Adox HR-50 & speed boost developer
Old 12-18-2018   #1
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 486
Adox HR-50 & speed boost developer

I have just received the above, now I just need the sun to come out (and for me to finush the roll of Xp2 super) so I can use it her in good old Blighty. Any personal comments on this film. Hopefully it will replace my use of Rollei ATP 1.1 film use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #2
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kram View Post
I have just received the above, now I just need the sun to come out (and for me to finush the roll of Xp2 super) so I can use it her in good old Blighty. Any personal comments on this film. Hopefully it will replace my use of Rollei ATP 1.1 film use.
You are on the right track with Adox HR-50 if you are looking for an ATP replacement. I have tested the HR-50 and HR-50 DEV developer quite intensively during the last months. Both have superpanchromatic sensivity.
Comparing HR-50 to ATP:
1. Advantages of HR-50:
- much much better tonality and characteristic curve
- much easier to handle
- can be developed in different developers (but works optimal with the new Adox HR-50 DEV)
- cheaper
- available (ATP was discontinued).

2. Advantages of ATP:
- slightly finer detail rendition (grain, sharpness, resolution).

If you want a film that significantly surpass ATP even in detail rendition just use Adox CMS 20 II in Adotech IV developer. That is the film with by far the finest grain, highest resolution and best sharpness. It is an orthopanchromatic film (red is recorded a bit darker than with panchromatic films).

Adox HR-50 has much finer grain than PanF+, Acros, TMX, Delta 100. And a bit better sharpness and resolution, too.
And all that for a lower price.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-18-2018   #3
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 486
Thanks for the reply, just what I was looking for. Also no longer need to use distilled water. I have tried Adox CMS20. But due to the weather was shooting with it rated at 12 or 16 iso. This is too slow for me, I was using 1/30 @ f3.5 with as standard lens (medium format). Only once stopping down to f5.6. Trying the HR-50 in 35mm first of all.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #4
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by kram View Post
Thanks for the reply, just what I was looking for. Also no longer need to use distilled water. I have tried Adox CMS20. But due to the weather was shooting with it rated at 12 or 16 iso. This is too slow for me, I was using 1/30 @ f3.5 with as standard lens (medium format). Only once stopping down to f5.6. Trying the HR-50 in 35mm first of all.
I am using Adox CMS 20 II on sunny days at ISO 12/12° without a tripod: With shutter speeds in the range of 1/125s to 1/320s and apertures in the range of f2.8 to f5.6.
The big advantage of CMS 20 II:
With 35mm film you get quality surpassing 6x6 medium format!
So instead of using medium format you can use 35mm film with all its advantages, but without any compromises in picture quality.

The detail rendition of Adox HR-50 is not so outstanding as Adox CMS 20 II.
But nevertheless Adox HR-50 has such a fine grain that you will have difficulties to distinguish 35mm HR-50 from 6x6 FP4+.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #5
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
...With 35mm film you get quality surpassing 6x6 medium format!
Sorry but that's BS. Tonality is one of the MF Qualities and you can get that, also the film is available in MF so how are you gonna surpass the quality of a film that is available in larger format by using a smaller format. Also FP4 will blow 35mm film away in terms of tonality maybe it will have more grain but tonality no way, especially due the fact that it is a tamed document film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #6
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
With 35mm film you get quality surpassing 6x6 medium format!

Sorry but that's BS. Tonality is one of the MF Qualities and you can get that, also the film is available in MF so how are you gonna surpass the quality of a film that is available in larger format by using a smaller format. Also FP4 will blow 35mm film away in terms of tonality maybe it will have more grain but tonality no way, especially due the fact that it is a tamed document film.
Your comment clearly shows that you have neither used Adox CMS 20 II with Adotech IV nor Adox HR-50 by yourself.
Otherwise you would not have made this completely wrong statement.
You are surpassing 6x6 of other films like PanF+ and Delta 100 with 35mm CMS 20 II in terms of resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain.
I've tested all that very intensively. And have been using CMS 20 II for years, in 35mm and 120.

I've made lots of blind tests with other photographers: Made big prints from 35mm CMS 20 II and HR-50 and 6x6 FP4+, Delta 100, PanF+, and the photographers had to choose those with best quality.
35mm CMS 20 II has always won, compared to all other combinations.
And 35mm HR-50 has won compared to 6x6 FP4+. Chosen by the photographers in a blind test. And not only because of finer grain, but also because of tonality. They did not know from which negative the prints were made from. So they were objective and not biased at all.

I am not the only one with these results. The strength of CMS 20 II are well documented in lots of other detailed (and often scientific) tests (just have a look at photrio or Tim Parkin e.g.).
Do yourself a favour: Take some time, use these films intensively and explore their capabilities. They have a lot to offer which other films cannot offer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #7
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,291
That didn’t take long. Still waiting on the “this is just a rebranded film”...

I’ve not had the chance to try this film, still dealing with dialing in the Silberra 50 ORTA film here. Might get to run some more of that today, but not sure it will work for me. Very contrasty and not appearing to be 50 after all.

I’d love to see examples of the ADOX as you guys are able. I quite like about everything ADOX I’ve tried, but also find that the CMS is just too slow for much work that I do - even tho I shoot a lot of Rollei Ortho and PanF+.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #8
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by kram View Post
I have just received the above, now I just need the sun to come out (and for me to finush the roll of Xp2 super) so I can use it her in good old Blighty. Any personal comments on this film. Hopefully it will replace my use of Rollei ATP 1.1 film use.
We've had some discussions about Adox HR-50 already here at rff:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=166156

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/for...d.php?t=166443

This spring Adox first introduced the Adox HR-IR Pro film.
This autumn then at Photokina they have introduced the improved Adox HR-50 film. Both films have the same base film material. But the HR-50 has the "Speed Boost" technology, which results in a bit higher real speed (sensivity) and improved shadow detail.
I have tested both films. And I can confirm that this Speed Boost technology indeed works: Shadow detail is improved, the overall tonality is better because of a more linear characteristic curve.
AFAIK Adox is currently the only manufacturer who has the capability to do such an enhancement as a second production step on an industrial scale.

Due to my tests your idea of replacing Rollei ATP by Adox HR-50 is right.
In its advantages both films are quite close. But HR-50 has much less disadvantages than ATP.
My test results are identical to those Argentia1 has posted above.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #9
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
With 35mm film you get quality surpassing 6x6 medium format!

Sorry but that's BS.
No, it is not. Not at all.
Concerning Adox CMS 20 II: I also belong to those photographers using this film for many years now (and also its first version CMS 20).
I have compared it to 4,5x6 shots from Mamiya 645 models, from 6x6 TLRs, and also to 6x7 shots from the Mamiya 7 II with its outstanding lenses.
CMS 20 II in 35mm (with very good prime lenses) indeed surpasses shots from all these medium format cameras loaded with films like PanF+, Fomapan 100, RPX 100, FP4+. With 35mm CMS 20 II you get higher resolution , better sharpness and finer grain compared to the mentioned films above.
And concerning tonality:
The main difference is that FP4+ etc. are panchromatic films, whereas CMS 20 II is an orthopanchromatic film which renders red a bit darker.
With Fp4+ you get a bit more shadow detail, but with CMS 20 II developed in Adotech IV you get a bit better highlight detail.
So the differences in tonality are very small and more a matter of taste.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #10
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: South East UK
Posts: 847
Interesting. A 50 speed film is pushing it for me as I mostly shoot handheld in the UK which offers very variable light, but I'll try some for landscape on a tripod.
__________________
Film amateur with a few rangefinders - Leica III, M2/M3, Werra 3 and Zeiss Super Ikonta 534/16 medium format.

Apart from that have a Rolleiflex 3.5F, the odd Minolta XD7, Hasselblad 500cm, a Topcon Super D and an Intrepid 5x4 large format (not the half of it but I am clearing them out, honest).

I do all my own black and white developing at home.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #11
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
No, it is not. Not at all.
Concerning Adox CMS 20 II: I also belong to those photographers using this film for many years now (and also its first version CMS 20).
I have compared it to 4,5x6 shots from Mamiya 645 models, from 6x6 TLRs, and also to 6x7 shots from the Mamiya 7 II with its outstanding lenses.
CMS 20 II in 35mm (with very good prime lenses) indeed surpasses shots from all these medium format cameras loaded with films like PanF+, Fomapan 100, RPX 100, FP4+. With 35mm CMS 20 II you get higher resolution , better sharpness and finer grain compared to the mentioned films above.
And concerning tonality:
The main difference is that FP4+ etc. are panchromatic films, whereas CMS 20 II is an orthopanchromatic film which renders red a bit darker.
With Fp4+ you get a bit more shadow detail, but with CMS 20 II developed in Adotech IV you get a bit better highlight detail.
So the differences in tonality are very small and more a matter of taste.
Sorry but since the film is available in 120 Format it can't be better in 35mm than the medium format version. It can outresolve standard film but since Argentia quiet clearly stated "With 35mm film you get quality surpassing 6x6 medium format!" and I say it's B.S aside from tonality and I stand by that statement it can't outresolve the large iteration of the same film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #12
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Sorry but since the film is available in 120 Format it can't be better in 35mm than the medium format version.
With all respect, but that is nitpicking nonsense. Because no one here in this thread has said that you get better quality with 35mm CMS 20 II compared to 120 format CMS 20 II.
Neither Argentia nor I have said that.
All the test results and experience reports here are about the fact that you can surpass the quality of conventional films in 120 format with 35mm CMS 20 II.
And with 120 format CMS 20 II you can surpass conventional films in 4x5".
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #13
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 486
And you cam get CMS20 in 4x5" as well.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #14
markjwyatt
Registered User
 
markjwyatt's Avatar
 
markjwyatt is offline
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Southern California
Posts: 590
Add another film on my list to try (CMS20, maybe HR-50 also). I really like some of my initial results with Adox Silvermax 100. Since I am scanning, this may be related to the clear film base, but the tonality and grain structure are very nice.
__________________
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/markjwyatt/
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #15
Jerevan
Recycled User
 
Jerevan's Avatar
 
Jerevan is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
That didn’t take long. Still waiting on the “this is just a rebranded film”...
You were the first on that boat ... But yes, it is. Of course - from Agfa.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-19-2018   #16
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentia1 View Post
You are on the right track with Adox HR-50 if you are looking for an ATP replacement. I have tested the HR-50 and HR-50 DEV developer quite intensively during the last months. Both have superpanchromatic sensivity.
Comparing HR-50 to ATP:
1. Advantages of HR-50:
- much much better tonality and characteristic curve
- much easier to handle
- can be developed in different developers (but works optimal with the new Adox HR-50 DEV)
- cheaper
- available (ATP was discontinued).

2. Advantages of ATP:
- slightly finer detail rendition (grain, sharpness, resolution).

If you want a film that significantly surpass ATP even in detail rendition just use Adox CMS 20 II in Adotech IV developer. That is the film with by far the finest grain, highest resolution and best sharpness. It is an orthopanchromatic film (red is recorded a bit darker than with panchromatic films).

Adox HR-50 has much finer grain than PanF+, Acros, TMX, Delta 100. And a bit better sharpness and resolution, too.
And all that for a lower price.
+1.
Very precise analysis.

Due to my experience the main problem with Rollei ATP was that the characteristic curve had an over-proportional increase in the highlights, from Zone VII to X. Therefore the danger of burned highlights with this film.
That isn't a problem at all with Adox HR-50, which preserves highlight detail extremely well.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #17
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
You were the first on that boat ... But yes, it is. Of course - from Agfa.
It is not just rebranded film.
The Speed Boost technology done in the Adox factory makes a significant difference: Higher real speed, better shadow detail, better characteristic curve shape.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #18
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
With all respect, but that is nitpicking nonsense. Because no one here in this thread has said that you get better quality with 35mm CMS 20 II compared to 120 format CMS 20 II.
Neither Argentia nor I have said that.
All the test results and experience reports here are about the fact that you can surpass the quality of conventional films in 120 format with 35mm CMS 20 II.
And with 120 format CMS 20 II you can surpass conventional films in 4x5".
You are right it is nitpicking but to say that Cms has a wider dynamic/ tonal range than conventional film is simply not true. I am sure that HR50 is better in that regard than CMS but not better than conventional Films.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #19
Jerevan
Recycled User
 
Jerevan's Avatar
 
Jerevan is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
It is not just rebranded film.
The Speed Boost technology done in the Adox factory makes a significant difference: Higher real speed, better shadow detail, better characteristic curve shape.

Cheers, Jan
Preflashing or hypersensitizing. Or just marketing hype like selling Rollei Retro 80s as Rollei RPX 25. Who knows?

But yes, everyone buy it, so that Adox/Fotoimpex can get their factory done and do some real work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #20
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
You are right it is nitpicking but to say that Cms has a wider dynamic/ tonal range than conventional film is simply not true.
Honestly, you really should improve your reading capabilities. Because no one here in this thread has said that CMS 20 II has wider dynamic / tonal range than conventional films.
This was written about that topic (by me):
"And concerning tonality:
The main difference is that FP4+ etc. are panchromatic films, whereas CMS 20 II is an orthopanchromatic film which renders red a bit darker.
With Fp4+ you get a bit more shadow detail, but with CMS 20 II developed in Adotech IV you get a bit better highlight detail.
So the differences in tonality are very small and more a matter of taste."
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #21
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
Preflashing or hypersensitizing. Or just marketing hype like selling Rollei Retro 80s as Rollei RPX 25. Who knows?
You don't know, because you have not used neither this film nor its base material.
But lots of experienced photographers who have already used this film and its base material do indeed know.
And they really do know very well that this film has nothing to do with a "marketing hype" (and by the way, Adox has not done any marketing for this film so far).

I have tested both this film and its original film / base material. And the Speed Boost technology makes a real difference.
I've already described that in one of my postings above:
"This spring Adox first introduced the Adox HR-IR Pro film.
This autumn then at Photokina they have introduced the improved Adox HR-50 film. Both films have the same base film material. But the HR-50 has the "Speed Boost" technology, which results in a bit higher real speed (sensivity) and improved shadow detail.
I have tested both films. And I can confirm that this Speed Boost technology indeed works: Shadow detail is improved, the overall tonality is better because of a more linear characteristic curve.
AFAIK Adox is currently the only manufacturer who has the capability to do such an enhancement as a second production step on an industrial scale."
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #22
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
Just a quick reply here. People may indeed get shots from 35mm film that are of higher quality than medium format shots (and this is somewhat of a subjective thing), but you won't be able to get the large prints w/ the smaller negatives. In the old days of racing, we used to say that there's no substitute for cubic inches. By the same token, there is no substitute for large negatives when it comes to large prints. It's just physics.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #23
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Just a quick reply here. People may indeed get shots from 35mm film that equal or surpass medium format shots (and this is somewhat of a subjective thing), but you won't be able to get the large prints w/ the smaller negatives. In the old days of racing, we used to say that there's no substitute for cubic inches. By the same token, there is no substitute for large negatives when it comes to large prints. It's just physics.
Physics is that Adox CMS 20 II can resolve up to 800 lp/mm with an extremely, invisible fine grain.
And physics is that FP4+ can resolve only up to 120 lp/mm with a very visible grain.
That is the reason why huge enlargements from 35mm CMS 20 II have a much higher resolution and finer grain compared to 6x6/6x7 medium format FP4+ enlargements.

I've done all that several times. Showed the huge prints to other experienced photographers. In blind tests. All have said the difference is big and they have chosen the 35mm CMS 20 II prints because of their superior quality.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #24
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
I've done all that several times. Showed the huge prints to other experienced photographers. In blind tests. All have said the difference is big and they have chosen the 35mm CMS 20 II prints because of their superior quality.
I am confused. Are these the same blind tests Argentia did, or another set of tests?
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #25
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 1,029
Skiff I admit I was wrong in my previous posts confusing CMS with HR-50, etc.. but those 800 lp have to be brought onto the paper and you can't really do that the paper doesn't have the resolution neither does the lens btw. Close down more than 4.5 and most lenses even very good one will be outresolved by the film. So those 800 are a nice marketing gag but nothing else. Also it's interesting that you and Argentia keep comparing it to FP4 which is very far from a modern film. Also isn't HR-50 based on a film that was not made by Adox (say Aviphot 40 or 80) but bought by Adox who applied their "speed boost" technology (which many believe to be just a fancy word for pre-flashing). If indeed the film is based on aviphot those 800 lines are only possible at an object contrast of 1000:1 = 400 line pairs or 800 dots/mm.

Lower contrast gives still an impressive resolution of about 1/4

TOC 1,6:1 = 125 line pairs or 250 dots/mm.

But those numbers do not beat a higher Resolution MF film (Tmax 100) even 4.5 negatives are more than 3 times the size of 35mm.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-20-2018   #26
Jerevan
Recycled User
 
Jerevan's Avatar
 
Jerevan is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
You don't know, because you have not used neither this film nor its base material.
/ ... /
And they really do know very well that this film has nothing to do with a "marketing hype" (and by the way, Adox has not done any marketing for this film so far).
I was suggesting the obvious - that the so called "technology" might not be more (very oversimplified, indeed) than turning on the light in room where the master roll is or dunking it in another silver nitrate solution.

The rest of the matter ... well, sir - just do not fall off that high horse. It might hurt a good bit.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2018   #27
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
I am confused. Are these the same blind tests Argentia did, or another set of tests?
I did my own tests. And Argentia did his own tests.
Doing such blind tests is common and well-proven technique for decades. Using that photographers have a very good tool to check performance of materials in direct comparison in an objective and not biased way.
We are doing that regularly with a group photographer friends, and its also often done in my local photo club.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2018   #28
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Skiff I admit I was wrong in my previous posts confusing CMS with HR-50, etc.. but those 800 lp have to be brought onto the paper and you can't really do that the paper doesn't have the resolution neither does the lens btw.
That is the wrong idea how resolution in an imaging chain works.
It works this way:
1/system resolution = 1/lens resolution + 1/ film resolution.
The higher the film resolution, the higher also your system resolution (final/end resolution).

That is by the way also the reason why you get higher resolution (an improvement in resolution compared to conventional films) with CMS 20 II even with mediocre lenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Close down more than 4.5 and most lenses even very good one will be outresolved by the film.
With this film you can reach the physical limits of lens resolution: the diffraction limit.
Zeiss has done that and published the results with its 25mm ZM Biogon some years ago: 400 lp/mm at f4 with this film.
You will find further test results here (post 19):
https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...lution.115244/
I have tested some of my 50mm standard lenses with CMS 20 II at the best aperture 5.6 and also reached the diffraction limit for white light (250 lp/mm).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
So those 800 are a nice marketing gag but nothing else.
Completely wrong!! You need this extremely high resolution of the film to fully exploit the lens resolution and reach the diffraction limit of the lens at the optimal aperture. See formula above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Also it's interesting that you and Argentia keep comparing it to FP4 which is very far from a modern film.
I cannot speak for Argentia, but I have choosen it because it is the most popular medium speed BW film.
I've also done tests with Delta 100, Acros, TMX. With these films there is in several cases a small advantage for 35mm CMS 20 II compared to medium format T-grain film (4,5x6), in one case a minimal advantage for MF (6x7 with Mamiya II and Delta 100 and TMX).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominikDUK View Post
Also isn't HR-50 based on a film that was not made by Adox (say Aviphot 40 or 80) but bought by Adox who applied their "speed boost" technology (which many believe to be just a fancy word for pre-flashing). If indeed the film is based on aviphot those 800 lines are only possible at an object contrast of 1000:1 = 400 line pairs or 800 dots/mm.
1. You are again mixing the two films up: CMS 20 II and HR-50 are completely different films.
2. The resolution function is not linear from medium contrast up. So the resolution difference between 1000:1 (10 stops) and 32:1 (5 stops) is minimal and not field relevant.
Zeiss made their resolution record (see above) also at a quite low object contrast of about 4 stops.
Your comments here demonstrate that you never had proper resolution tests done by yourself.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-21-2018   #29
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
I was suggesting the obvious - that the so called "technology" might not be more (very oversimplified, indeed) than turning on the light in room where the master roll is or dunking it in another silver nitrate solution.
I don't know which technology Adox is using. But I do know
- that ii works because of my tests
- that it must be sophisticated technology to get good results in higher volume industrial production.
Let's assume pre-flashing technology is used: I've done that the first time some decades ago in my darkroom.
First runs in a similar, very simple way as you have described it: "Turning the light on", and also using a flash:
The results: It does not work this simple way!
Pre-flashing a whole film needs a lot of testing and fine-tuning. And you simply cannot pre-flash a whole master-roll that way.
Besides all these technological barriers this "by hand" techniques would require too much work, the film price would explode.

If you would do pre-flashing in an industral production process to get highest, constant quality and reasonable costs you would need special machinery for that. You would have to invest in that machinery and in the know-how to operate it properly.
At Photokina I have talked to the Adox people: They said
- it took about two years from first tests to final production quality for their Speed Boost technology
- they needed to invest in special machinery for that; it's a tricky and sophisticated process
- they did not tell whether it is a pre-flashing technology or something else; it is a company secret, because they are the only ones doing that technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerevan View Post
The rest of the matter ... well, sir - just do not fall off that high horse. It might hurt a good bit.
On the high horses are all those people who have never tested this film by themselves, but nevertheless claiming the photographers who have tested the film are wrong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2018   #30
kram
Registered User
 
kram's Avatar
 
kram is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Wales, UK
Posts: 486
From the above, I can't wait to use the HR-50. ATP 1.1 was my go to slow film (used at 40 Asa). CMS at 16 ASA was just too slow for me. Doing moderate enlargement showed up slight camera shake 1/30 it 80mm on 6x7. The extra 1+ 2/3 extra speed of 50 Asa will be a big help to avoid that. On 35mm I use the Zeiss zm 35mm f2 @ f4, stunning results.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2018   #31
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by kram View Post
From the above, I can't wait to use the HR-50. ATP 1.1 was my go to slow film (used at 40 Asa). CMS at 16 ASA was just too slow for me. Doing moderate enlargement showed up slight camera shake 1/30 it 80mm on 6x7. The extra 1+ 2/3 extra speed of 50 Asa will be a big help to avoid that. On 35mm I use the Zeiss zm 35mm f2 @ f4, stunning results.
You won't be dissappointed in 35mm with your Zeiss ZM and Adox HR-50. A combination capable for making huge prints.
120 format HR-50 will be introduced next year.
6x7 enlargements from this film: The sky is the limit.
I've got excellent results with the Adox HR-50 DEV developer.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-22-2018   #32
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,694
News:
Adox HR-50 is now also available in bulk, 30.5 meter:
https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme/...che=1545526941

120 format is scheduled for first quarter 2019 due to Adox.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-23-2018   #33
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,291
My next order will have this in it.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2019   #34
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 879
Do more people have results with this film now? How does it behave in developers other than the dedicated one? Does it actually reach ISO 50 in the HR-50 dev or in e.g. Xtol? How does it compare to CHS 100-II?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2019   #35
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Do more people have results with this film now? How does it behave in developers other than the dedicated one? Does it actually reach ISO 50 in the HR-50 dev or in e.g. Xtol?
My results with HR-50 DEV at box speed are very good. I will continue using it that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
How does it compare to CHS 100-II?
HR-50 is
- much sharper
- much higher resolving
- much finer grained.

In comparison CHS 100 II has
- better shadow detail
- higher speed
- perfect characteristic curve in standard developers.

The films are very different. Both have their own character. I am using both dependent on the subject. Horses for courses.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-04-2019   #36
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
My results with HR-50 DEV at box speed are very good. I will continue using it that way.

HR-50 is
- much sharper
- much higher resolving
- much finer grained.

In comparison CHS 100 II has
- better shadow detail
- higher speed
- perfect characteristic curve in standard developers.

The films are very different. Both have their own character. I am using both dependent on the subject. Horses for courses.
Thank you. If CHS 100 II has better shadow detail, doesn't that mean that in practical terms, HR-50 would need to be downrated in speed for an accurate comparison? I guess this will get very technical quickly with the ISO norm and curve shapes...

Expanding the horizon of this thread a little, I've also been wondering how CHS 100 II and Silvermax compare, somehow Adox don't really talk about this...?
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-05-2019   #37
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 960
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Thank you. If CHS 100 II has better shadow detail, doesn't that mean that in practical terms, HR-50 would need to be downrated in speed for an accurate comparison? I guess this will get very technical quickly with the ISO norm and curve shapes...
HR-50 has a S-shaped characteristic curve. Box speed and HR-50 DEV gives you the optimal compromise between speed, curve shape and shadow detail.
CHS 100 II has a more linear curve shape with higher density / shadow detail in Zone I and II.

Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Expanding the horizon of this thread a little, I've also been wondering how CHS 100 II and Silvermax compare, somehow Adox don't really talk about this...?
Silvermax has a bit finer grain. Resolution and sharpness are almost identical. Spectral sensivity is also almost identical.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 15:50.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.