Adox 25 CHS - opinions?

[Nomad]

I'm attracted to this film for its reputed fine grain, and would welcome some opinions. My preferred developer is HC-110 (convenient, and stores well). I'm planning a long term project that is expected to last 4 or 5 years, consisting of a handful of shots evey month. I'd like to settle on a single type of film to ensure that results are consistent, and so that I can bulk buy the film and freeze it (to offset my paranoia about silver prices going up even more).

The subject will be a landscape, shot in daylight, in all seasons. The format is 5x4, and I will be using a Fujinon 90mm f5.6 SWD. I don't expect to need any camera movements. Nor do I don't expect to need any zone system compression or expansion stuff - I think I can just meter highlights and shadows, and pick the mid-point. The main thing I want is maximum detail and sharpness. I'm not too fussed about contrast - middling should be fine, I think (the negs will be scanned on an Epson V700, with a potential for some to be wet printed later). The negs will be developed in a Combi-Plan tank, 6 sheets at a time. (The Combi-Plan and HC-110 has been fine for 4 sheets of Delta 100 - very even development, and good contrast.)

Am I on the right track with the Adox 25ASA film? Am I likely to encounter any issues with HC-110? The impression I get from what Silverprint and Adox say is that the film is quite finicky about exposure - but how finicky is it, really? Is it a pain to get right, or is it fine once one's procedure is settled? What is it like for consistency of quality? Anything else I should consider regarding it? Are there any other films of a similar price that might be better choices?

[Charles Twist]

For B&W, that's the only film I use. So I am no good at comparisons. The grain seems more than adequate for my needs. I develop with Neofin Blue as I was told to, but I am sure alternatives exist - I am as keen as you to hear of them. I am by experience an E6 transparency person used to working within a 1/2 stop. So I haven't got any problems with CHS25. I like the character of the film and everything seems pretty reproducible. The surface is fairly fragile when wet, which can result in scratches, so I would recommend scanning over wet printing, if you want to be rid of your mis-handlings.
Regards,
Charles

[IanG]

What grain ?

Having used EFKE/Adox 25 since the 1970's when it was still known by it's DIN name Kb/R/Pl25 and in 35mm it's remarkably grain free, it's now slightly better hardened but y6ou need real care, it's very important to keep every step close in temperature preferably +/- 1°C.

I use the film in 10x8 and some 5x4 now, it's OK but not my first choice for 5x4 I often have to work hand held so shoot HP5

Ian

[Nomad]

Thanks, chaps. Looks like delicate emulsion is a potential issue, then. I should have a chance to try some towards the end of the month, and will see how it goes in HC-110. The Massive Dev Chart suggests 7 minutes for 35mm, dilution B, so I'll start with that.

[Andrew Plume]

Nomad

you could also discuss this with Matt at ag photographic - http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/ - the other UK retailer of these films - Matt will be very happy to discuss the merits of this film with you, I'm sure, as he has with me

there's probably little if none, other competition in b&w iso 25 sheet film than Adox - I'm not 100% sure of this but Ian Grant will certainly know

andrew

[IanG]

The only recent true slow, extra fine grain competitor in large format was Agfa Pan 25, last seen in the early to mid 1980's in large format. Pan F has never been coated as a sheet film. Technical Pan and some other specialist films could be used for continuous tone but their tonality was anything but normal.

Ian

[Andrew Plume]

The only recent true slow, extra fine grain competitor in large format was Agfa Pan 25, last seen in the early to mid 1980's in large format. Pan F has never been coated as a sheet film. Technical Pan and some other specialist films could be used for continuous tone but their tonality was anything but normal.

Ian

thanks Ian - as I thought

best regards

andrew

[Nomad]

I shot a roll of 120, and it developed fine in HC-110 for 7 minutes (agitation by tilting the tank, 30secs at start, and 10 secs every minute thereafter). When I was loading it into the spiral, the back felt a bit tacky, presumably an anti-halation coating. I gave it a few rinses before putting in the developer, and the rinse water came out blue. Took three tankfuls of rinses to get it nearly clear. Also tried the 5x4, but haven't developed it yet. When I took out the first sheet to see where the notch was, it had a blue coating as well - a corner washed away under the cold tap in about a minute.

I got some edge fogging on the last two or three frames of the 120, even though I was trying to keep it in subdued light when I unloaded the camera - the PET base is something to watch out for with the roll film versions (I'd imagine 35mm might have the same issue with the light working its way along from the leader).

Yes, very fine grain - hard to see any at all when pixel peeping a 1200 dpi scan. Also not too contrasty - most of my shots were details of a castle on a sunny day, with bright sun on some stonework, and dark shadows elsewhere. Highlights held, and shadow detail seemed good. I was fairly careful with exposure (mixture of reflected and incident readings with a Weston Master V). So far, I'm happy. Would be interesting to try some deliberate over and under exposures to see what happens.

[Neil Barnes]

The Adox site does indicate that light piping can be an issue with the 120 and 35mm packages. It suggests that subdued lighting it a good idea when loading and unloading.

I agree about the blue coming out in the wash - the CHS50 does the same and it's quite spectacular!

Neil

[Nomad]

I got a few rolls in 35mm, and tried one the other day. Sunny with fluffy clouds, photos taken in woodlands. No sign of light piping that I could see. I loaded the film in the shade of some trees with my back towards the sun - the camera was an old Leica, and the loading included the time spent pulling out the leader and trimming it. In the duller areas of the woods, I was getting exposures of 1/25 at f5.6 or f4.

Some of the negs were rather bright when they were scanned, and I thought I might have over exposed them. However, I also gave it a rinse before developing, but I think the blue coating on 35mm is between the gelatin and substrate, which means a bit more of a soak before it's washed away. I developed for the same time in HC-110 (7 minutes), so maybe over development was partly the issue. Overall, there was quite a bit of variation with the density - a roll of Rollei Retro 100 shot just before the CHS had much more even densisty, neg to neg (auto-exposure was switched off on the scanner). So, I concur so far with the notion that the CHS is a bit more fussy - less latitude, and not so conducive to the somewhat carefree approach to exposure I tend to have with 35mm. (Still haven't developed the large format shots...)