A quick review of Atomal

[squareformat]

<p>I wanted to try Atomal in conjunction with Adox CHS100 II to see if there was any magic in the combination but I'm a little disappointed. Atomal is a nice enough developer but it didn't seem to bring anything special to the table. And yet, there are some photographers who absolutely love it. I've only shot one roll of film with it so it's maybe something that takes a bit of getting used to. I've written it up here:</p>

<p>http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/adox-chs-100-ii-in-atomal.html</p>

<p>I'd be interested to hear what others who have used it think of it. Maybe I've just not given it enough time?</p>

<p> </p>

[nicolas_renon]

<p>First, there is no silver bullet or said differently, magic in any combination. If it were the case, it would be known and everyone would use it.<br>

Second, it is difficult to make assumptions about a developer from 1 roll as you don't have enough experience to investigate on how to use it. What is written on the box (or the pouch) is not the Divine Word but indications to play with. ow to play with 1 roll???<br>

Last, from my own experience (several years with Atomal), it works prety well with moderate speed films like Plus X but I am less convinced with high speed ones like Tri X. In any case I meter for half of the nominal ISO sensibility as it is the case with most of the developers. Apart from that, I don't find it much different from other developers like D76 for instance. As some professional developers use it, it is not junk neither, just a developer to know to get the best of it.<br>

Take care.</p>

 

[squareformat]

<p>Hi Nicolas,<br>

There may not be a silver bullet but there are certain film/developer combinations that just sing and I was hoping that the Adox combo would be like that. I'm thinking of Tri X in D76, Tri X in Diafine, HP5 in Perceptol 1+3, APX 100 in Rodinal, Delta 100 in Spur Acurol-N - I'm sure you could add a few of your own to that list.<br>

I agree - and said so above - that one roll isn't a lot on which to judge a developer. And yet, I only needed one roll of HP5 in Perceptol to know it was special. So, yes, it's maybe unfair of me to start drawing conclusions this early but it's not unheard of for a particular "team" to click right from the start.<br>

As a long time Atomal user, what's the secret to getting the best from the developer? I shot the CHS 100 II at box speed and there is plenty of shadow detail so there's no need to give more exposure. Of course, if you live in a sunny country with deep shadows that might work for you. I live in Scotland and like to shoot in dull, stormy weather where the problem is getting enough contrast into the negs.<br>

Bruce</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>There is no silver.......oh, been said... ;) Nice write up. I go through artistic moods and then boast "it ain't all art" when my cat get's in the view. Sometimes a change is as good as a vacation.</p>

<p>You cannot appreciate what you have until you try someone else's magic. I like to know how and what I am exposing and developing, before I go click. Rehearsing blunders or misses helps me know what I don't want to do. My shelves are full of ingredients of developers I likely will not try again, affirming what I like to use.</p>

<p>The tone of your article is perfect, pointing out what is wrong and right with the product. A nice balance. It's nice to know life is not going to end.... ;)</p>

 

[chris_waller]

<p>In my early days in photography I was led to the belief that there was a 'magic' combination of film, developer and paper and developer that would give the result I wanted. Given the number of possible combinations, life isn't long enough to try them all. I did come to realise that it is a matter of sticking to one or two films and a developer and really learning how they work together. The combination I use almost exclusively is Ilford FP4 and Rodinal. But others would beg to differ, I'm sure.</p>

[nicolas_renon]

<p>Bruce, you have to finf yourself what works the best for you. Any recommandation from me could me misleading as I don't live where you live, we use different equipment and my developing and printing processes are certainly different from yours. So there is so many variables than focussing on one of these does not help, only personal experience matters.</p>

<p>You can judge negatives but the final result is given by the prints (we speak about photography, not crappy scans posted in the internet, right?). Were they that bad?</p>

<p>Last, Salgado's printer used Atomal for years to develop his films. I wish I could get such powerfull pictures despites an alleged <em>lack of accutance</em>...</p>

<p>Take care.</p>

 

[squareformat]

<p>Sorry, Nicolas, but I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I'm not saying Atomal is "bad": it's just OK and nothing special, IMO. I could get perfectly decent results from this developer if it's all I had. It just wouldn't be my first pick. Or second, or third. I've been using film for almost 40 years and I know what works for me. Still, it doesn't stop me trying other materials just for the experience. </p>

[nicolas_renon]

<p>Yeah, you make your mind from a single experience which is somewhat misleading for those who read you. I don't want to take the defense Atomal or any other developer (I have better to do) but I am always dubious when I read unjustified conclusions.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>He has a perfect right not to like it. Why or why not has *nothing* to do with you. What is more is that he actually stated the reasons which would be *justified* by definition. Why do you take it so personally?</p>

[squareformat]

<p>You seem to have a bit of a personal issue with this developer, Nicolas, so I'll not say anything else to upset you. If it works for you, then I'm very pleased. </p>

[keith_tapscott]

<p>Agfa Atomal used HEAP sulphate as the key developing agent which was also used in May & Baker Promicrol. AFAIK, this constituent is no longer available.</p>

<p>The current Adox A49 Atomal uses one of the colour developing agents as a substitute. None of this really matters as long as a particular developer gives the photographer results that he or she is pleased with.</p>

<p>I am sure that Bruce is perfectly capable of judging whether a specific film and a specific developer gives him results that really stand out for him.</p>

<p>Bruce, I found your article about Delta 100 and Spur Acurol-N of particular interest.<br>

Sorry to read that the Adox Atomal with Adox CHS100 II wasn't to your liking.</p>

[nicolas_renon]

<p>Once again and to be clear, I have no personal issue with any developer (why would I? I am not that psychotic). <strong>What cause me trouble is when someone makes assumptions from (very) limited experience</strong>. It is exactly the same as if I use a developer for the first time and rank it against others after developing a single roll? Do you think it would be a valuable experience to share? I don't think so. After 10 or 12 rolls, maybe...<br>

As a personal note and just to show I don't have trouble with Atomal, I will continue to use like I use Diafine knowing by experience what are the limitations of these developers.<br>

Take care.</p>