Thank you!

You are going to love the next few months. 😃 I have some Kickstarter stuff to do today but will be developing a bunch of Delta 100, Delta 3200, and TMax 100 today.

Thank you!

Thank you, Richard!

Thank you!

Thank you, Mantas!

Thank you!

Thank you! :D

I will do that. I have an outline for that in the works. They won't be as in-depth, but will, I think, help shows how different developers work.

Thank you!

Thank you! Spur was not a film that had been on my radar at all. I'm excited to look into them now.

Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!

:D

I can second that sentiment, had to use a microfiche machine in a Ford dealers parts dept years ago.

Thank you! For the curl, I was able to reduce that a bit by letting it hand with some fishing weights on the end of the roll for a few days and then storing it in a negative book with weight (other negative books) on top of it.

@@DavidHancock After keeping the strips in the folders for some weeks, the curl disappear ... but beware of forgetting them loose in the darkroom -> The Curl Rises Again

I really hope that happens. I would love to have CHS 100 in medium format when I get to that review (not soon.)

I concur and that's an acknowledged weakness in my reviews that I want to start rectifying this year.

Thank you!

Nice! It's an awesome film.

Nice! It's a great film if it can be tamed a bit.

I concur. I have an idea of how to do that and just need some time to make it happen. It's on the to-do list for next year.

Thank you!

Thank you!

It's a pretty incredible film, just a bit hard to use very well.

@@DavidHancock Yeah, and hard to develop too... still gonna try it out though! I think it I'm going to make prints I'll use this film since there's literally no grain.

I hope it's worth the wait. :D

Thank you!

Thank you, Matteo!

Thank you!

Thank you! I didn't know that about Adotech IV. I do love CMS 20 II in Adotech at 1+14. It's a great pairing and this is a superb film.

@@DavidHancock Adotech IV I could not find anywhere

CMS 20 II reacts wildly differently, and generally not well, to developers other than Adotech. I would only use it in something other than Adotech if I had no choice. I do also like RPX 25 and really can't wait to start shooting it again for this series (next year I'm picking it back up.)

I only tried filters a couple of times and anything that increases contrast renders this almost a two-tone film.

Thank you! So the ongoing maintenance costs were the thing that did EFKE in?

@David Hancock Turning the clock back a bit, the original Adox company was one of the first in Europe. At the end of the war, the US was grabbing patents from Germany as war reparations. Adox, with its chemical formulae, everything was just given to Du Pont who had a graphic materials division but weren't interested in diversifying into photography. So they offered everything to Fotokemika in Zagreb on a lease basis. Under the name EFKE .. the sound of the letters f and k .. ef ke The Adox products were back in production. EFKE was never a big player in the US market, and very few were aware of its history. However, when Fotokemika decided to close down, the enterprising guy at FOTOIMPEX in Berlin, offered to take over the products, producing them at a new plant in Germany. Then, the ownership of the trade name ADOX became available and Fotoimpex snapped it up. I am confused as to who actually makes what, but it was an emotional 'Hooray!' when at least some of the original Adox (EFKE) products were back in their original label. If I had a bunch of money to put into a business, without any demands on returns, I'd put into their plant and equipment and also bring back 220 rollfilm.

I agree. To me, the biggest difference is that RPX 25 has a much greater dynamic range that can be obtained more easily. I've used some RPX 25, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert in it yet.

Oh shoot. Good point. So I just keep my chemistry at room temp, which in the darkroom space is pretty consistently 22C year-round because it has no exterior walls.

Dang it. Thank you. I thought I had fixed that on the template.

I order the vast majority of my film from Freestyle. They are likely out of stock, too. Back to school drains a lot of film suppliers stocks.

Thank you! I would say, for this film, it's one that really benefits from home developing because labs work in fast, strong chemistry (in general.) This is a film best used by advanced users with a good handle on their ability to develop this stock with good developing technique. I have a GREAT lab and I would definitely NOT send them this because they do all B&W in a 6-minute XTOL stock (or maybe 1+1) dip. This would not work well in that setting.

If you're in the U.S. Adox products have been hard to come buy the last year due to struggles with international trade and shipping. It sells out at Freestyle about as quickly as it arrives.

@@DavidHancock Yep in the US. I have BH notifying me when they have it in stock. Does this film work with colored filters like Tmax and the others ?

@@terrywbreedlove Oh it definitely will. All black and white films will work with all filters and differently so based on their spectral sensitivity. This film will not likely respond well to filters that increase contrast -- namely warm-tone filters. I would also think that, in general, filters with this film will make it harder to use because of how high contrast it is as a baseline.

@@DavidHancock Today i tried a red and polarizer filter together for the first time. Shooting 35mm Tmax 100 on the beach. I will develop it in the morning and I am excited to see what happens. I haven’t shot 35mm in a long time. I was using my Nikon F3 with a 17mm Tokina lens. I shoot 4x5 and medium format 99.9% of time time. But today was mostly about taking a long walk in the rain. I have to admit it was nice to have that built in light meter and let the camera do all the calculations 🤣

Not sure, as I've never used it. In general, high-contrast developers will not suit this film (in terms of what I'm looking for in images.) So if TD-3 is either high- or low-contrast, that may help answer that question.

@@DavidHancock Yeah, TD-3 is developed specifically for the purpose of controlling contrast in high contrast films. It was developed by Troop I think, and was supposed to be an improvement on technidol for use with tech pan or other similar technical films. It’s a LOT cheaper than the Adox developer though. It’s discussed in the Troop and Anchell book.

I have not. There's no one doing Scala reversals in the U.S. any more, that I know of. DR5 has stopped and I think they were the last.

@@DavidHancock I purchased the scala reversal kit, I read that it works with CMS 20II. I’ll have to give it a try.

Nope. It broke something like five years ago. I understand that the broken part is very expensive.

@@DavidHancock Oh, man! That doesn't sound good and this is so unfortunate! Thanks for the info!

That's not one that I can help with, unfortunately.

I tried it some years ago and liked it. I haven't dug back into it yet. As a general statement I think Adox films are exceptional.

That could be an interesting look, too.

Nope. I only used the ones listed in the video.

Not sure. I had wondered that. But I think this resolves so well that ultimately I doubt it. 11,000 dpi works out to about 433lp/mm, nothing that's not a perfect equivalent. I suspect that would still do better than most DSLR cameras and definitely better than flatbeds. The big question for me with scanners is always tonal depth, editability, and color.

@@DavidHancock Wow, just insane how much it takes to even get close to the potential resolution. Scanning 35mm at 11000 dpi would be about 15.587×10.384, around 161 megapixels ! They claimed 500mp, so theoretically their is still more detail, but this tops even the latest Hasselblads with 100-150mp sensors !

Nah, the great majority of CMS content that I see in internet is digitalised, which in my opinion is an error. Optic printing is the only way that yield good results. Also it is a bitch to scan, the density range of the film outperforms the vast majority of digital sensors and scanners. Clear base, bois, that Dmin is quite shady! (pun intended)

@@LaViejaConsolada I agree 100%. The major advantage would be for optical printing, which is rarely done nowadays, even through scans most people don't bother (I'm doing my printing from scans because it's cheaper (low res) and I don't develop/scan my own film). A nice enlarger lens, stopped down to f/8-f/11, and a sharp camera lens/tripod combination should be enough for making 16×20" prints from 35mm negatives of CMS 20 II. One day my dream would be to build my own darkroom, but unfortunately I don't have space/time/ nor do I shoot enough film (35mm) to justify that.

@@LaViejaConsolada But I think the point is missed with 35mm, as you're going to slow down the process anyways, might as well shoot 645/6×6. Not that 35mm is only good for fast action, but it's certainly limited , having to carefully shoot CMS 20 II, develop it, and use very slow ISO speed (12-20). The weight isn't as much of an issue (at least 645, 6×7 is just unbearable for most people), and you'll enjoy great results from faster films (Tmax 100, Acros 100 and Delta 100 come to mind).

In general, I'm a hard pass on red filters for film slower than 100 ISO solely due to the baseline contrast the film has and the increased contrast red filters provide.

I think I mentioned that somewhere in here, but I don't recall. I think I did and found any warm filter added too much contrast.

I suspect you're seeing surge marks. I don't recall bromide drag on the photos but some of them did have surge marks from agitations that were too rough.

@@DavidHancock Thanks, I guess when it comes from the sprocket holes it’s bromide drag. I personally am very keen on getting clean film images and prints. Although minor artefacts are inevitable I am not a fan of dust, scratches and uneven development.

Good question and it's a matter of the desired results. Agitation of any quantity in developing will increase negative contrast by replacing used chemistry with fresh. Stand developing will result in flatter negatives with better highlight and shadow detail. I do agree that bromide drag is a significant issue with stand developing and some chemistries and, when that's a concern, semi-stand is a good workaround.

Might be listed in the description

Fotoimpex seems it or if you're in the US Freestyle

Thank you!

Generally concur. LPMM is just one data point and it's highly fallible. Lens image characteristics, things like color transmission, distortion, and ghost and flare reduction are way more important than sharpness. Very many subjects don't benefit from grain-level sharpness, too.

@@DavidHancock right on

Some are with some developers, others were underdeveloped. On my monitor, the majority appear properly developed.

Noting that's a false equivalency, yes, but the goal there was only to express it's capabilities in more common terms to help cover how much detail this can capture. Film with equivalent resolution will outperform digital art the same resolution, too,

:D