PDA

View Full Version : Looks like Adox CHS 100 II sheet film is back...



Oren Grad
19-Dec-2018, 15:09
...after a long hiatus while Adox built their new factory and set up and debugged their coating machine:

http://www.adox.de/Photo/chs-100-ii-sheetfilm-available-again/

Tin Can
19-Dec-2018, 16:08
Cool, and look at all the sizes!

Tim V
20-Dec-2018, 01:47
Awesome! It’s one I’ve wanted to try for ages. Anyone out there shot it before and want to share impressions? How does it go in pyro?

Tim V
20-Dec-2018, 03:05
I've answered my own question, it seems... PMK and pyro developers "not recommended" due to the tinted base not being compatible. Still, I'm interested in this film as an alternative. It'd have to be pretty good to beat the alternatives though. I just like supporting the little guy.

Daniel Unkefer
20-Dec-2018, 09:32
I bought several hundred sheets when it was introduced, in 2.25"x3.25".

Where do you Guys see the available sizes? Who is stocking this amongst the usual dealers?

Oren Grad
20-Dec-2018, 09:43
There's a link from the Adox news item to the sheet film section at Fotoimpex, which lists many different sizes, most of them as special order. Also, Mirko mentioned at Photrio that there is stock on the way to Freestyle; the Freestyle website currently shows 5x7 and 8x10 as due Feb 1, 2019.

Tin Can
20-Dec-2018, 10:03
https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/sheet-films/

peter schrager
20-Dec-2018, 11:58
Pretty sure I used pyro with this film unless it is a NEW base....it worked

Tim V
20-Dec-2018, 14:38
185650

From the technical specs. I've emailed to see if this has changed. I'm not wedded to PMK but would rather standardise on one developer across films for ease of things.

cdavis324
20-Dec-2018, 18:13
I emailed Fotoimpex yesterday, and the special order sizes should be available by mid January. 1 box minimum and shipping to the US is 35euro...(for 14x17 size)

Daniel Unkefer
21-Dec-2018, 12:11
I always buy in quantity to save on shipping with PhotoImpex.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1549/24777204770_9d709da9dd_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DKtDKG)2016-02-16 15.26.52 (https://flic.kr/p/DKtDKG) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Tin Can
21-Dec-2018, 12:17
Those are good film holders. I have a couple and the Mamiya copies.

I'm sure Freestyle will accept special orders soon, they can just add to their normal shipment.

Tim V
21-Dec-2018, 12:39
From Adox via email:

"About your question, we know for sure that you can use this film with PMK, but we couldn't find time to test it yet. But we assure you that you can use this developer without any problem."

Great news!

Mark Sawyer
21-Dec-2018, 13:22
Hey, it's also available in quarter-plate (3.25x4.25) for a reasonable price!!! :)

Edit: Poop. They were out of that size, and the shipping cost was considerably more than the film anyways. :(

MultiFormat Shooter
21-Dec-2018, 16:24
They were out of that size, and the shipping cost was considerably more than the film anyways.

Fotoimpex.com (https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/adox-adox-chs-100-ii-325x425-inch-quarter-plate-25-sheets-25-sheets.html) lists it being special order item. But, it looks like you can still order it.

Mark Sawyer
21-Dec-2018, 16:43
Fotoimpex.com (https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/adox-adox-chs-100-ii-325x425-inch-quarter-plate-25-sheets-25-sheets.html) lists it being special order item. But, it looks like you can still order it.

Perhaps if they distribute it through Freestyle it will be reasonable. Right now, $40 shipping for a $30 box of film is prohibitive.

Oren Grad
21-Dec-2018, 16:56
Mark, the 35 euro shipping was for a box of 14x17. The Fotoimpex website says "We charge shipping costs for deliveries to foreign countries on the basis of the order value (gross product value)", so perhaps it's reasonable to hope that it wouldn't be prohibitive for a small, relatively inexpensive box of film - or for a few boxes. Why not ask them specifically about 3.25x4.25?

Tim V
21-Dec-2018, 17:41
Anyone got starting point dev times for PMK?

Better yet, can anyone post or point to example images shot with this film?

peter schrager
21-Dec-2018, 18:40
Anyone got starting point dev times for PMK?

Better yet, can anyone post or point to example images shot with this film?
why don't you just go out and shoot 4 sheets of film. then process around the basic time posted by Fotoimpex you are using for PMK now. I just go plus a few minutes and minus a few minutes. I assure you this film works nicely with pyro. jus take the time to find what works for you

peter schrager
21-Dec-2018, 18:41
Pretty sure I used pyro with this film unless it is a NEW base....it worked
All films work with pyro..some better than others....

Mark Sawyer
21-Dec-2018, 23:15
Mark, the 35 euro shipping was for a box of 14x17. The Fotoimpex website says "We charge shipping costs for deliveries to foreign countries on the basis of the order value (gross product value)", so perhaps it's reasonable to hope that it wouldn't be prohibitive for a small, relatively inexpensive box of film - or for a few boxes. Why not ask them specifically about 3.25x4.25?

I tried ordering a box of quarter-plate and that's the shipping they charged me at check-out. Maybe it's just not practical to make small orders.

Oren Grad
21-Dec-2018, 23:26
I tried ordering a box of quarter-plate and that's the shipping they charged me at check-out.

:(

Tim V
22-Dec-2018, 00:09
Well, the older version obviously didnít or they wouldnít have made a point of saying it wasnít recommended with PMK due to it causing emulsion to peel off the base in some instances.

As yet, unless Iím missing something, Fotoimex donít give any times for PMK as yet. Will order a box regardless...


All films work with pyro..some better than others....

interneg
22-Dec-2018, 01:31
Well, the older version obviously didn’t or they wouldn’t have made a point of saying it wasn’t recommended with PMK due to it causing emulsion to peel off the base in some instances.

As yet, unless I’m missing something, Fotoimex don’t give any times for PMK as yet. Will order a box regardless...

That was with the 135/120 version which has anti-halation protection on both sides of the film base, the sheet film only needs it on the back side with the anti-curl layer - it's all there on the data sheet. You should be fine with PMK on the sheet film version.

cdavis324
22-Dec-2018, 06:10
I tried ordering a box of quarter-plate and that's the shipping they charged me at check-out. Maybe it's just not practical to make small orders.Yeah, 35euro seems to be their standard shipping charge to the U.S. On the bright side, it doesn't go up with a larger quantity of film.

For smaller film might be best to wait for freestyle or bh...

Sent from my LM-V350 using Tapatalk

Daniel Unkefer
22-Dec-2018, 06:40
That has been my buying experience also. That is why, last time I ordered from them, I loaded up the truck ^^^ See my photo above. Shipping wasn't much over 35 Euros and the overall cost per box was much lower. And I got some things I couldn't get anywhere else at the time. :)

6.5x9cm and 2.25"x3.25" sheet films are hard to source in the USA. Choices are very limited.

Tim V
22-Dec-2018, 14:33
Ah, awesome. Thanks. I must have missed that part in the document specs. Thanks for the clarification.


That was with the 135/120 version which has anti-halation protection on both sides of the film base, the sheet film only needs it on the back side with the anti-curl layer - it's all there on the data sheet. You should be fine with PMK on the sheet film version.

karl french
24-Dec-2018, 09:43
Last time around the Freestyle prices were ridiculous. I'm still shooting some 8x20 from the first production run (and I still have an unopened box of 7x17.) It's a great film. I always just ordered in online from Fotoimpex. Even with shipping it was cheaper than Freestyle. The greatest factor in the savings the first time around was the price break for ordering multiple boxes. I haven't run the numbers yet for this second production run, but I fully intend to place an order.

Bernice Loui
24-Dec-2018, 12:14
Possible to make up a LARGE group order to reduce shipping cost?

Curious about this Adox sheet film. During the 1970's Adox had one of the best B&W films, wonder if their current offering is similar or ?



Bernice

Tim V
25-Dec-2018, 13:24
Does anyone know what the characteristic curve looks like? Wondering what the toe and shoulder looks like compared to FP4+, a tough film to compete with.

karl french
26-Dec-2018, 08:49
No curve in the data sheet. Just spectral sensitivity. It's an orthopan film, so I suppose it's closer to Acros. I shot about 100 sheets from the first run. It's really nice.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=chs&user_id=26027328%40N00&view_all=1

Oren Grad
26-Dec-2018, 09:44
No curve in the data sheet, but the text does say "CHS 100 II shows a distinct shoulder in the highlights preventing the highlights from „blowing out“." Sounds good to me, but I know many here prefer more of a straight line out to higher densities.

Tim V
26-Dec-2018, 18:10
Thanks, images look great! First I’ve seen showcasing this film in scenarios I also shoot.

I find FP4 a bit contrasty for our harsh New Zealand light, do you think the CHS II is a bit more forgiving in this regard?


No curve in the data sheet. Just spectral sensitivity. It's an orthopan film, so I suppose it's closer to Acros. I shot about 100 sheets from the first run. It's really nice.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=chs&user_id=26027328%40N00&view_all=1

Havoc
27-Dec-2018, 06:50
No curve in the data sheet. Just spectral sensitivity. It's an orthopan film, so I suppose it's closer to Acros. I shot about 100 sheets from the first run. It's really nice.

https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_search=1&tags=chs&user_id=26027328%40N00&view_all=1

I really like those photos, specially the greys. Think I'll order a box to try myself.

karl french
27-Dec-2018, 08:11
Thanks. Looking back at my notes, the 8x10 shots were developed in Rodinal 1+25 and the banquet film either Rodinal 1+25 or Xtol 1:1. All constant agitation in Jobo drums.

Tim V
28-Dec-2018, 00:37
As I’ve already stated, I’m keen to use this film with PMK as I’m loving this developer with all other films, especially for printing with VC papers.

Massive Dev Chart is missing times, and nothing of yet from Adox / Fotoimpex themselves. I’m too lazy to run extensive tests myself, so eagerly await solid starting times from others. This film looks awesome, so I’m pumped to try it.

karl french
28-Dec-2018, 08:35
Yes, I'm curious to see how different the times are with this new production run. And if the look of the film has changed.

Tim V
3-Jan-2019, 01:54
Anyone shot and developed from the new batch yet? Eager to see results!

Also wondering how ID11 performs with it, especially compared to my current developer of choice, PMK.

Tim V
23-Jan-2019, 01:08
Anyone processed some sheets yet?

Pere Casals
23-Jan-2019, 02:57
Just spectral sensitivity. It's an orthopan film, so I suppose it's closer to Acros.

If you see the spectral sensitivity curves in the datasheets you will find that TMX, HP5+ FP4+ (for example) have also similar orthopan curve, all falling arround 650nm.

There is another trait in all these the curves, a valley around 500nm may be desirable for skin tone separation. Beyond the cut point in the red, different shapes in the graphs are only comparable partially, because unknown units in the sensitivity, with exception of kodak that uses ergs/cm2 and plots two curves depending on "D-min", which I'd like to understand.

Anyway this is a mild footprint compared whith what we do with filtration in BW.

Tim V
28-Feb-2019, 00:58
I’m guessing someone out there has shot and processed some of the new batch by now? Anyone care to share thoughts?

Nodda Duma
28-Feb-2019, 04:37
I’ve shot a handful of sheets in 4x5. Nice film, though I did see pinholes in the emulsion. You can see them in the sky (that’s not dust).

Used my default development for everything, using development time per their recommendations.

Developed in HC-110 dil B for 5:30 (pre-wet 5 minutes)
Ilford Stop Bath 30 seconds
Hypam Fixer 5 minutes.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/adox-chs-100-ii-farm-house.59467/

Tin Can
28-Feb-2019, 06:31
Well that one post by a truly expert reviewer and user kills my interest.

Jason does know emulsions and processing.

I only seek effect, but dislike any pinhole. Dust is OK sometimes for me.

We need more IRL examples with posted images.

m00dawg
28-Feb-2019, 07:09
I have a box in the mail - hopefully it gets here by today or tomorrow so I can shoot it and give it a go. Pinholes would be a bummer, but it's a recently re-introduced emulsion using a new factory so I'd imagine if that ends up being a problem, it's something they can sort out at least in future runs. Not the cheapest film by any means to get here in the US though so yeah pinholes would suck either way :/ I plan on souping it in XTOL (replenished).

Nodda Duma
28-Feb-2019, 07:37
Yeah I agree. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because I know how challenging it is. It may just be the first few sheets off the line, and I haven’t dug into the box of 8x10 yet to see how that is. In any case, the tonality and look of the film is great.

m00dawg
28-Feb-2019, 08:04
Same! I am excited about HR50 - RF forums had a thread with some nice things to say about it. I want to shoot CMS 20 too (I know it's not new, but I haven't tried it yet). Do wish I wouldn't need specialized developers with them though. HR50 doesn't require it but sounds like CMS 20 generally would (or XTOL isn't a good option and it's the developer I prefer to use the most).

This among those options, CHS II excites me the most. Read some reviews about the original CHS II along with some example photos and they looked gorgeous. Looks like it might be sort of between FP4 and TMX maybe?

Tim V
28-Feb-2019, 11:51
Hi Randy, which review are you referring to? Not sure who Jason is, but interested to see what your talking about.

The pinholes in the above linked example look horrific! I hope it's an anomaly. If I were 'Nodda' I'd be contacting Adox and sending the box back for replacement / refund.


Well that one post by a truly expert reviewer and user kills my interest.

Jason does know emulsions and processing.

I only seek effect, but dislike any pinhole. Dust is OK sometimes for me.

We need more IRL examples with posted images.

Tin Can
28-Feb-2019, 11:58
Nodda Duma is Jason and J Lane Glass Plates.


Hi Randy, which review are you referring to? Not sure who Jason is, but interested to see what your talking about.

The pinholes in the above linked example look horrific! I hope it's an anomaly. If I were 'Nodda' I'd be contacting Adox and sending the box back for replacement / refund.

Mark Crabtree
28-Feb-2019, 17:12
It would be interesting to see if a water rinse before, or instead of, the stop bath alleviates the pinholes.

Nodda Duma
28-Feb-2019, 19:51
I was thinking the same thing, Mark. To be honest, though, if it doesn’t get along with Ilford Stop (which is pretty mild), then something’s screwy with their formulation. Put another way, my own incredibly fragile emulsion goes through Ilford Stop Bath like a champ.

The pinholes aren’t uniformly distributed across the sheet, so I don’t think the stop bath is the cause (otherwise they’d be everywhere).

Tim V
28-Feb-2019, 20:36
Hmmmm... might hold off on my order until I hear of more results. Would love for you to report back!

EH21
28-Feb-2019, 22:22
I've shot with some of the 4x5 sheet and it seemed okay, none of the pinholes posted earlier. I'll have another closer look and make a scan.

m00dawg
1-Mar-2019, 09:11
Random aside from the pinhole issue - I'll be hopefully shooting some sheets today and/or tomorrow but one thing I noticed is that they put thin pieces of paper in between each sheet in the box. First time I have seen that which I rather liked. Otherwise it was packed very similar to an Ilford box. The most well packed box I've run into so far is Pancro 400. Boxes have nothing to do with shooting the film but I do appreciate properly packed boxes. Not a huge fan of Fomapan's boxes for instance.

rdeloe
1-Mar-2019, 11:16
one thing I noticed is that they put thin pieces of paper in between each sheet in the box. First time I have seen that which I rather liked. Otherwise it was packed very similar to an Ilford box.


Ilford used to put the sheets of paper between each sheet. I would staple them together to make handy little note books. I was surprised when I bought some Ilford film recently that they're not doing that anymore. Perhaps they found that it wasn't necessary, and decided to save the money.

m00dawg
1-Mar-2019, 21:33
Developed my first 4 sheets of CHS II ever! There were no times for XTOL Stock or Replenished so after looking at times of other films and for the published time of XTOL 1:1, I came up with 5:30 at 23C. That may have been a tad short, or I didn't expose the sheets well (I rated at 100). They look decent when looking at them at an angle, but holding them directly up to the light shows they are thin. I just developed some HP5 a few days prior and it came out fine so I don't think it's my development process specifically - I suspect it was just too short a time.

I didn't shoot a control (it gets expensive shooting doubles across different films) but I am likely going to go out again tomorrow and shoot more and will bring TMX with me to compare and might try developing at 6:30 or so (that's about 15% more).

Negatives are still drying so I can't speak to the pinholes yet. What was exposed looks like it will be pretty nice. And of note the base is very clear (which makes me also think that may be the reason why the negatives may appear a little less dense?).

Hard to draw conclusions until I scan and print though.

Tim V
1-Mar-2019, 23:40
Thanks m00dawg, sounds promising.I'll be keen to hear if you have the problems with pinholes mentioned above. I'd love to hear that that was a random fault, perhaps a bad single sheet or chemical problem. I'm holding off ordering until a few more of you report back...

I'm also keen on using PMK, so if anyone out there has been processing using that then I'd love to hear your thoughts / times etc. I'm most interested to know how this film compares to good old FP4+.

Lastly, I'm still toying with the idea of buying another box of Berrger Pancro 400. I bought a box ages ago when I first started shooting 8x10, but my camera was faulty and everything was out of focus so hard to judge. The characteristic curve for Bergger indicates that it develops to quite a high density compared to HP5 / Tri-X, and I wonder if it's a film more suited to traditional wet printing than scanning, where the scanner's (Imacon and CCD based scanners, not so much drum,) D-max isn't sufficient. I say this because the small about of 120 Bergger I shot didn't scan well at all, but then again I used stock D76 and would rather used PMK... Anyway, I digress...

m00dawg
2-Mar-2019, 21:38
Here's a scan from a sheet I exposed yesterday. Of note it has been messed with in Lightroom (and I also didn't do any cloning to remove dust or anything yet - I'll likely end up making a darkroom print if I like it enough to do that much work):

188285

Takeaway is the film sharp, not too contrasty - I dialed in quite a bit for the above. It doesn't seem as contrasty as FP4 and actually kinda has a modern look to it to me. I did notice that the blue/purple sensitivity might be higher than I anticipated - I took a shot of a white/purple flower and on the negative it looks basically white (I would share the results but the negative has some streaking I think from Photo-Flo so I need to rewash it). I should have perhaps used a yellow filter.

I haven't tried any filters yet, speaking of. I had hoped to compare CHS ii to TMX today - I shot 2 scenes using both today but unfortunately I forgot to start the timer when I started developing the CHS so the dev time is a bit of a guess and that might limit the comparison a bit (currently washing the CHS sheets - I'll scan them in tomorrow).

I didn't notice any pinholes so far. I use XTOL-R, Water stop, TF-5 fixer.

All told, so far, and I'm very early into exploring this film but, I like it. I REALLY like it! I tend to prefer making wet prints over doing raw film scans so that will be the true test I think. Too soon to say if it will topple TMX for me but I do think I like it more than FP4 at this point (I go back and forth between loving and hating FP4).

Tim V
3-Mar-2019, 01:05
Thanks so much for the update! You’ve certainly given me reason to be excited again. I’m like you with FP4, constantly wondering what I think of it, especially in terms of highlight separation. This is why I’m interested in CHSII...

peter schrager
3-Mar-2019, 04:28
Here's a scan from a sheet I exposed yesterday. Of note it has been messed with in Lightroom (and I also didn't do any cloning to remove dust or anything yet - I'll likely end up making a darkroom print if I like it enough to do that much work):

188285

Takeaway is the film sharp, not too contrasty - I dialed in quite a bit for the above. It doesn't seem as contrasty as FP4 and actually kinda has a modern look to it to me. I did notice that the blue/purple sensitivity might be higher than I anticipated - I took a shot of a white/purple flower and on the negative it looks basically white (I would share the results but the negative has some streaking I think from Photo-Flo so I need to rewash it). I should have perhaps used a yellow filter.

I haven't tried any filters yet, speaking of. I had hoped to compare CHS ii to TMX today - I shot 2 scenes using both today but unfortunately I forgot to start the timer when I started developing the CHS so the dev time is a bit of a guess and that might limit the comparison a bit (currently washing the CHS sheets - I'll scan them in tomorrow).

I didn't notice any pinholes so far. I use XTOL-R, Water stop, TF-5 fixer.

All told, so far, and I'm very early into exploring this film but, I like it. I REALLY like it! I tend to prefer making wet prints over doing raw film scans so that will be the true test I think. Too soon to say if it will topple TMX for me but I do think I like it more than FP4 at this point (I go back and forth between loving and hating FP4).
sorry any film can be developed to be contrasty . comparing FP4 to the film is easier if you go for the same contrast level. try using xtol 1+2 and see what happens with FP4.. the Adox film is nice but just another tool in the box...

m00dawg
3-Mar-2019, 09:47
I can speak to my general experience with FP4 more though I think that's more a side conversation. I haven't compared it 1:1 so fair point, my comparison to CHS and FP4 was more general and also using my methods.

On that note though I should say - if someone is looking for a scientific comparison, I'm not your guy. I don't have the equipment to do that (at least yet) and my process itself isn't super sciency yet (my XTOL-R likely isn't fully seasoned as one variable right off the bat). So set your compass accordingly.

I have an explanation of the TMX and CHS shots I took yesterday but to start with one important takeaway - I didn't see any pinholes in the CHS but I DID see uneven development. In the shots taken on Friday, two have wave lines running down the negative. I thought they were using too much Photo-Flo but it now looks like uneven dev. They are roughly where the developer would have been sitting when I poured it into the tank for the few seconds before I put it on my DIY motorized rotary.

The CHS sheets I exposed yesterday didn't have this issue and also weren't as thin as the ones I shot Friday. But I do see what look kinda like chemical marks or smears in the sky on the one I've attached, and wonder if that was caused by the developer splashing around during pouring or something else. Folks using stock or replenishment and/or a rotary may want to be aware there.

There are a number of ways to solve that - using more chemical (though the 2500 tank seems to get leaky at the cap for me if I put a ton of chemical in), hand inversions, another slower developer or dilution, etc. It's mildly annoying for me though since I really like my current process.

As far as the look, I shoot some TMX along side CHS ii yesterday and also made a point this time to expose more "for the shadows" instead of picking out middle grey for a scene. I wanted TMX as a control for development as well gauging looks and looks like I'm pretty close to the right time for CHS with my setup.

Looking at the scans it looks like CHS ii may be a little bit grainer but also a little sharper. TMX looks to have a little better shadow detail. These were from scans, only two sheets, on a very foggy low contrast day so perhaps not a lot of conclusions to be had. I haven't shot any portraits with CHS so curious how that plays out since the supposed tone separation should be good for portraits and skies. With the overcast low contrasty day, TMX and CHS both looked very similar to each other here. I prefered the CHS slighty for one scene and TMX slighty for the other :P

188359