New At Photokina 2012: ADOX SILVERMAX

[Rangefinderfreak]

I was at Photokina and asked Ilford : is the Harmann/ Kentmere 400 same as Maco RPX-400 ? The answer was: That you have to ask at MACO booth... At Fotoimpex booth I asked: Is Silvermax the same as RPX-100 ? The answer was: Definitely NOT! At MACO booth I asked : Is RPX-400 same as Harmann/kentmere 400 and is Silvermax same as RPX-100 ? The answer was,yes, but no... Kentmere 400 and RPX 400 are very close, but different specs, slightly as they are from different batch. Everytime we ask for a master roll, we adjust the specs, accordingly the feedback we get.You know: TRI-X evolved during the years in the same way, without really making a fuss about it. As to the Silvermax/ RPX 100, they are obviously different film, as we guess Fotoimpex wanted it to differ from previous products. What it means to reality, in images, remains to be seen. It is not out of question that MACO would not adjust the parametres in future master roll specs...
What will change, or has already changed is the 120 size rolls. Our former partner for cutting and packaging the product has ceased to exist... ( In photokina, on the booth of EFKE, just a taped sign EFKE was present, no explanation...)

 

[Harry Lime]

Sounds interesting in theory, but what's the point of having 14 zones if your paper can't print them all?

All photographic films can be developed to cover a range of densities that is commensurate with the exposure range of a paper. That's why you can have full black, full white, and all the grey tones in between.

You don't need extra zones to print silver gelatin. The only reason I know to have film developed to a very high Dmax is when you are printing on a soft-contrast paper, such as platinum/palladium, Van Dyke brown, etc. But these processes are mostly sensitive to UV light, and are very slow--which preclude enlargement printing, unless you have a UV-source light in your enlarger. 35mm contact prints are a bit tiny.

I smell a gimmick. Or else it's a film designed to do slides (in which case you do need the extra Dmax), but I see nothing to this effect in the press release.

Your traditional paper may not be able to show all 14 stops, but you can decide which of the 14 to print. In my experience the more information you have to start from, the better off you are.

I've never understood this concern, because the exposure range of negative film has pretty much always exceeded that of paper. Slide film on the other hand has a more limited exposure range that is closer to paper, but IMO that has always been a severe limitation outside of the studio.

Of course if you scan the negative properly you have access to all 14 stops to bring back shadow or highlight detail. You can compress the exposure range to fit within the range of the paper (inkjet or silver gelatin). If this is done correctly it will not look like a silly HDR image, but like a finely dodged and burned traditional print.

I estimate that I get about 11-12 stops from my negatives. That's far more than the paper can display without some help, but that's a better problem to have to deal with than not capturing as much of the exposure range of the scene as possible.

 

[Rob-F]

I see there are references, above, to T-Max as covering the same dynamic range of 14 stops. I wonder: does this mean Silvermax will be apt to look flat? T-Max often looks flat to me, especially in the middle tones--not enough "snap."