willscarlett

<p>Hi Scotty, thanks for responding. I'd like to try your developing method with version 1 of Adox CMS 20. I still have a few rolls in 35mm. I wonder if anyone has any in 120 they'd be willing to donate or sell?</p> <p>Murray - I appreciate the info on Rollei Retro 80S. Can you give more info on the development process? 1 mL Rodinal, 1 mL HC-110 in 250 mL water? How long did you leave it in the developer for and what was the agitation scheme?</p>

<p>Hi Arthur, thanks for responding. I'd say yes, I am happy with the tonal range. While it was sunny earlier on this day, it had come a bit more cloudy, though not entirely overcast, when I got around to shooting. I'd say if it were sunnier, then yes, I'd expect to see stronger whites and especially more widely differentiated grey tones, as seen in other B&W images with different films and development. Based off the sample shots I saw from the posting on The Online Darkroom, this method of shooting and developing Adox CMS 20 II can yield continuous tone, even on bright, sunny days. I'll link that below so you can see the different attempts with Rodinal and HC-110 as well.</p> <p>I definitely plan to shoot another roll under a bright, sunny sky, and I also have some rolls of the original Adox CMS 20 laying around. I'd be curious to see how those respond to this shooting and development scheme. If you do shoot any Adox CMS 20, be warned - this film has an intense curl to it. It made it difficult to put the negatives in plastic sleeves and also to scan it.</p> <p><a href="http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2015/04/adox-cms-20-ii-adventures-in-development.html">Rolls 1-2</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2015/04/adox-cms-20-adventures-in-development.html">Rolls 3-4</a></p> <p><a href="http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2015/05/adox-cms-20-stand-developed-in-hc110.html">Rolls 5-8</a></p>

<p>Sign</p><div></div>

<p>Leaves</p><div></div>

<p>Front Porch</p><div></div>

<p>Ducks</p><div></div>

<p>Once upon a time, I shot a lot of Adox CMS 20 and tried developing it in different dilutions of Rodinal at different times and agitation schemes. While Adox's Adotech developer did deliver beautiful continuous tone, not to mention how fine grained this film is, the Adotech developer was pricy and didn't have a great shelf life. You were best off shooting enough rolls to use the developer up in one shot. However, it also became clear that it was difficult to get continuous tone out of this film using anything but the Adotech developer. The best results I ever got with Rodinal was when I rated the film at 10, diluted the developer 1:200, and developed for 18 minutes using normal agitation. One reason this method worked so well was because it was an overcast day. When I tried this shooting/developing method on a sunny day, it was back to pretty dense negatives.</p> <p>However, all that changed recently when I was recently browsing away at The Online Darkroom and came upon Scotty Elmslie's attempts at developing Adox CMS 20 II in Rodinal and HC-110. He was able to get pretty decent results with Rodinal, aside from some bromide drag, but really hit the sweet spot with HC-110 (Dilution G, 1+119), so I decided to give it a whirl. I used the 120 version of Adox CMS 20 II, exposed it at ISO 8 and developed for 15 minutes at 68F with 15 seconds initial agitation and 10 seconds at the halfway point. This method yielded no bromide drag and there was no uneven development from too much agitation.<br> <br> Granted you are shooting at ISO 8, but even with the newer Adotech III developer, the instructions say to shoot this film at ISO 12 in normal contrast situations and ISO 20 in reduced contrast situations. I'll post a few shots below. The camera I used was a Mamiya C330. All shots were either f/5.6 or f/8, which also necessitated the use of a tripod. Metering was done using a Nikon D810.</p><div></div>

<p>Does anyone remember the reciprocity for Fuji Neon 1600? Found the data sheet online, but the reciprocity info wasn't listed.</p> <p>https://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Neopan1600.pdf</p>

<p>Yes, these are factory sealed bottles, but who knows. I bought a bottle of Adonal in March 2009 that stayed sealed until October 2015 and is still working great one year later. I also have a sealed bottle of HC-110 that I bought in 2010 and haven't used.</p>

<p>Found this on APUG - <br> <br> Rodinal gives, for the most part a fairly long and straight curve, which means very even tonality. Shadow detail is slightly compressed so you will see a distinct toe. If you develop longer in Rodinal, pretty much the whole curve adds density at the same rate, and it's very powerful so it'll keep doing that for a long time. But straight line, unless you slow down agitation a bit (to 3 minute or 5 minute agitation intervals), in which case you can force a curve with a shoulder and somewhat compressed highlights.<br /><br />HC-110 gives an upswept curve as well as a toe. To me, effective film speed (shadow detail) is very similar between HC-110 and Rodinal.<br />The upswept curve means very good separation the higher up towards the highlights you get. But be careful, if you develop for too long you will easily go beyond the printable range and get highlights that block up. In normal negatives this also means that if you bring down highlights to printable levels, by using a lower contrast paper or paper filter, mid-tones can seem a bit dark. This is good for some subject matter, and not so much for other kinds.<br /><br />Both developers can give very pleasing results, and lots of people do just that all the time. They are different in tonality, however, as described above, where Rodinal catches more of the highlights, but with less separation than HC-110, but has better separation in the mid-tones, and shadow detail is about equal. In my opinion, Rodinal is better for medium to high contrast lighting, and HC-110 better for low contrast lighting.<br /><br />Less important, to me, is that Rodinal gives a sharp, but beautiful grain, whereas HC-110 looks a bit less distinct. Rodinal gives sharper edges. HC-110 gives slightly finer grain.</p>

<p>Here's an example of Tech Pan, ASA 25, Rodinal 1:300 for 12 minutes</p><div></div>

<p>Back in September 2013, I bought some Rollei ATP 1.1 and Agfa Copex with the corresponding Rollei ATP-DC A and B & Spur Modular UR Parts A and B developers. I haven't used any of the film yet, which means the developers haven't been used either. I know the film is still good, but how about the developers? All the bottles are still unopened.</p>

<p>Jamie, shoot it at ISO 25 and then use Rodinal or Adonal diluted 1:300 for 12 minutes with standard inversions and agitation. I've been shooting and developing Tech Pan that way for years and it works very well. Just the other day, I developed a roll dated 2004 that came out perfectly. I also did a roll dated 1984 that could've used an extra stop or so.</p>

<p>Tim, yes, it was done with an Epson scanner and most likely Epson software. I'll try backing off the contrast in combination with the gamma adjustments, which I lowered from 2.2 to 1.8. As for the first series of images that I posted, I like the detail of my friend's scan, but find the contrast a bit flat. I like my version with the Lightroom adjustments, but would like to get a bit more highlight detail back.</p>

<p>Charles, the NegaFix box for Fuji has NHG II, NPC, NPH, NPS, NPZ, Press, Pro, ProPlus, Super HG, Super HQ, Superia, and Superia Reala. I did some Google searching - there is no Acros plug in.</p> <p>You know what else is strange tho? How "bright" the negative scan is seems to be influenced by how I adjust its position in the preview window. You know how when you select the Overview section in Silverfast and each preview window has two arrows under it? As I adjust the position of the image, its exposure changes. Interesting. Anyways, now I'm scanning a roll of Rollei Pan 25, which is definitely not in the NegaFix profiles.</p> <p>Below is a shot I took using Agfa 25 and scanned with the OpticFilm and Silverfast... this one came out really well. No idea why.</p><div></div>

<p>I tired using the calibration target, but it all looks the same. It did come up with a Delta E of 0.6 tho. The best I can get is adjusting the gamma gradation number. It's set by default at 2.2. The b&w images have more tonality, but more contrast, if I lower the number</p>

<p>... and one more</p><div></div>

<p>Incidentally, all the rolls of color that I've scanned with the OpticFilm and SilverFast 8 have come out really well, so I know it is capable of doing a really good job. I'll post an example below</p><div></div>

<p>Charles and William, thanks for your replies. I'll adjust the settings when I get home from work tonight. I normally do scan at 5300, but sometimes that gets reset when I remove all the items from the Job Manager window.</p> <p>As for the CMS window, there are no other options for Input to Working Space and Working Space to Monitor. How would I go about creating a scanner profile?</p> <p>In NegaFix, there are no options for Fuji Acros, which is why I had it set to generic.</p> <p>By the way, there's no way to Batch Scan the previews? I only seem to be able to get them done one by one.</p> <p>I also forgot to post a shot of the 'General' area within the preferences. Here is that now.</p><div></div>

<p>If you look back at the Navigator grab, you can get an idea of what the finished preview scan looked. I took a full screen grab just before the preview scan finished and whatever auto adjustments occurred. Here's what it looked like:</p><div></div>

<p>Header</p><div></div>

<p>Special</p><div></div>

<p>CMS</p><div></div>

<p>Auto</p><div></div>

<p>General Settings</p><div></div>