Agfa APX 400s

[Ash]

Here's a load of Agfa shots. All on the Kiev with J8m.

1http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-3x_sm.jpg

2http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-5x_sm.jpg

3http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-12x_sm.jpg

4http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-23x_sm.jpg

5http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-24x_sm.jpg

6http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/Untitled-6g_sm.jpg


One for luck - Largely vignetted (and blurry!) shot from a rushed test roll in the Leica - massively underexposed and push processed (2x time). Industar 50's don't like dim rooms!

7http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/second-belated/leica1vign.jpg


#2 was to test grain and sky tones. #6 is my favourite - there is no scanner trickery, it's a straight neg scan, gotta love that J8m :D


Shoddy photo's I know but I'm not looking for any crit. I think one or two people were interested in the results from this film so here they are ! :)

It's a bitch to scan, and you can't tear it with fingernails, which means scissors in the changing bag grr! Also true it likes curling, a lot, and the surface of the film catches the light and tiny blotches can be seen. strange but no effect to images.

[markinlondon]

A little more exposure needed, I think, Ash. Maybe a 250 film? What developer are you using?

[Crasis]

I am very not happy with my own tests with apx 400. I was told that it was rather bland, but I didn't believe them. Stupid me.

I think the issue with APX 400, and everyone has told me this, is that it's flat as hell. I've been told that it must be shot at 320, and processed at 400 to have any hope of looking good. Apparently shooting it at 400 iso is PUSHING it! And it doesn't push very well!

[w3rk5]

I'm still learning APX-400. I rate it as @ 200-250 and develop it as 400 like you mentioned. So far I like it. I got two examples in my blog titled "Test Shots". (http://24x36mm.blogspot.com/2006/10/test-shots.html) I do recall playing around with the "levels" though.

[eddie con]

this is very timely. i will soon be having 100 ft of agfa apx400 and this is quite valuable info i just got. that's bad news, crasis about the apx400. i like pushing my films. i did not know that it does not want to be pushed. so, did i get it right? set iso to as low as 200 as bobby suggested and develop at 400. and what developer would be good?
btw, bobby, those agfa shots on your link have great contrasts.

[clintock]

I wonder how the agfa 400 behaves in diafine.

[w3rk5]

Thank you Eddie. I used Kodak HC-110 cause that's what I have. Like I mentioned before, I did play with the levels to get that contrast.

[eddie con]

Thank you Eddie. I used Kodak HC-110 cause that's what I have. Like I mentioned before, I did play with the levels to get that contrast. bobby,
i am getting the film in december when my sister in USA pays us a visit. she decided to cut on cost by bringing it in person. she won it on ebay. i suspect it's her xmas gift. well, i feel like a kid waiting for santa.:D and you are welcome. (sorry for late reply).

[Ash]

Nice one ManGo :)

[rover]

I wonder how the agfa 400 behaves in diafine.

AFGA 400 works great with Diafine, one of my favorite combinations. It has a very consistent attractive grain to my eye with very good contrast. I shoot it at 500.

[kully]

Woah, this is a late reply.

Rover, I've been using this APX 400S in diafine too and it prints very nice. You're right about the grain, it is there but it's still sharp and not mushy like some other grain can be.

[GeneW]

I can get cheap 24-exp rolls of this stuff at Downtown Camera in Toronto, so I use it for test rolls. It's not horrible, but I'm not a big fan. Not even close to Tri-X quality, imo.

Gene

[Pepe]

APX400@500 in diafine

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/455705678_51cf430cdb_o.jpg

[wintoid]

APX400 rated @ ISO800 in DDX...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/76710386_fccbc7ab16.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wintoid/76710386/)