Hmmmm... might hold off on my order until I hear of more results. Would love for you to report back!
Hmmmm... might hold off on my order until I hear of more results. Would love for you to report back!
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.
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.
Originally Posted by m00dawg
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.
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.
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...
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):
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).
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...
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...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):
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).
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks