Agfa Apx 400

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by canwewin, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. Hello,
    I recently bought a bulk roll of Agfa Apx400 (exp. date 03/2014).
    I bought it cause I need a 400 film.
    I read I should expose it at 200 to get the best result, loosing the speed.
    Is it really bad if I expose it at 400 or 320 and develop in Rodinal, say at 1:50?
    Or should I use another developer, like Rodinal special?
    Any advice about dev times, E.I and developers appreciated.
  2. OK that was the last run if I am not mistaken of the real APX400 that was more like 200. Wait... the last run of that expired in 2012. I wonder if this is the Lupas replacement that is said to be made by someone else. Did you get any development times with it? as I may be able to figure it out from there.
    The APX400 was never very good in Rodinal even the old stuff. One way to check is to do a semi-stand development in Rodinal 1-100 and see how you like the results at 400.
    I prefer Xtol or HC-110 the most with almost any 4000 B&W film now and Rodinal Special is more like HC-110.
  3. Rodinal is a speed-losing developer -- hard to get box speed with a 0.56 contrast index. Less shadow speed than D-76.
    Also, Agfa's APX 400 was noted for a rather "optimistic" ISO 400 rating when fresh. (Note that Agfa tended to rate their films and developers for a contrast index more around 0.65. That's much higher contrast than any other vendor used.)
    If you want a real ISO 400 film, consider HP5+, Tri-X, TMAX 400, or Neopan 400.
  4. Larry, John Thank you for the reply. Here a picture of the box, no developing info inside.
  5. All the Bulk APX 400 I got from the last run was in round plastic cans..... Lord knows what that is. That looks like what Ultrafine uses for their bulk film. I just dug through some old boxes and the expire 2010 and 2011 cans have the same design.
  6. I believe the "Agfaphoto" stuff is from the last run as well, it was leftovers bought up and repackaged. This looks EXACTLY like the last spool of APX 100 I bought in bulk from Ultrafine. They added a couple of years...

    The APX 100 was definitely AGFA-made, though, same process times, etc. I'm betting this is some of that post-closing lot. Use HC-110, not Rodinal, and rate at 200 or 320, I see little difference.
  7. Michael I bet you are correct as it was known that 2 pancakes went into deep freeze and that would extend it longer. Ultrafine is known for their freezer too.
    This was shot at box speed in HC-110 dilution H from the last batch at EI-400.
  8. The APX400 was never very good in Rodinal even the old stuff.

    Why? I have read this affirmation several times, but never knew the reason. Many of my best prints has been made from APX400 in Rodinal 1+100 (12x12"). Sincerely, I wonder what I have missed...
  9. It to me was just not the same Jose. When they retooled and started the plant back up it was just not the same. The pre retooling was better in Rodinal. In 120 and larger it was great I was speaking of 35mm IMO that is how it went down.
  10. Jose, I feel the same as Larry. As good as Apx is, it just doesnt have enough life for me when developed in Rodinol.
    HC110 is a perfect developer and tends to retain film speed.
  11. Around 10 years ago when Agfa manufactured APX the then-new version of APX 400 was closer to an ISO 200 film, especially in Rodinal. At the time Agfa provided lots of data and characteristic curves indicated APX 400 wasn't well suited to Rodinal. Even Agfa recommended Agfa Studional/Special rather than the more familiar developer known as Rodinal for APX 400.
    APX 400 was an okay but unexciting film back then. I tried it with several developers, including Diafine, and found it a bit disappointing. Not a bad film, but it didn't grab me the way APX 100 did. In 400 films, Tri-X, T-Max 400, HP5+ and others were more versatile.
    No idea what film stock is being marketed now as APX 400. As with any new-to-me film, I'd run some tests to determine what worked best for my preferences.
  12. I still have a few rolls of the last crap left. I may take it out tomorrow. But if you want a 400 film on the cheap after this well get some Kentmere 400 or Ilfordpan 400. otherwise get Tri-X ot HP5+ if you just don't want to frigg around..
  13. Thanks guys for the replies!
  14. Ooops, I have already notice we are talking about 35mm film... I was thinking on 120 roll film. On 35mm, I have always been stucked to TX.
    On 120, APX400+Rodinal has been my favorite, very high sharpness, so easy to control, and a beautiful grain "feeling" who starts to be noticeable at my printing sizes... (I stopped using it when the "original" new version in 120 was discontinued or not available here, my latest batch expired in 2006).
    Any advice about dev times, E.I and developers appreciated.​
    Although my films were 120 format, I think it can be applied to 35mm format.
    Always ISO200, Rodinal 1+100, 20ยบC, Paterson tank with one to six rolls, 30 seconds initial agitation, then two gentle turns every minute.
    As someone said, "for cloudy days" 16 minutes, "normal" days (but no direct sunlight and deep shadows) 12-13 minutes. For more than 16 minutes the scene should be too much low in contrast, I see I have never gone below 10 minutes with this dilution.
  15. This pic has been for sure printed on #3 or #2 paper (MGIVFB), at 200ISO the shadow detail is perfect to my taste, highlights are so easy to control in Rodinal (V750 fast dirt scan):
  16. I think APX100+Rodinal has been the easiest to control&nicest sharpness combination I have ever used. Highlights are always right... (Below another bad scan, this time is a discarded print (MGIVFB grade #2) on a Canon cheapo-office scanner... :p The detail on the print is simply perfect):
  17. It cannot bee seen (at least on my office screen), but the detail is perfect on the print, from zone II to VIII, and with a very high sharpness feel (the subject`s face has been intentionally darkened).
    (Typo; although I wrote "APX100", the image above is obviously made with APX400 film).
  18. Data sheet is in:

Share This Page