Adox CMS 20 in Rodinal 1:300 Stand Development- Results & Question

<p>As per Michael Axel's suggestion, I tried developing a roll of Adox CMS 20, rated at 20, in Rodinal 1:300 using stand development - 5 minutes of agitation, followed by letting the tank sit for 2.5 hours. The results were still pretty contrasty and the film seems to have problems getting good shadow detail. I'll post some examples below, but it seems I got better results using the 1:200 dilution for 18 minutes, but it seems less time would be needed for that combination. Based on this stand development test, what might people suggest? Michael, what do you think? The original TIFF files have more contrast - they seem to have lost a little during the JPEG conversion. Otherwise, nothing has been touched in Photoshop.</p><div></div>

<p>another...</p><div></div>

<p>another one</p><div></div>

<p>mike, taking a picture</p><div></div>

<p>Mike, in BMW</p><div></div>

<p>Tracy w/her beloved 4x5. All the shots up until now and including this one were metered with my handheld Sekonic digital meter.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's another of Tracy and her 4x5 camera, the only difference being that I metered as to the camera's suggestion. I was using a Nikon FE2.</p><div></div>

<p>All of the above shots were taken this past Saturday, May 2. The next few shots were taken yesterday, May 6, under completely different light. The first one was taken using my Sekonic to meter.</p><div></div>

<p>Randall again, using the FE2's meter</p><div></div>

<p>From what I remember, the difference in metering between the Sekonic, which is an incident meter, and the FE2, which has a reflective meter, was half a stop or 1 stop. Here's one last shot, exposed using the FE2's meter. The same versions of this shot using the Sekonic meter are very much the first Randall shot and the skin tones are even less flattering.</p>

<p>Oops... here's the shot. In any event, I'm about at my wits end with this film. Seems the best way to develop it for continuous tone might be the Adox developer, unless anyone else has gotten continuous tone somehow... Technidol, Diafine, Microphen?</p><div></div>

<p>Caffenol? (Instant coffee of the right sort and washing soda.) It's low contrast, and the ingredients are available in most of the world.</p>

 

<p>I had some Efke 25 in 120 years ago that had very high contrast. I took it to a pro lab a couple of times but didn't like the results at all. That was before I processed BW film myself. Come to think of it, they did a poor job with Pan-F 50 also. </p>

<p>I ran Tracy through Photoshop Elements, just did levels. I probably could have brightened her face a tad more.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3512236702_638496c4eb_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="468" /></p>

<p>Hi Thomas,</p>

<p>Thanks for your Photoshop effort. I noticed by playing with the levels in Photoshop or by using Digital DEE on my scanner that I could recover some details, but I was hoping to try and tame the negative a bit more during shooting and/or development. Still tho, good to know there is some latitude to work with!</p>

<p>As for Caffenol, perhaps if I had more time, but school is ending soon... :(</p>

<p>Have a look at this thread from APUG:<br>

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/55176-adox-cms20-rodinal-how-get-better-result-2.html<br>

I would still suggest what I said in aother thread started by you about this film:<br>

"I have developed it in Stoeckler two-bath developer for 3 minutes, somewhat high contrast, but not too bad. I get normal to slightly low contrast by developing in a very dilute Beutler type developer (0.2 g metol, 1.0g sodium sulfite, 1.0g sodium carbonate) for 30 minutes with minimal agitation. Exposed at EI 25."</p>

 

<p>Why in heavens name would anybody want to use still development? I've done research in processing systems and chemicals for well over 1/2 century and still development is the worst of these methodologies.</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

<p>I know nothing about still/stand development and not much more about taming high contrast films for continuos tone use, that's why I was open to suggestions and trying new things.</p>

<p>Hello JP,</p>

<p>Your attached images illustrate the effectiveness of increased exposure in reducing contrast. Increasing exposure with slow films can be very limiting, so I recommend pre-flashing as a practical alternative. It will require some experimentation on your part to arrive at the optimum value of pre-exposure, but I think the efforts will be repaid in much-easier-to-print negatives. You can do it in-camera by focussing at infinity, and holding a card in front of your lens as you make the pre-exposure. You'll need to use a camera with multiple exposure capability, or pre-expose the whole roll, rewind, and then make your final exposures as normal. Give it a go, young man, and let us know how you fare.</p>

 

<p>Caffenol LC+C works great with this film. I have used it and it works well.<br>

http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/caffenol.php<br>

http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions%20and%20Times.html</p>

<p>Andrea - thanks for the Caffenon LC+C suggestion. Did you use the suggested time of 15 minutes?</p>

<p>Jay, why does increasing exposure help reduce contrast? Wouldn't more exposure cause the highlights to block up more, especially with such a contrasty film? By pre-exposure, it sounds like you're talking about flashing film or paper, right? I've never tried this, but at least paper, I've been told that flashing can help bring out shadow detail. I got a kick out of how you said young man, but I think this young man may have reached his experimentation limit with CMS 20, at least for now... :)</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1522918">Lynn Jones</a> said:</p>

 

<p>"Why in heavens name would anybody want to use still development? I've done research in processing systems and chemicals for well over 1/2 century and still development is the worst of these methodologies."<br>

I did not say still development, but minimal agitation, the idea being to let the developer be exhausted in the highlights. What would you suggest for deveoping CMS20, based on your experience? I have tried a two-bath developer, but the results were a bit contrasty, I think. The dilute Beutler developer I used could probably have got a bit more agitation, since the results were rather flat (but perfectly acceptable)</p>

<div></div>

<p>Another winter scene. Less time and more agitation would most likely have been better.</p>

<p>Messed up the previous post.</p><div></div>

<p>Not bad at all for winter shots with detail in the snow!</p>

<p>Hi JP,<br>

You're right, increasing exposure alone might not decrease contrast, just increase density, but consider the adage; <em>expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, </em>keeping in mind contrast is essentially the difference in high and low densities. So, by increasing exposure in tandem with reducing development, contrast is reduced. The approach is sometimes referred to as <em>pull processing, </em>the inverse of <em>push processing, </em>in which exposure is decreased and development increased with a resulting increase in contrast. Flashing allows one to raise the exposure threshold of the film, so that the actual exposure can be shorter, which can be important for portaits, handheld work, dof, etc.<br>

I understand your frustration with this film; I felt much the same when I was trying to make Imagelink work for me. I settled on a trio of techniques to tame that film: flashing, dilute 510-Pyro, and VC paper. That was mostly just stubbornness on my part. I will always choose Acros over any of these document films, given the choice.</p>