Adox CMS 20 ii developed in Rodinal 1:500

I shot off a roll of high resolution cms20 ii film exposed at 10 iso and processed it in rodinal at 1:500 dilution at 17 degrees C for 2hours using stand development. I wanted to see whether I could get a range of tones without using the expensive adotech IV developer. The negatives were very thin and the developer exhausted itself in the highlights giving a brown colour to them. However the negatives exhibited a good tonal range. I have attached a photograph taken with my 100mm macro rokkor at f/8 with flash lighting of a hoverfly on a native (Australian) white frangipani flower.

Not bad results at all. It's difficult film to work with for sure.

Hi what developers have you used and how did the negatives come out?

Cheers Peter

it's been a few years since I tried it. My best was with a homemade Caffinol recipe.

I must try this sometime - photographers seem to like the results from caffenol.

How about HC-110 (F)? Not stand, but for the appropriately long time

On the adox.de site they mention hc110 as an alternative dev. with an EI of 3 to 6.

Cheers Peter

I tried to get decent results out of Tech-pan many years ago, and failed miserably. But those few useable results I did get showed me that it gave little to no advantage, detail wise, over conventional full-tone film.

Serious question, why should anyone bother with this, apart from just to see if it can be done? It's not like CMS20 can be picked up in 100 foot reels for a few dollars. It's just as expensive as mainstream film.

So is it really worth the hassle, when T-max 100 or the like has a fine enough grain for almost any application? And if you really want more detail, the simplest way is to go up a format size.

Is this not just a case of climbing a mountain because it's there?

Is this not just a case of climbing a mountain because it's there?

Hi Joe,

Yes and No. The only dedicated film scanner (4000dpi optical) I have for when I want a digital file is a 35mm scanner. To me the scans from CMS20 ii almost appear grainless whereas I can see grain in TMax 100. I prefer the look of the CMS20 ii. When I am going bush and want to use film the 35mm system is very compact. When I don't mind the bulk I'll use my 4x5in or 8x10in cameras with the economical fomapan 100 and if I need a scan use my epson v700 flatbed at 2400 dpi.

Cheers Peter (Kanga).

As far as I know, TP is designed to be a high-contrast film, and that is the best way to use it.

I first know about it as a TA for an optics class, where they used it for lens resolution testing.

I don't remember now how the results came out, though.

It is also used in scientific work, where a high contrast film is needed.

I might still try some in HC-110 (F), but like you say, mostly, as you say, as a

mountain to climb: because it is there.

I do have enough Panatomic-X to last me for a while. I don't know how it compares in grain

size and such to TP, though.

I used a fair bit of Tech Pan and it's a great film when developed with Technidol. Conventionally, it's a high contrast copy film (or was). At this point, of course, it's out of production AND so is Technidol as far as I know. And I've never heard anyone come up with a development strategy using other developers. But as Glen says, it's goal was not really pictorial. I really liked it though. Still have some in the freezer and fridge. The super low speed of the film is kind of annoying, but what's the point of using such a high detail film if it's not on a tripod, right?

The super low speed of the film is kind of annoying, but what's the point of using such a high detail film if it's not on a tripod, right?

Or use electronic flash when possible : )

Cheers Peter (Kanga)

P.S. Do you do carbon printing?. I have bought some materials to give it a go.

And I've never heard anyone come up with a development strategy using other developers.

POTA a phenidone only developer works with techpan so does very dilute >1:200 rodinal. Caffenol probably would too.

Cheers P.

I don't doubt you can get an image, but what does it look like? I'll have to try something when I run out of Technidol. What I run out of first depends on how many exposures I wind into the cartridges I think. I'm not sure these days whether it will last, or whether the age of the developer will get me eventually.

And I haven't personally darkroom printed for a few decades. I used to have a small darkroom in my bathroom in the old days. Enlarger was somewhat basic! I love the way darkroom prints look, but I don't have the talent.

Hi carbon_dragon,

Here is a photo of a negative from the 35mm 36exp roll of CMS20 ii that was developed in 500ml of solution (1cc of concentrated rodinal). It was taken against a cloudy sky with some patches of blue (which accounts for the blue in the shadows). I relied on the exhaustion of the developer in the highlights to help control contrast. When scanned at 4000 dpi the negative is effectively grainless.

Cheers Peter (Kanga)

A tip of the hat from Alan Marcus!

Alan, I am glad you liked the results.

Cheers Peter (Kanga).

Lovely, well done.

Thanks - glad you like the results.

Cheers Peter (Kanga)