I think you agree that Fp4+ in 120 gives very good quality.
Now I have the possibility with DSX / Modular combination, to outperform this quality level with 35mm film.
Cheers, Jan
JayGannon
Well-known
HHphoto to be honest I still dont believe your comparisons are accurate, possibily you can back up with some pictorial comparisons? High res scans of the negs or the prints used in the MF/35mm comparison maybe?
I've yet to see any 35mm combination come within the range of MF from visual inspections, but am open to being proven wrong.
I've yet to see any 35mm combination come within the range of MF from visual inspections, but am open to being proven wrong.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Jay, I don't have a high resolution scanner. From what I have heard from scanning experts, even drum scanners are not able to catch the full detail of Delta 100 or TMX.
I will try to find a scanning company for drum scanning my optical prints. If I remember right, there is one in Berlin. I hope it is possible and not to expensive.
But nevertheless, if you are interested, why not try by yourself?
You have to know what you can get with your lenses and your phototechnique, not what I can get with my equipment and my skills
.Cheers, Jan