First look at the new Adox CHS 100 II

Koolzakukumba

Koolzakukumba

Real men use B+W
Local time
7:52 PM
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
357
I've shot my first 35mm roll of the new Adox and posted some pics, including darkroom print scans, along with early impressions on my website: http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2013/10/adox-chs-100-ii.html

CHS 100 II is lovely and I'll be using a lot of it in future, I think. I'll be doing a comparison test of the film against Silvermax and maybe one other in the near future.
 

Attachments

  • curve.jpg
    curve.jpg
    34.5 KB · Views: 0
Looks great. How do you think it compares to the old CHS-100? I ask because that film was actually Efke KB-100, a film I really loved and miss.
 
Looks really nice. I too have a soft spot for Adox, and for films that can be developed in Rodinal and look good and not cause grain aliasing on the Nikon. You've a nice balance of mid tone contrast and highlight/shadow detail too.

Looks like I need a few rolls - at least it slightly lighter during the winter at 54 north (N Yorks) than in Scotland!

Mike
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Looks great. How do you think it compares to the old CHS-100? I ask because that film was actually Efke KB-100, a film I really loved and miss.
Click to expand...

Hi Chris,

I never used a lot of old CHS 100 and what I did use was 120. I quite liked the old stuff but I found it built up contrast in the highlights quite quickly if I got the processing wrong, more so than with the other films I was using at the time. I suppose the answer is to always get the processing right...
 
Thanks Bruce. A good read. I'll look out for your Silvermax comparison. It's nice to have new B&W options, isn't it.

John
 
Koolzakukumba said:
Hi Chris,

I never used a lot of old CHS 100 and what I did use was 120. I quite liked the old stuff but I found it built up contrast in the highlights quite quickly if I got the processing wrong, more so than with the other films I was using at the time. I suppose the answer is to always get the processing right...
Click to expand...

The old CHS/Efke had quite low process latitude as well as not 'liking' overexposure.
This was mainly due to it being a single layer (aka thin) monodisperse emulsion so you had great sharpness with surface acting developers like Beutler or dilute Rodinal.

The old look you refer to was because it was a lone brand offering this in the market for so long 1954-2012 so 'old tech' means old look for some.
Yet paradoxically it was very modern in the 1950's and went against the many layered (thick) polydisperse emulsions like Verichrome Pan which also had a unique look.
 
Photo_Smith said:
The old CHS/Efke had quite low process latitude as well as not 'liking' overexposure.
This was mainly due to it being a single layer (aka thin) monodisperse emulsion so you had great sharpness with surface acting developers like Beutler or dilute Rodinal.

The old look you refer to was because it was a lone brand offering this in the market for so long 1954-2012 so 'old tech' means old look for some.
Yet paradoxically it was very modern in the 1950's and went against the many layered (thick) polydisperse emulsions like Verichrome Pan which also had a unique look.
Click to expand...

Efke 100 was the exceptions to the rule it was fully panchromatic the 25 and 50 were orthopan films and the Efke 100 was also a newer development. I also highly doubt that Efke's were pure single layer films as panchromatic film requires multiple layers. Also thin layer has absolutely nothing to do with the number of layers. All modern films are thinlayer emulsions and have way more than one emulsion layer. The last of the thicklayer films was Fortepan and even they had several emulsion layers (pan sensitation).Verichrome pan was a multilayer thick emulsion film, with different emulsion speed layers. Thicklayer and thinlayer describes the thickness of the emulsion thinlayer films are generally sharper than thicklayer emulsion as the thicker emulsion leads to a higher amount of inner reflections/haze inside the emulsion. As a note modern coating machines can coat both thick and thin emulsions.
 
wonder-film

wonder-film

I was looking forward to the new Adox CHS 100 II in 120 -
and tried comparing it to an "ordinary" and reasonable cheaper Rollei RPX 100.
I have to admit that I am new to the medium format: so the test was also a way of trying to find a everyday film for my Rolleicord.

So number 1 and 3 are Adox number 2 and 4 Rollei RPX. Frankly I do not see a big difference:
- maybe because I post-processed them
- maybe because I did not print them in a darkroom
- maybe ... well, I do not know.

Anyway: i am going to use my stock of this new wonder-film and maybe I will find something more unique along the way ...

20595393815_245251f958_b.jpg


19972825284_3f6e71e331_b.jpg


19972829204_5143c3cb81_b.jpg


19974508443_44dd0fed84_b.jpg
 
The differences between films of a similar speed designed to do much the same thing are quite subtle. It's easy to tell a 25 ISO film from a 400 ISO film - even a 100 ISO from a 400 ISO. But two 100 ISO films present a much bigger challenge. The thing to look for is the way CHS 100 II responds to blue and red.

Mirko Boddecker of Adox said of CHS 100 II, "You can see this difference very easily if you shoot outside. Try FP4 and CHS 100 II next to each other on a sunny day with some clouds in the sky or in portraits of a light-skinned person... The old-fashioned look is caused by the way the film is sensitised with the gap in between blue and red (green). This separates the clouds from the sky, the lips (and spots) from the skin, etc."

If your subject matter doesn't include the type of tones that CHS 100 II records differently then you'll not see much difference. Post processing will have an impact as well. Darkroom prints, as you suggest, will record the differences more faithfully. I loved the general tonality of the Adox film developed in Spur HRX III. I wrote about it here.

Here's a "contact sheet" of negatives photographed against the window.

contacts.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom