Adox CMS 20 11
 

I wonder if anyone here has tried Adox CMS 20 11 film in 35mm. If so how did you get on with it?

Alan

Not me alas but a good question, Alan. It would appear to be amazing stuff in terms of resolution give the right light conditions and probably the special developer for it.

Mike

Two years on, has anyone used Adox cms 20 11 ? Thoughts and advice please.

I bought four rolls from Speed Graphic earlier in the year, along with the matched developer (a bottle does four rolls). I exposed one roll rated at ISO 12 and the other three at ISO 20.

If you scan the negatives, you can see that the film is capable of very high resolution, which in my opinion is significant only if you want to print larger than usual - and also if you use lenses that are up to the job.

As I found exposing at those speeds a bit of a nuisance back in April/May, it's not a film I'd want to use as routine. There could well be subjects, though, that would benefit from a film like this, used always with a tripod (I didn't, mostly).

Yes the speed is a problem a lot of the time in Northern climes which our U.S. friends in the likes of Texas and Arizona etc find difficult to believe:D

However from examples I have seen this film does seem capable of beating most ordinary films in Medium Format cameras and appears to be even close to a match for 4x5

Mike

I have been reading up stuff on APUG/Photrio about the film.

I have been curious about using it too - more out of curiosity than a serious consideration for regular use.

Everyone raves about the films grain and resolution but it appears (surprise, surprise) it requires quite sensitive handling when being processed.

Apart from the obvious requirement for its unique developer, extreme care it needed with acidic stop bath (very dilute stop is required) as well as a very short fixing time (due the thinness of the emulsion).

Then great care it also needed when wiping the film at the start of the drying process - it seems highly sensitive to scratching and one person was alluding to problems of wiping the emulsion completely off the film backing - by using an un-wetted film squeegee.

A couple of other things from reading the films Technical Data Sheet - because it is on a clear (PET) film base, it is sensitive to light piping and gentle care is needed with developer agitation - as it foams easily.

So in summary :-

• Great resolution and tinny grain size.
• Use the specific developer - mixed with distilled water.
• Very gentle agitation during development.
• Use a very dilute stop bath.
• Very short fixing time.
• Use distilled water as the final rinse.
• Lavish a great deal of TLC on the film while processing and drying
• Watch out for light piping in the early frames - load in a dark place.

I am never sure what to make of all the comments on APUG, some of the contributors don't seem capable of upping their game when handling specialist films like this - being used to the almost bullet proof products supplied for Ilford and Kodak.

If you have a go with it, I for one, would be interested in your findings.

Martin

Yes, I have. It's a very interesting film. Incredibly sharp and fine-grained but very contrasty unless developed in it's own (expensive) Adotech iv developer or another low-contrast dev. I rated it at EI12 and developed in home-brewed POTA developer with OK results. I'll post some scans when I dig them out. I didn't like it enough for me to switch from PanF+ as my standard slow film though, although that's just my personal opinion.

Let's just say that based on 15 years there, you have to be prepared to exercise a lot of judgement on what will usually be a wide spectrum of views and experiences.

Mike

A few scans of my latest attempts with it. They're scans of prints on Ilford Multigrade RC DeLux except for the peppers which is on Art300. As you can see, even with POTA the images are very contrasty.

A good job, you've done there Rob.

And I really like the contrast that you have managed to get with it. :)

As for me wondering what POTA was, and I'm assuming I wasn't the only one to wonder, it means, 'PHENIDONE EXTENDED RANGE DEVELOPER (POTA)'.

OR, on one post they say something different to that:

'First of all, what is POTA? According to The Film Developing Cookbook (Anchell & Troop, 1998, Focal Press, 165 pp. ISBN-13: 978-0-240-80277-0), POTA was developed by Martin Levy and the formula published in 1967. The acronym POTA stands for Photo-Optics Technical Area at the Ft. Monmouth military installation where Levy was employed.'

Terry S