Amazing result. I absolutely love the images with the hills. On another note, the 4k footage looks great too, its nice to view your images at a bit higher quality.
Steve O. Just want to say that I really enjoy your video's. Mostly you go the extra mile to not only show us how to make the image, but the reasons behind it. Example. I'm into pin hole photography, and there are gobs of folks out there who tell you most of what's involved in taking the photo. You on the other hand take us even further. Mostly the exposure time! for this I applaud you!!! From across the pond I say Crack On!
Great discussion of an odd corner of film photography. I paid my dues in this department during the late 1970s and early 80s, shooting Kodak Technical Pan developed in POTA. Doing this, you are forced to learn a level of technique and care in processing which most folks never bother to acquire. However, it is a wearing process. It motivated me to move on to medium format, getting the level of quality I desired with much less stress. I will not be trying CMS 20. I may dust off my Minolta 5400II.
I agree with every word you said Steve. I used quite a lot of the old Kodak Technical Pan 2415 and Technidol LC in the early 80s, but I had a lot of trouble with runs and uneven development. The fineness of grain and the resolution of the CMS II seems a match for the 2415 but it is less troublesome. I would entirely forget about the claimed 800 lp/mm resolution by Adox. We are talking photography here not electron microscopy. One film I am keen on trying with the Adotech IV developer is Rollei's 80s Retro. I believe it can be used if rated @ iso 16~20. Adotech being a super compensating developer, should be a good match, if somewhat an expensive one.
Both this video and the previous one on the Adox film are excellent. It is an amazing film, and great to see what a highly-skilled, experienced photographer can do with this when paired with some beautiful cameras and lenses. A reminder on the subject of the diffraction limit for a camera, for a flawless lens with no aberrations, the smallest pair of objects that can be resolved at the focal plane (film or sensor) is, very approximately, 4f/3 µm, where f is the focal ratio (f-number) of the lens aperture. Sample at half this pitch (2f/3 µm) when making a digital image. It is impossible to do better than this. Very few lenses, even modern ones with aspherical elements are able to achieve below about f/5.6, even if you have the budget of a space agency, because this requires correction of high-order aberrations, which is not possible.
I'm glad you spoke about prime vs zoom. I shoot Olympus and normally carry 2 zooms and s prime for landscape. I'll take primes, 28mm, 50mm and 100mm when I try this film. Thanks for the video.
I question whether it’s the long focal length (rather than zoom design) of the lens that is a problem? Wind moving the subject and camera shake (even on a tripod) are so much more visible with a tight FoV than with a standard or wide lens.
Thanks for the review. every time I look at your content on you tube I notice that I still have a lot to learn. It is very nice to use your information as a starting point. Fortunately, you don't present everything in absolutes. Thank you and I hope you continue for a long time to come.
I’m just starting to play around and learn about various films, shooting on both 35mm and 120 film. Your discussion gives me a lot to think about as my presently thin knowledge base slowly expands. Thank you for your very thoughtful description!
Very nice video and follow-up to the previous one, thanks! It would be interesting to see your G9 scanning procedures and what you might do after in LR or wherever. I don't think I will ever have a dark room and would still like to shoot film and develop it. I have a G9 and the 40mpix resolution seemed nice but the super high 80? one did not seem to improve much over the 40mpix High Res setting. Seeing your full approach through processing would be excellent information. Best wishes! Thanks again for the video. Stay safe!
I’ve seen no improvement with the 80mp mode either John. I avoid making videos on scanning methods as they change constantly and everything would be out of date 🙂
My rule for avoiding diffraction is to make sure that the actual aperture is larger than approximately 3.5mm. To get that, I divide the focal length by 3.5. So, the 50mm f/1.8 can be stopped down to f/16 with no significant problem. The 28mm f/2.8 can be stopped down to f/8.
In case you are interested, I have posted a more technical comment on this subject. Your empirical observations are more-or-less correct from a practical photography viewpoint.
That makes total sense. Perhaps I would not stop down a 50mm to f16 but I do it to f11 with no problems whatsoever. It goes in the lines of when I am shooting 4x5 I stop down the lens merciless and I never have diffraction, and it only because the really long focal lenghts. I even go to f64 with my 250mm, again withouth any loss whatsoever.
Good review Steve. To be honest, I'm surprised it worked so well given the conditions. They weren't very kind to us and I also had some problems with flare that I noticed later. It was too bright at the time to see the problems. I'm looking forward to your future findings.
I have one of the new intrepid enlargers on the way and up until now I’ve been rather patient waiting for it. You’ve really jump started my enthusiasm with this one. Now I’m like a child anxious for Christmas morning.
Interesting observation when it comes to mirrorless camera Vs dedicated scanner Vs darkroom print! I prefer dslr scan for speed and quality, I don't own a dedicated scanner, doesn't have the interest in the darkroom part and will not touch a flatbed scanner again as I used one for years and got tired of the slowness and lack of quality with my 35mm and 120! Have a good week!
These results remind me of the H&W Control System of the 1970's. The film was Agfa Copex Pan Rapid (ASA 64-80) processed in a "mix it up and use within 30 minutes" Phenidone-based developer. There was a complete write up in Camera 35 back then, with a twist. A "tiny bit of something" in the background was revealed to be a jet airliner in flight that was otherwise invisible at 10X, but showed up at 100X. I used the film "out in the country" and noticed that a line of cars on a country road were quite detailed...down to the license plates that could be read in the 100X magnification range. A tripod, cable release, and photographing early in the day to avoid atmospheric degradation (heat wave simmer).
I really liked these photos, I haven't used them yet, but all the videos I saw, I really liked what I saw, a lot of detail as you said. There's an urban legend that negatives aren't exactly what the manufacturer says, so maybe a lower-than-rated ISO test will bring less grain. Grateful for this sharing!!
Wonderful. Your videos always inspire me to shoot film. This Christmas, I think I need to get a film developing kit to avoid the problems with my last roll. I sent it to the developer via the only local pharmacy still accepting film and it took a month to get it back due to a 2 week shutdown of the place for a covid outbreak. I’ll be polishing up my Nikor E 28, 50 and 100 on my wife’s FE2 while I wait for that.
I have a amazing book ..... "Edge of Darkness" by Barry Thornton ... he tried microfilm and found that some grain actually ADDED sharpness ... amazing read and I enjoy the info !!! ... thanks Steve !!!
I shoot a lot with this film and yes it is very dependent on the lens used. if you want negatives with a level of detail near the resolution of this film you need a fast lens which is sharp at f/2-f/2.8 and not slower. so all lenses which are "good at f/4" are not good for this particular film. and this fact is a big problem because there is not much of a such lenses besides fast fifties. this film is very capable but getting it's max resolution are very hard task. I personally don't bother of resolution and use this film for it's other qualities like lack of grain and high contrast. this film is great for flat overcast lighting conditions and other cases of narrow dynamic range. and its good for vegetation (autumn bushes and branches) where other films give you just a grainy mess hiding all depth and air.
That's a massive print you did! Wow... and also one of the very few car comparisons that actually make sense :) You might want to try pulling this film even in not contrasty situations to get an even better balanced contrast, especially in the darkroom I had some serious sky burning going on for the first rolls before I tried rating it ISO8-12 and pull in everything thats not -> really flat light. What do think about it's dust-magnetic character and were you able to fight it successfully? In my high res scans with 4500dpi I have those mean tiny dust particles that normally hide in the grain ... but because it's grain is so small there is no hiding anymore. No matter how hard I try to keep it away. Thanks for your fantastic work you share!
I was surprised by the contrast to be honest but it behaved quite well in the darkroom. I don’t do too badly for dust as I develop in my garage where it’s largely clean air but your right about any tiny fleck showing up 🙁
Amazing results, steve!. If you want a perfect prime corner to corner, you should try the nikkor 55mm micro, either the 3.5 or 2.8, they’re equally magnificent performers at every stop
@@jasongold6751 really? What version do you have?. I sold my 55micro ai-s 2.8 and was amazing at every aperture and focal distance… got the zeiss makro planar t* f2 instead and the nikkor was sharper on the edges
WOW!! I'd love to try this film, but I don't do my own developing and I'm concerned the lab I will be using may...uhmm...have a problem with it. Although they have been around forever and generally have a good reputation. Thank you for yet another fantastic video!
I've never tried this film, but I've scanned older film with grain and some scratches. Scanning the same images on a Nikon 5000 scanner and a Epson flatbed I actually found the Epson scans easier to work with. The Nikon scans had more detailed and showed grain and every defect clearly. The Epson scan showed the imperfections too and some grain structure, but to a lesser degree. I'd guess I should call the Epson scans lower quality, but it requires a lot less work to create a "usable" version that's more than good enough for small prints and use online. Haven't tried a camera setup yet, but I'd expect that to give a even clearer image of the imperfections.
@@SteveONions I've been eyeing the out the 4 roll kit on the firstcall-photographic site for ages. Next time I buy some film, I'll throw some cms20 in the cart.
Thank you for that report. i will give it a try. The film seems to be very prone to scratches so i will do the last waterbath in distilled water without wiping it after…
I put my 4x5 up for the rough winters we have here. I also shoot Hasselblad 503 and pack it around. However this winter I want to get down to the beaches and photograph the storms coming off the Northern Pacific and will use my 35mm. I like long exposures anyway and this film may be my ticket. I don't scan I work in the Darkroom.
Great work! I just subscribed. A few questions... Are you using a fixer with an acid hardener in it? Does ADOX say anything about that? Have you tried Electronic Shutter Mode on the G9? I use it on my GH4 & 30mm with either self timer mode or iPhone app release to eliminate vibrations. Have you tried Andrew Clifford's Essential Film Holder? The latest version is absolutely superb for keeping film perfectly flat and keeping the light source fully diffused. (He's in the UK.) Are you camera scanning with emulsion up, facing the lens? I may have to dig out my old Cokin filter holders and see how they work with my rig. I might even have a 46mm adapter... Are you using Negative Lab Pro to convert your negatives?
Hi William. I used Fotospeed FX30 with CMS 20II (non acid). I have used electronic shutter on the G9 for silent shooting and also time lapses. I’ve not used Andrew Clifford’s film holder. I have found no appreciable difference scanning film face up or down. I do use NLP to process my negatives. 😊
Very fair review! Put that film behind some Leica M glass, follow all the rigors you discussed, develop in Adotech, keep enlargements to reasonable sizes and IMO anyone would be hard pressed to see a difference between these prints and, at least, MF on "normal" emulsions. I've made 30-32cm wide enlargements that you probably couldn't tell weren't made from 5x4 Tri-X / HP-5.
I guess it depends what you mean by "normal" emulsions. I dont think this film would beat 6x9 on Delta 100, for example. Regardless, at prints of 30cm x 20cm they should all be looking fairly perfectly sharp and grain free unless you're aiming for grit (and therefore loading TriX or HP5)?
Regarding the uneven sky marks. They may be due to not being able to cover the complete film quickly enough when filling the tank with developer, I used to have this problem when developing high contrast micro type films in compensating developers if the tank was tilted when filling. Had to plunge the film into the full tank in the dark, cap quickly and invert to avoid.
@@SteveONionsIt does and what is even worse is that it blotches if it gets aged. However, when it does work, IMHO it's the most beautiful emulsion available.
Very interesting video Steve and the large print is superb. Bit of a mystery re the scratches. Can’t remember if you’ve tried Ilford’s pan f 50. (I think you have) I’ve not used it for landscapes but had good results with close ups on 35mm
I had a Nikon AF 2.8/180 mm and it had a fantastic image quality. You should be able to get it relatively cheap second-hand. It was too heavy for me so I hardly used it, but you seem to like heavy equipement.
Would be great to use the film next time with a newer camera & lens combo, e.g. your F80 and some AF-S lenses. My feeling is, that it would exceed even newer fullframe DLSRs with respect to resolution…
Thank you for the detailed analysis Steve. 2 quick question; on your DSLR setup, how are you supporting your camera? Looks like it’s balanced on a lens hood. Haven’t seen anything without either a stand or a tripod… intrigued. 2nd; as an ortho film, are you making any changes to your exposure decisions as compared to a pan chromatic film. I haven’t worked with ortho before but understand it’s blue sensitive. Have a great day!
Hi Dan. I think it is a panchromatic film but I’ll check that out - no adjustments applied to this shoot. I use Cokin lens shades to space out the lens/film for digitising - it keeps everything parallel and allows easy adjustment between 35mm and 120 (1 hood for 35mm is enough).
Steve, a bit of a technical question here… On the film canister I see info and icons I interpret as sunny exposure at 20ISO and cloudy exposure at 12ISO. Do I have this correct? From all info I get from various sources it seems that this film could easily blow out highlights with poor exposure so I would have thought it would be better to expose it at 20ISO in sunny conditions and 12ISO for softer light? I would appreciate your take on this? Thanks!
It’s such a tricky film that I would hesitate to answer that question with any confidence. I definitely don’t like underexposing it and find 12 to be a good speed but in bright conditions that’s risky. If the contrast in the scene is less than 5 stops you should be OK so I effectively treat it like a slide film.
Ahhh the curse of scratches, a soft film indeed. I would be tempted but I do not have your discipline with developing. Well done Steve, you always inspire.
Your 80MP scans with the g9 is better resolving grain over the Minolta, but resulting in the same scene detail? That seems to imply you’’ve found the upper bound of this emulsion’s usable resolution (assuming lens, workflow, etc. are fine.) So about 20MP worth out of 135… Interesting in an academic sense. Practically I’d estimate it’d be better just to use MF, even if it’s just 645 and more mainstream film.
Hi Steve very nice presentation. I just wanted to mention that over the years I have had that peculiar grain pattern and it seems to always be in the sky I have looked at other parts of the particular negative and honestly could not see this pattern except in the sky. Even stranger it just will appear in a few negatives on the same roll. I talked with several photographers and they have all had the same problem. it naturally seems to always be on a keeper negative. When I used Panatomic X 35mm in D76 1 to 1 (ASA 25) I never seemed to have this problem. But that was many years ago. I will be very interested to see if you come up with a solution to this problem regards Kevin Flynn
I’ve experienced exactly the same Kevin, it’s never in other areas of the negative and can appear randomly in frames (I sometimes feel like pulling my hair out). No matter what water, technique of film/Dev I’ve never found anything totally perfect but the simpler combinations like HP5+ and ID-11 seem best suited to consistency.
Do you think this film's contrast could be low enough for portraits ? I've heard that it's quite high even in Adotech IV (apropriate developer), would be fantastic to shoot 35mm portraits with such a high detail film.
Great video. I think, I’ll have to try this film, just one question: If you like the look of film, why shoot this kind of film without notiable grain? Or put another way, what’s the difference to use digital, when the resolution is this high and grain is just about nonexisting?
That’s a very good point and one I largely agree with. I’ve never been drawn to super fine grain and overly smooth images but I just had to give it a try. It certainly has its place if I wanted to convey a very tranquil scene in which grain might intrude. I’ve another video soon which shows just how well CMS 20 enlarges.
This film is waste of money ! first of all, it's expensive for a black and white film, it's recommended to develop only in adotech 4 for best results, after drying , it curls, even if you keep it under heavy books, it's a pain working in darkroom with this film, and it's scratches easily ,it's not as sharp as they say. I made a side by side comparison, with an expired kodadk tmax100, ilford fp4, and astrum 64(for those who don't know what film is astrum 64, it's the former svema 64 )and the only difference that I noticed that the adox is slightly sharper, almost unnoticeable , it doesn't justifies the price, as for contrast and tones, astrum 64 is better, plus the spectral sensitivity of astrum FN-64 is expanded into the near infrared range of the energy spectrum, and it dries perfectly flat, and its more resistant to scratches and 3 times cheaper than adox, it can be developed with any developer. Here in Canada is $6.50 per roll.
Amazing result. I absolutely love the images with the hills. On another note, the 4k footage looks great too, its nice to view your images at a bit higher quality.
Glad you liked it 😊
This is a very very interesting video. I feel much more familiar with this wonderful film. Thank you.
Glad you found it useful Richard.
Steve O. Just want to say that I really enjoy your video's. Mostly you go the extra mile to not only show us how to make the image, but the reasons behind it. Example. I'm into pin hole photography, and there are gobs of folks out there who tell you most of what's involved in taking the photo. You on the other hand take us even further. Mostly the exposure time! for this I applaud you!!! From across the pond I say Crack On!
Thanks Randy, I’m glad you like the videos 👍
Steve O. Keep up the good work. Your blogs are very educational , and a delight to watch. Looking forward to your future videos. Texas bloke.
Great discussion of an odd corner of film photography. I paid my dues in this department during the late 1970s and early 80s, shooting Kodak Technical Pan developed in POTA. Doing this, you are forced to learn a level of technique and care in processing which most folks never bother to acquire. However, it is a wearing process. It motivated me to move on to medium format, getting the level of quality I desired with much less stress. I will not be trying CMS 20. I may dust off my Minolta 5400II.
I also found this film a dead end for my photography, too slow and lacking the look I want to achieve.
I agree with every word you said Steve. I used quite a lot of the old Kodak Technical Pan 2415 and Technidol LC in the early 80s, but I had a lot of trouble with runs and uneven development. The fineness of grain and the resolution of the CMS II seems a match for the 2415 but it is less troublesome. I would entirely forget about the claimed 800 lp/mm resolution by Adox. We are talking photography here not electron microscopy. One film I am keen on trying with the Adotech IV developer is Rollei's 80s Retro. I believe it can be used if rated @ iso 16~20. Adotech being a super compensating developer, should be a good match, if somewhat an expensive one.
It is a bit finicky for me but I’ll persist. I’ve also shot a lot of 80s in the past and found it super fine grained in Rodinal - contrasty too.
Both this video and the previous one on the Adox film are excellent. It is an amazing film, and great to see what a highly-skilled, experienced photographer can do with this when paired with some beautiful cameras and lenses.
A reminder on the subject of the diffraction limit for a camera, for a flawless lens with no aberrations, the smallest pair of objects that can be resolved at the focal plane (film or sensor) is, very approximately, 4f/3 µm, where f is the focal ratio (f-number) of the lens aperture. Sample at half this pitch (2f/3 µm) when making a digital image. It is impossible to do better than this. Very few lenses, even modern ones with aspherical elements are able to achieve below about f/5.6, even if you have the budget of a space agency, because this requires correction of high-order aberrations, which is not possible.
I'm glad you spoke about prime vs zoom. I shoot Olympus and normally carry 2 zooms and s prime for landscape. I'll take primes, 28mm, 50mm and 100mm when I try this film. Thanks for the video.
I question whether it’s the long focal length (rather than zoom design) of the lens that is a problem? Wind moving the subject and camera shake (even on a tripod) are so much more visible with a tight FoV than with a standard or wide lens.
They make this film in 4x5, I may have to buy some.
I've been waiting for this film to be available in 120 format for some time - hope it will come eventually
Thanks for the review. every time I look at your content on you tube I notice that I still have a lot to learn. It is very nice to use your information as a starting point. Fortunately, you don't present everything in absolutes. Thank you and I hope you continue for a long time to come.
Thanks Tom 😊
I’m just starting to play around and learn about various films, shooting on both 35mm and 120 film. Your discussion gives me a lot to think about as my presently thin knowledge base slowly expands. Thank you for your very thoughtful description!
Glad you liked it 👍
Very nice video and follow-up to the previous one, thanks!
It would be interesting to see your G9 scanning procedures and what you might do after in LR or wherever. I don't think I will ever have a dark room and would still like to shoot film and develop it. I have a G9 and the 40mpix resolution seemed nice but the super high 80? one did not seem to improve much over the 40mpix High Res setting. Seeing your full approach through processing would be excellent information.
Best wishes! Thanks again for the video. Stay safe!
I’ve seen no improvement with the 80mp mode either John.
I avoid making videos on scanning methods as they change constantly and everything would be out of date 🙂
@@SteveONions is the grain sharper? i was thinking to get the g9 or olympus em1 mk2 solely to scan black and white.
My rule for avoiding diffraction is to make sure that the actual aperture is larger than approximately 3.5mm. To get that, I divide the focal length by 3.5. So, the 50mm f/1.8 can be stopped down to f/16 with no significant problem. The 28mm f/2.8 can be stopped down to f/8.
I like that approach, it chimes with my own findings 👍
In case you are interested, I have posted a more technical comment on this subject. Your empirical observations are more-or-less correct from a practical photography viewpoint.
That makes total sense. Perhaps I would not stop down a 50mm to f16 but I do it to f11 with no problems whatsoever. It goes in the lines of when I am shooting 4x5 I stop down the lens merciless and I never have diffraction, and it only because the really long focal lenghts. I even go to f64 with my 250mm, again withouth any loss whatsoever.
This is super useful info.
Good review Steve. To be honest, I'm surprised it worked so well given the conditions. They weren't very kind to us and I also had some problems with flare that I noticed later. It was too bright at the time to see the problems. I'm looking forward to your future findings.
Thanks Robin. It was too harsh up there early on, great location though.
As usual you have amazing results and very thoughtful commentary. Thanks Steve
Thank you Karl 🙂
I have one of the new intrepid enlargers on the way and up until now I’ve been rather patient waiting for it. You’ve really jump started my enthusiasm with this one. Now I’m like a child anxious for Christmas morning.
I never got round to setting up my Intrepid Mk1 enlarger for my 4x5’s - too much other stuff in the way 🙁
Interesting observation when it comes to mirrorless camera Vs dedicated scanner Vs darkroom print!
I prefer dslr scan for speed and quality, I don't own a dedicated scanner, doesn't have the interest in the darkroom part and will not touch a flatbed scanner again as I used one for years and got tired of the slowness and lack of quality with my 35mm and 120!
Have a good week!
I’m still undecided but do like the speed of the mirror less camera overall.
These results remind me of the H&W Control System of the 1970's. The film was Agfa Copex Pan Rapid (ASA 64-80) processed in a "mix it up and use within 30 minutes" Phenidone-based developer. There was a complete write up in Camera 35 back then, with a twist. A "tiny bit of something" in the background was revealed to be a jet airliner in flight that was otherwise invisible at 10X, but showed up at 100X. I used the film "out in the country" and noticed that a line of cars on a country road were quite detailed...down to the license plates that could be read in the 100X magnification range. A tripod, cable release, and photographing early in the day to avoid atmospheric degradation (heat wave simmer).
I’ve got another video coming soon using this film for large prints - all sorts of things were visible that I’d never noticed at the time I shot it.
I really liked these photos, I haven't used them yet, but all the videos I saw, I really liked what I saw, a lot of detail as you said.
There's an urban legend that negatives aren't exactly what the manufacturer says, so maybe a lower-than-rated ISO test will bring less grain.
Grateful for this sharing!!
Thanks Marcos.
Excellent review Steve compared to others on here. For myself, I enjoy the level of detail you address in your comments - cheers!
Thanks Kenny.
Nice Steve! Great analogy regarding film formats and engines...
Thanks Randy 👍
Wonderful. Your videos always inspire me to shoot film. This Christmas, I think I need to get a film developing kit to avoid the problems with my last roll. I sent it to the developer via the only local pharmacy still accepting film and it took a month to get it back due to a 2 week shutdown of the place for a covid outbreak. I’ll be polishing up my Nikor E 28, 50 and 100 on my wife’s FE2 while I wait for that.
Good luck Dennis and definitely do your own developing, it’s really easy.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this film and how it handles found it very interesting
You’re welcome Katharine.
Very good review. Hard to imagine a situation where I would be able to use this film here in the land of merciless light and cloudless skies.
No such problems here at present Bob, rain rain rain 🙁
Really good video thank you. I have on roll in my fridge. Ill try it soon !
I must dig out my remaining rolls and see if the developer still works.
I have a amazing book ..... "Edge of Darkness" by Barry Thornton ... he tried microfilm and found that some grain actually ADDED sharpness ... amazing read and I enjoy the info !!! ... thanks Steve !!!
I have read that book too George, Barry was a very competent writer and teacher.
I shoot a lot with this film and yes it is very dependent on the lens used. if you want negatives with a level of detail near the resolution of this film you need a fast lens which is sharp at f/2-f/2.8 and not slower. so all lenses which are "good at f/4" are not good for this particular film. and this fact is a big problem because there is not much of a such lenses besides fast fifties.
this film is very capable but getting it's max resolution are very hard task. I personally don't bother of resolution and use this film for it's other qualities like lack of grain and high contrast. this film is great for flat overcast lighting conditions and other cases of narrow dynamic range. and its good for vegetation (autumn bushes and branches) where other films give you just a grainy mess hiding all depth and air.
I think an overcast day might be next on the list of things to try this film with 👍
Great review! It would be lovely if Adox could make this film in 120 again, like they did some years ago.
Definitely Peter 🙂
That's a massive print you did! Wow... and also one of the very few car comparisons that actually make sense :)
You might want to try pulling this film even in not contrasty situations to get an even better balanced contrast, especially in the darkroom I had some serious sky burning going on for the first rolls before I tried rating it ISO8-12 and pull in everything thats not -> really flat light. What do think about it's dust-magnetic character and were you able to fight it successfully? In my high res scans with 4500dpi I have those mean tiny dust particles that normally hide in the grain ... but because it's grain is so small there is no hiding anymore. No matter how hard I try to keep it away.
Thanks for your fantastic work you share!
I was surprised by the contrast to be honest but it behaved quite well in the darkroom. I don’t do too badly for dust as I develop in my garage where it’s largely clean air but your right about any tiny fleck showing up 🙁
A good follow up vid Steve. Plenty to mull over. A 24" print from a 35 mm neg is good going. Looks good from all the way over here😆
Cheers
Diz
Thanks Diz.
Amazing results, steve!. If you want a perfect prime corner to corner, you should try the nikkor 55mm micro, either the 3.5 or 2.8, they’re equally magnificent performers at every stop
Not really true at infinity.. better at close range. my experiences.
I did have the 55mm until the dreaded oily blades struck 😟
@@SteveONions 😢. Maybe you could fix it. I loved that lens when i had it
@@jasongold6751 really? What version do you have?. I sold my 55micro ai-s 2.8 and was amazing at every aperture and focal distance… got the zeiss makro planar t* f2 instead and the nikkor was sharper on the edges
@@benjaminalejandropobleteam7651 I will never use Zeiss. So don't worry about it.
WOW!! I'd love to try this film, but I don't do my own developing and I'm concerned the lab I will be using may...uhmm...have a problem with it. Although they have been around forever and generally have a good reputation.
Thank you for yet another fantastic video!
I’d definitely ask if they used the recommended developer, it’s a very fussy film.
I've never tried this film, but I've scanned older film with grain and some scratches. Scanning the same images on a Nikon 5000 scanner and a Epson flatbed I actually found the Epson scans easier to work with. The Nikon scans had more detailed and showed grain and every defect clearly. The Epson scan showed the imperfections too and some grain structure, but to a lesser degree.
I'd guess I should call the Epson scans lower quality, but it requires a lot less work to create a "usable" version that's more than good enough for small prints and use online. Haven't tried a camera setup yet, but I'd expect that to give a even clearer image of the imperfections.
I used to have a Coolscan V but the LED light source was too harsh for conventional B&W, I also preferred the flatbed output 🙂
That wet print looks awesome. Good to hear your thoughts on this - I'm very tempted to give it a go.
Thanks Martin, it’s worth a try for sure.
@@SteveONions I've been eyeing the out the 4 roll kit on the firstcall-photographic site for ages. Next time I buy some film, I'll throw some cms20 in the cart.
I got that one Martin, I think it’s 5 rolls with the developer, excellent value.
Thank you for that report. i will give it a try. The film seems to be very prone to scratches so i will do the last waterbath in distilled water without wiping it after…
You may try the 4x5 version of cms 20.
Nice run down, Steve. I might try it if the local lab can process it. I do not have a darkroom.
Well worth a go James.
I put my 4x5 up for the rough winters we have here. I also shoot Hasselblad 503 and pack it around. However this winter I want to get down to the beaches and photograph the storms coming off the Northern Pacific and will use my 35mm. I like long exposures anyway and this film may be my ticket. I don't scan I work in the Darkroom.
Give it a go Terry and it’s a lot easier to tidy up any imperfections digitally 👍
Great work! I just subscribed. A few questions... Are you using a fixer with an acid hardener in it? Does ADOX say anything about that? Have you tried Electronic Shutter Mode on the G9? I use it on my GH4 & 30mm with either self timer mode or iPhone app release to eliminate vibrations. Have you tried Andrew Clifford's Essential Film Holder? The latest version is absolutely superb for keeping film perfectly flat and keeping the light source fully diffused. (He's in the UK.) Are you camera scanning with emulsion up, facing the lens? I may have to dig out my old Cokin filter holders and see how they work with my rig. I might even have a 46mm adapter... Are you using Negative Lab Pro to convert your negatives?
Hi William.
I used Fotospeed FX30 with CMS 20II (non acid).
I have used electronic shutter on the G9 for silent shooting and also time lapses.
I’ve not used Andrew Clifford’s film holder.
I have found no appreciable difference scanning film face up or down.
I do use NLP to process my negatives.
😊
Excellent video - as always. Thanks a lot!
Thanks Jörg.
Very fair review! Put that film behind some Leica M glass, follow all the rigors you discussed, develop in Adotech, keep enlargements to reasonable sizes and IMO anyone would be hard pressed to see a difference between these prints and, at least, MF on "normal" emulsions. I've made 30-32cm wide enlargements that you probably couldn't tell weren't made from 5x4 Tri-X / HP-5.
I do need to be a bit more careful next time, stopping down will help as will less harsh lighting.
I guess it depends what you mean by "normal" emulsions. I dont think this film would beat 6x9 on Delta 100, for example. Regardless, at prints of 30cm x 20cm they should all be looking fairly perfectly sharp and grain free unless you're aiming for grit (and therefore loading TriX or HP5)?
@@jpmcjp1893 It's not a contest...really. My general point agrees with you; that is, this film can hold its own against larger formats.
Regarding the uneven sky marks. They may be due to not being able to cover the complete film quickly enough when filling the tank with developer, I used to have this problem when developing high contrast micro type films in compensating developers if the tank was tilted when filling. Had to plunge the film into the full tank in the dark, cap quickly and invert to avoid.
That’s an interesting point Robert, I may pour the Dev in with the lid off in the darkroom, it can’t do any harm.
Very very nice. That scratch though. It looked painful even. I’m wrestling with Pan F recently (contrast mainly) but I will give this a try as well.
Pan F is quite a soft emulsion too, easily scratched.
@@SteveONionsIt does and what is even worse is that it blotches if it gets aged. However, when it does work, IMHO it's the most beautiful emulsion available.
you should try it on a medium format ) in 67 size it is almost like 4x5 which you can shoot handheld.
I believe the 120 version is unavailable at present sadly.
Very interesting video Steve and the large print is superb. Bit of a mystery re the scratches. Can’t remember if you’ve tried Ilford’s pan f 50. (I think you have) I’ve not used it for landscapes but had good results with close ups on 35mm
It’s another good film, contrasty too but great tonality.
Steve, another great video. Any possibility you could do a video comparing your two favorite Ilford films and Xp2 super.
Possibly in the future Larry, more XP2 stuff in the pipeline 👍
Thanks a lot, Steve.
You’re welcome Yuri.
Interesting to hear the motor analogy. :-)
Thank Erich.
Hi Steve ! Interesting video ! Great !
Thanks Evgeny.
I had a Nikon AF 2.8/180 mm and it had a fantastic image quality. You should be able to get it relatively cheap second-hand. It was too heavy for me so I hardly used it, but you seem to like heavy equipement.
That’s a very sharp lens but too heavy for me, I usually go very lightweight if I don’t want to wear myself out!
Would be great to use the film next time with a newer camera & lens combo, e.g. your F80 and some AF-S lenses. My feeling is, that it would exceed even newer fullframe DLSRs with respect to resolution…
I’ve got a couple of decent AF-S lenses that would definitely do better.
Thank you for the detailed analysis Steve. 2 quick question; on your DSLR setup, how are you supporting your camera? Looks like it’s balanced on a lens hood. Haven’t seen anything without either a stand or a tripod… intrigued.
2nd; as an ortho film, are you making any changes to your exposure decisions as compared to a pan chromatic film. I haven’t worked with ortho before but understand it’s blue sensitive.
Have a great day!
Hi Dan. I think it is a panchromatic film but I’ll check that out - no adjustments applied to this shoot.
I use Cokin lens shades to space out the lens/film for digitising - it keeps everything parallel and allows easy adjustment between 35mm and 120 (1 hood for 35mm is enough).
Thanks Steve 👌🏾
You’re welcome.
Steve, a bit of a technical question here…
On the film canister I see info and icons I interpret as sunny exposure at 20ISO and cloudy exposure at 12ISO. Do I have this correct? From all info I get from various sources it seems that this film could easily blow out highlights with poor exposure so I would have thought it would be better to expose it at 20ISO in sunny conditions and 12ISO for softer light?
I would appreciate your take on this?
Thanks!
It’s such a tricky film that I would hesitate to answer that question with any confidence. I definitely don’t like underexposing it and find 12 to be a good speed but in bright conditions that’s risky. If the contrast in the scene is less than 5 stops you should be OK so I effectively treat it like a slide film.
Ahhh the curse of scratches, a soft film indeed. I would be tempted but I do not have your discipline with developing. Well done Steve, you always inspire.
Thanks John 🙂
B&H just notified me that this film has been discontinued.
Interesting, I haven’t seen anything on the Adox website.
I've never heard of fixer bleaching film in a matter of minutes, hours maybe, I stand to be corrected on that one!
That’s what I’ve heard Michael, the short fix time did the job well so I’ll stick with the manufacturers recommendations.
@@SteveONions I suppose, Steve, it's always a good idea to keep fix time to a minimum anyway
Your 80MP scans with the g9 is better resolving grain over the Minolta, but resulting in the same scene detail? That seems to imply you’’ve found the upper bound of this emulsion’s usable resolution (assuming lens, workflow, etc. are fine.) So about 20MP worth out of 135…
Interesting in an academic sense. Practically I’d estimate it’d be better just to use MF, even if it’s just 645 and more mainstream film.
It’s very hard to give a resolution figure that compares to digital but I’d be happy with about 24mp from 35mm with this film.
Hi Steve very nice presentation. I just wanted to mention that over the years I have had that peculiar grain pattern and it seems to always be in the sky I have looked at other parts of the particular negative and honestly could not see this pattern except in the sky. Even stranger it just will appear in a few negatives on the same roll. I talked with several photographers and they have all had the same problem. it naturally seems to always be on a keeper negative. When I used Panatomic X 35mm in D76 1 to 1 (ASA 25) I never seemed to have this problem. But that was many years ago. I will be very interested to see if you come up with a solution to this problem regards Kevin Flynn
I’ve experienced exactly the same Kevin, it’s never in other areas of the negative and can appear randomly in frames (I sometimes feel like pulling my hair out). No matter what water, technique of film/Dev I’ve never found anything totally perfect but the simpler combinations like HP5+ and ID-11 seem best suited to consistency.
Do you think this film's contrast could be low enough for portraits ?
I've heard that it's quite high even in Adotech IV (apropriate developer), would be fantastic to shoot 35mm portraits with such a high detail film.
It is certainly high contrast Ryan but then again most slow B&W films are. The Adotech developer does produce a good tonal range.
@@SteveONions
For sure, most slow films have a high contrast.
Thanks !
Great video. I think, I’ll have to try this film, just one question: If you like the look of film, why shoot this kind of film without notiable grain? Or put another way, what’s the difference to use digital, when the resolution is this high and grain is just about nonexisting?
That’s a very good point and one I largely agree with. I’ve never been drawn to super fine grain and overly smooth images but I just had to give it a try. It certainly has its place if I wanted to convey a very tranquil scene in which grain might intrude.
I’ve another video soon which shows just how well CMS 20 enlarges.
@@SteveONions Seeing forward to that, have a nice weekend
The tonal range is great! Great contrast.
Since the speed is so slow, this is better to be used with a tripod?
Definitely a tripod film 👍
Hi Steve, can you please tell me how you scan with your digital camera without the use of a tripod?. Are you using a filter holder?
I use Cokin lens hoods Barry, they are modular so I can stack them - 1 needed for 35mm and about 6 for 120, everything is kept straight and level.
@@SteveONions so interesting. I've never heard of anyone using lens hoods like that!
Do you have to use different devloper for this film? I'm thinking Rodinal wouldn't work well with such a fine film
Hi yes you do. its a specific Adox developer for this film only. It's also one shot use BTW
I’m sticking with the Adotech, it’s dedicated to this film and I’m happy to go with the manufacturers recommendations.
I’ve also had better results with dedicated scanners. My Plustek 8200i beats dslr or even lab scans I’ve had done.
Fair point Joel, scanners still have a place, especially if you can use the IR dust removal.
Not a film for me.
I'm too sloppy in any aspect of handling and developing my films :)
I know the feeling Michael, I feel like I need to be in my best behaviour and comb my hair before shooting with this stuff 😀
This film is waste of money ! first of all, it's expensive for a black and white film, it's recommended to develop only in adotech 4 for best results, after drying , it curls, even if you keep it under heavy books, it's a pain working in darkroom with this film, and it's scratches easily ,it's not as sharp as they say. I made a side by side comparison, with an expired kodadk tmax100, ilford fp4, and astrum 64(for those who don't know what film is astrum 64, it's the former svema 64 )and the only difference that I noticed that the adox is slightly sharper, almost unnoticeable , it doesn't justifies the price, as for contrast and tones, astrum 64 is better, plus the spectral sensitivity of astrum FN-64 is expanded into the near infrared range of the energy spectrum, and it dries perfectly flat, and its more resistant to scratches and 3 times cheaper than adox, it can be developed with any developer. Here in Canada is $6.50 per roll.
Blimey Alex, give the copy and paste buttons a rest! 😊