Adox & Classic Pan

[Pete Watkins]

I've just recieved two boxes of sheet film. Adox 400 iso and Classic Pan 200 iso from Retrophotographic here in the UK. Has anybody got any film speed and developer combinations that they can recommend please? Does anyone know if this is the same as J & C's Classic Pan?
Best wishes,
Pete.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Classic Pan 200 is the same as J&C Classic 200, Fortepan 200, and by most accounts Bergger 200.

I'm not sure about Adox 400.

[Jay DeFehr]

I shoot a lot of J&C/Forte 200 in 3x4 for contact printing on Azo. Reliable sources claim Adox 400 is HP5+, but if so, it's a different film than J&C Classic 400, which is Forte 400. Forte 400 requires about 2X as much development as HP5+ for a given contrast. I rate all of these films at box speed and develop in 510-Pyro. Given the choice, I would choose Forte 200 over Forte 400, and HP5+ over either, but all of these films are capable of excellent results. Enjoy!

Jay

[merlo.luca1961@libero.it]

Pete,

Try the APH 09. It is the old formula of Rodinal and diluted properly, it is an excellent choice both for Adox 100 and Adox 25. Cheap, good, extremely easy to use and, if properly stored in closed bottles it has a very long shelf life. I personally get it from Fotoimpex in Berlin and dilute it 1:50 instead of the 1:40 reccomended by the manufacturer. It works also very well with Foma 100 film.

Best regards,

Luca

[Donald Qualls]

I shoot Classic 400, aka .EDU 400 (Made in Hungary) at ISO 400 with an averaging meter (I like to think intelligently employed) and process it in Parodinal (same times and dilutions as Rodinal, at least to starting point precision), 1:50 for 16 minutes, with 5 inversions in 10 seconds every 3rd minute, in tubes, or 11 minutes with agitation (twice through the stack) every minute in trays. I've used the rebranded Forte 200 only once, with a very non-standard process that only sort of worked, so can't comment on it.

[Michael Graves]

Classic Pan 200 is the same as J&C Classic 200, Fortepan 200, and by most accounts Bergger 200.

I'm not sure about Adox 400.

Actually, Bergger isn't exactly the same. It's made by Guilleminot in France. It does have very similar characteristics however. While I like the film a lot, I don't think it's worth the premium in price it costs over the Adox films.

[Ted Harris]

Reliable sources claim Adox 400 is HP5+, but if so, it's a different film than J&C Classic 400, which is Forte 400.
Jay

I find it hard to believe that Adox 400 is HP5+. It could have the same characteristics but the same film, unlikely. The Adox name and film formulas and the company andits successor companies have been around for more than 50 years.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm not so sure that Bergger is actually manufactured in France, though it may be repackaged or possibly cut there. The manufacturer has been vague about it's being made in "Europe." Sandy King posted the results of sensitometric tests of Bergger 200 and Classic/Fortepan 200 on the Azo forum a while back that demonstrated that the two films are indistinguishable.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Ted.

Whatever Adox 400 is, it's not a new emulsion. The adox name is just a name. Adox and Efke are the same films except in the 125 and 400 speeds, which were never made by the FotoKemika plant in Croatia. When J&C say;

"ADOX CHM is a modern film offered in ISO 125 and 400. It is available in 35mm and 120 formats. It handles and processes like FP4+ and HP5."

and Retro Photographic say:

"The CHM series films orginate in England and are packaged for ADOX. The CHM films differ from the original CHS films as they use multiple layers and possess a very robust emulsion highly resistant to exposure errors and mechanical effects.

In contrast to the CHS films (which should be hand processed), these films can be processed in any commercial or high street shop since the developing time are identical to FP4 and HP5."

I'm inclined to take the hint. I further believe that if a new film was being introduced, it would be introduced with great fanfare, and a detailed pedigree. Repackaging/relabeling films is a common practice, and Ilford's films have been marketed under a wide variety names. I can't prove that Adox 125 and 400 are FP4+ and HP5+, but I'm satisfied that they are.

Jay

[tim atherton]

I'm inclined to take the hint. I further believe that if a new film was being introduced, it would be introduced with great fanfare, and a detailed pedigree. Repackaging/relabeling films is a common practice, and Ilford's films have been marketed under a wide variety names. I can't prove that Adox 125 and 400 are FP4+ and HP5+, but I'm satisfied that they are.

Jay

However, my understanding is that Ilford is no longer providing "no-name" film for repackaging?

If that is so, this would presumably have to be old stock prior to the Ilford restructuring?