Delta 100 vs Adox CMS 20 II

I tried the legendary Adox CMS 20 II. You won't believe what happened next!

[@randallstewart1224]

CMS gives me a flash back to the 1980s when I was shooting Kodak Technical Pan at ISO 12 and developing it in POTA. Same total lack of grain, related high sharpness, and similar irregular tonality. This results from CMS (and Tech Pan) not being truly panchromatic. So, unless you are shooting 35mm for darkroom enlargement larger than 16x 20 inches, I think you will find that Delta 100 gives the more pleasing and easier to work with tonality in the long run. Now, if you are scanning your negatives, there isn't a dimes difference (apart from tonality of course) because the scanning resolution limits and digital processing will step on the image such that there will be no observable difference. I got all this out of my system decades ago with Tech Pan, but for those still jonesing for their massive 35mm enlargement phase, here you go.

[@fandyus4125]

Best comparison I've seen on youtube. Everyone else would have just scanned the negative, said "yeah it's sharp" and moved on. Thanks.

[@elias_martinelli]

Only a few people go through the effort of a true film comparison with quality results - good work!

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

Now all I need to do is take a decent picture with the CMS :D

[@IslandPink]

Thanks for putting in the work and providing a few smiles. I used Tech Pan quite a lot 25 to 30 years ago, and it looks like this is the new high-res option. I think I have some in the fridge. I don't remember Tech-Pan being temp sensitive though, but you did need 'Technidol' to develop. I also used some 6415 (120), that was insane. One other high-res option for you, should you wish to take the challenge, is Ilford Pan F in pyro PMK, my choice for rollfilm for big prints. This will give you more edge definition, and liquid high-tones, compared to Delta 100.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

I haven't ever dipped my feet into Pyro developers; with my kids at an age where curiosity frequently overpowers self-preservation instincts, I'm trying to keep the risk of them stumbling on a bottle of any of the nastier photo chemicals right around zero for now. I have used PanF+ in Rodinal in the past in 120 and really liked it, but I don't recall it being very different from FP4+ in Rodinal; if anything I sightly preferred the shadow separation of FP4+.

[@IslandPink]

Understood - that 'A' solution is a bit spicy !

[@LaViejaConsolada]

I use CMS regularly at iso 6 developed with pota. It is a beautiful emulsion for landscape.

[@richardsimms251]

Excellent video. Thank you. RS. Canada

[@derkarhu5079]

The CMS looks like a lthography film, repackaged in 35mm, judging by lack of grain and 'knife edge' development requirements (I built an exposure timer for lithography reproduction, and even the exposure was so damned 'tight' , that I used temperature compensation in an integrating light sensor setup, since even voltage bumps during exposure caused Dmax to drift)

[@FookFish]

oooh finally a true comparison of cms20 ii love your work!

[@sstt9425]

Good and informative stuff. Thanks for sharing.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Great work. I find your video to be very helpful.

[@lensman5762]

I have shot quite a bit of this CMS II. I used to shoot a lot of 2415 developed in Technidol LC, in the early 80s. This CMS II is another 'copy' or ' process' film. It gives reasonable tonality if exposed and developed properly in Adotech IV. It is very sharp, but no where near the claimed 800 lp/mm. This is the theoretical maximum resoltion of the film and not for practical photography. I certainly know of no commercially available lens which resolves 800lp/mm, even the mega exotica from Leica or Zeiss. Sufice to say the film is sharp. The problem with this film is the dynamic range. It is about 4 stops max, something like the good old transparency. I have managed to get decent results from it, developed in 510 Pyro but the iso is about 8 here, even with Adotech IV ( very very expensive for what it is ) one is limited to about iso 12. Personally, I would bite the bullet and pay for something like Fuji Acros II or the much cheaper Ilford Pan F Plus and use a high acutance developer and forget this film. It is worth having a couple of rolls for fun, though.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

Yeah I laughed a bit when they claimed 800 lp/mm. I suppose you could measure that with a scanning electron microscope, but for my lowly Canon prime lenses, that kind of resolution is pretty unverifiable, and therefore safe to claim. I must say I'm fairly impressed with the results I got. I think I can get more dynamic range out of it, my findings match your suggestion that to get a normal tonal scale I'll need to shoot it in the neighborhood of EI 12 (my first roll density readings indicate I might be better off at about 16). I'm inclined to agree with you. Outside of the highly specific niche of "I don't have access to a larger format and I need to print huge with impeccable detail from 35mm, and I have the lenses and know-how to produce an ideal negative with this film," I think that Delta 100 (or Acros, or PanF, or TMX or whatever your preferred poison is) is a significantly more practical choice. Even in HC-110 it performed above my expectations, and I think I could get even more out of it with something like XTOL.

[@lensman5762]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 The film is almost grainless. so huge enlargements are possible, but it is also meciless on showing up sloppy technique and mediocre lens. The sharpest lens that I possess for 35mm format is my leica 75mm F2 Apo- Summicron M. This lens is near enough flawless @ F4~F8. I have meant to use this lens to test the CMS II, but I have so many other film cameras in all formats that I just don't get the time. Perhaps when we start getting a bit of light up here in the NW of England near the Spring. Winters are a rather bleak affair up here. I also agree with you that I can't think of a scanner that can get all the detail out of this emulsion. I am absolutely sure that my Nikon LS-50 can' not despite having a true 4000 dpi resolution and a very high quality ED lens. Perhaps someone could gift me a Flextight X5, @ 8000 dpi it will do nicely.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

@@lensman5762 Yeah and I don't even usually scan my film, yet it still seems to have more resolution than my enlarger can get out of it. At this point I'm questioning if the weak point is my taking lens (Canon EF 50mm f/1.4), my enlarging lens (EL Nikkor 50mm f/2.8), or the film. Likely one of the lenses. In any case it's a good film that I don't have much of a need for.

[@lensman5762]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 Did you actually scan the film or used a digital camera to digitize the negative? I got good results using my D800 with a Micro Nikkor AFS ED 105.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

@@lensman5762 Tried both DSLR scanning with my 5D Mk II and FD-mount 50mm f/3.5 macro (possibly the sharpest lens I own)., and actual scanning with my Nikon CoolScan 4000. The Nikon gave me better results.

[@wochenendedestodes9015]

Nice comparison. I shoot a lot of CMS 20 II (started in the times of CMS 20). Well you have to get used to it. But like each film, you can't do everything with it. At scenes like yours, I usually go down to ISO 12. So it doesn't blow out. Also you have to know your lense, because as you mentioned it's unforgivable. But it's a nice film. Especial for architectures.

[@mike747436]

That’s a helpful review. I’ve just started using the Adox film myself. I’ll be looking for situations where I think the high contrast is desirable rather than the high resolution; I’ll stick to MF or LF for that.

[@filmandrewszentes1824]

Cms woud be a great film, but up this price to almost double than few mounth ago. So I dont undersand this, and also lack on stockking...

[@KirillKlimov_lds]

Hi, Andrew! Can't believe you're youtuber now! Hi from Samara!

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

Hey Kirill! Yep, I'm well on my way to fame and fortune with all 7 of my subscribers :D Hope things are going great in Samara!

[@derkarhu5079]

Ftb ! My 2nd 35 mm camera, just after a Tlb ! Now, back to the video...funny, at first glance from the car, the background looked like CO.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

Yeah people are sleeping on the FTb. Nicer in almost every way than the AE-1 but still inexpensive too buy. You’re close, it’s UT.

[@CarlosERamos-ey1lj]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 real. i got a beaten but perfectly functional FTb with a strap, a 28mm and a 2x macro converter for like 50 bucks off ebay

[@gurhanpekuz1813]

HI, Great Video . Thanks . I shoot architectural BW with CMS and develop it with xtol or ID-11 . besides the low iso and need for a tripod or monpod, I can say that it is a great film for high resolution !!!

[@nikitaokhotnikov1205]

It would be great to make a similar video comparing Ilford FP4 and Adox CHS 100 ii 😉

[@erome5903]

Give rollei retro 80s a try, you might get amazed with the results. :)

[@davyboyo]

Nice comparison, both look good. I'm wondering if you might keep using fp4 in 35mm with a more fine grained dev? Xtol comes to mind, I think foma sells an Xtol clone called Excel too, if you wanted even cheaper chems. Cheers

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

I have thought about using FP4+ in 35mm and just developing in HC-110 instead of Rodinal for this one format. Maybe at some future point I'll experiment with it; I have 3 or 4 rolls of FP4+ in 35mm in the fridge. But I also have 100' of Delta 100 right now, so using the FP4+ doesn't feel very urgent at the moment haha.

[@davyboyo]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 for sure, it sounds like delta is the go for the moment, I guess the only advantage fp4 might have is a bit less exposure sensitive than the delta but otherwise not too much one way or the other. For what it's worth I actually thought the fp4 you showed in rodinal was really beautiful but that's all personal taste anyway! I use fp4 in d23 and it's honestly stellar, small speed loss but tonality and grain is just about unbeatable 🥵

[@user-yk4qh6ge7d]

Hi its very intersting. I USED delta 100 in120 its nice. In 35mm I didnt difference delta 100 and acros ii in 35 mm i dont like it for 35mm I started rpx 25 shooting 2 yeras ago, and i think is better for half price than delta. Now i just wanted a comparison between cms 20 ad rpx 25 but adox total unavailable in some periods. Adox would be very good choice but the supplier broblem its remember me to fuji situations. Although adox makes for analog the comunication problem also difficult as fuji. So I always scan my 35 mm films im also not sure cms 20 would be the effort. Cms 20 was 6.7 after 7.8 and now 12 euros within one week, and now also it has supplier problem. Rpx also stays át 8 euros Although I just reccomend in 135 rpx 25 in,there ár same problem in 120 with quality So i choose rpx 25

[@tenfingerstentoes]

Interesting comparison! Have you tried Fuji Acros 100 as well? It’s so finely grained I have issues using a film grain focuser when using it for darkroom prints 😂 and that’s just developing it in d-76 1:1 diluted. Worth a look if you want super high res ultra fine grain. Also has the neat feature of basically not ever suffering from reciprocity failure. If your light meter reads 5 minutes, it’s really just 5 minutes!

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

I've shot one roll of Acros, but I dislike buying Fuji products. They're clearly not interested in supporting the analog community, so at best I'd be getting dialed in on film stocks that have a high risk of being discontinued. I think between TMax 100, Delta 100, and Acros, TMX is supposed to have the actual finest grain (assuming you use the right developer). But even in HC-110 which isn't really a fine-grain developer, Delta 100 grain is so fine that I don't feel the need for anything finer in this format. If I ever did, I'd shoot another roll of CMS. Or just try XTOL instead of HC-110.

[@tenfingerstentoes]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 Fair enough - Although for whatever reason Fuji seems somewhat attached to Acros since they re-introduced it shortly after discontinuing. Acros 100 and TMax have the same RMS granularity figures btw (Acros is slightly smaller but only using some proprietary Fuji developer, and it’s basically the same for all practical purposes), as well as the same lines per mm as TMax 100. It also has whatever black magic ingredient that makes it immune to reciprocity failure which is just such a cool feature to me.

[@palesmichael]

Try also Spur Ultra R 800 (if you like cms 20)

[@soundmixervegas]

You probably agitated the adox too much. I do 1 times a day a minute. Also fixing is very short.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

I think you're leaving noticeable resolution and lower grain on the floor in using HC-110 with Delta. The developer matters. Try Kodak Xtol at 1:1 dilution. I feel that Xtol is just a better developer than HC-110 across the board. Having said that, my normal combination is Acros with Xtol 1:1. I like that a lot.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

Absolutely I am. And I've even played with XTOL before, and it's a fine developer. Thing is, I've carefully designed my workflow to allow for the sometimes months-long hiatuses I take from film photography, without needing me to throw away a bunch of expired chemistry when I get back into it. HC-110, Rodinal, and surprisingly even Adotech IV are shelf-stable syrup concentrates that stay good on the shelf essentially forever. XTOL has to be mixed up in huge batches that stay good for maybe a couple of months if you're religious about removing excess air from storage containers. And it can't be mixed up in smaller batches due to the tiny proportions of some ingredients. So I end up wasting a lot of it. That said, I'm pretty curious about an XTOL replacement called Mytol that I might be able to mix up in one-shot sized batches. May have to give that a try.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 I have the same bottle of HC-110 syrup for about 15 years now. It's half used. It's almost molasses brown now from the oxidation. Works okay still. As for mixed Xtol, it's good for at least 6 months. It may well be fine after that but mine gets used up before then. As you said, the key is to keep it from oxidizing. The right container is the key. I've found the best are those 1 gallon mylar coffee bags from Starbucks and such used for large office orders. The cardboard carrier makes for easy handling and pouring. The bags are gas impermeable. Most importantly, it's super easy to evacuate air as you drawn down on the mixed Xtol. Just press the bag a bit until the liquid comes up to the screw cap.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

@@RobertLeeAtYT Yeah, the main reason I haven't messed with XTOL is specifically the longevity, and that fact that you have to mix up 5 liters at a time. Doing some reading around, it looks like Mytol is a DIY equivalent that might work well. The unfortunate reality of "you have to mix it all up at once; you can't mix half the powder" seems to be a side effect of having all the powder mixed together in the bag. I have the equipment to carefully measure out the dry ingredients for something like Mytol with enough precision to mix up working-strength developer for something like 2-4 rolls at a time, and use one-shot. Suddenly an XTOL clone is viable for my workflow.

[@RobertLeeAtYT]

@@andrewbroekhuijsen2108 Right. The problem is that Xtol powder physically separates out into its constituent ingredients by mass and grain shape. For what it's worth, it's the same problem with the earliest gunpowder formulations. For either, if you just scoop out a bit of the top for a one shot, you'll probably not get the ingredients in the right proportions. Hence the recommendation to mix the whole bag.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

@@RobertLeeAtYT Yeah. I did some math with a Mytol recipe (supposed to be effectively the same thing as XTOL in terms of image results; just cheaper, DIY, worse shelf-life, etc). Wanted to see what it looked like to mix up, say, 200ml of 1:1 dilution. Just enough for a single roll of film at working strength, used one-shot. The amount of Phenidone and Potassium Bromide needed are so small that even my precision reloading scale is probably not accurate enough to get repeatable results. About 15mg of Phenidone and 10mg of KBr. I'm always curious about tinkering with this kind of stuff, but sometimes it has the unwanted side effect of distracting me from making art with the medium. My current developers and film stocks already look great. I really should be focusing on using the tools I have instead of constantly navel-gazing about the chemistry aspect of it, fun as it may be. Somewhere down the line I'll spring for a better scale and play with making tiny batches of Mytol to see if I like the increase in film speed and decrease in grain compared to HC-110/Rodinal. Today is not that day.

[@alexbaias1254]

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.

[@DmitriyDarkJoney]

Hey, Andrew! Thank you for the comparison. The video of this guy you mentioned was very impressive, but I wanted to see one more comparison. CMS scan looks like Delta with NR applied, but, the printed version looks even greater. I also bought CMS 20 II, but I will shoot it in the summer with my F100 + 50mm 1.4D. I am not sure if I will use a such slow film for portraits or whatever. I want to shoot some architecture and landscapes with it. At least you got a better scanner than me, probably, I will drop CMS 20 to the lab. :) I really like Delta, but I got two 10-packs of Fomapan. 3.5 EUR per roll sounds much better than 11 for Ilford shops asking in Vienna. I have a few Deltas stored in the fridge, but, for the special case :) Have you tried Rollei 80S? It's on my list "to try" next, but, I am really looking forward to buying something better than 20 EUR Epson V200. :) P.S. I am 20th subscriber, from Ukraine :) But, due to the guys like at the comment before from various "Samaras", my home got fucked and I am living in Austria since the war started. If you have Instagram, drop it here also, I will sub.

[@andrewbroekhuijsen2108]

Hey Dmitriy-- I've never really played much with Fomapan, Ilford is pretty inexpensive in the US, and at this point, I like what I'm getting from Ilford films enough that I'm more than willing to pay for them. I'm sorry to hear this pointless and awful war has displaced you. Please refrain from making judgments about people just for being Russian. Kirill is a close friend of mine from the two years I lived in Samara. He is as far as it is possible to be from anti-Ukrainian, and one of the best people I've ever met. Blaming "guys like him" for the war is wrong and counterproductive. He had nothing to do with it and shouldn't be held responsible for the evil actions of Vladimir Putin.