This film is NUTS! Capturing Still Life with ADOX CMS 20 II Pro...

[@f.d.6667]

Yup. I was shooting Kodak 2415 Technical Pan (initially used by the US military) back in the day because of the incredibly fine grain / resolution. The FM2 was my favourite SLR back then - and still is today! There was one trick with the 2415 Technical Pan to get BOTH - invisible grain AND speed: *using D-67 (NOT D-76) which is a reversal process*. This way, you get enough speed for shooting hand-held - while there still won't be any grain visible. People talked about ASA 1600 with no grain was possible. On top of that, some of those low-ASA panchromatic film have an extended sensitivity into the near IR. so red filtering will give you interesting tonal values (dark sky, lighter leaves etc.).

[@GonzoTheRosarian]

I used the same but did a reversal process to make slides for presentations (the original Power Point 😅)

[@dadautube]

great ... there was also Kodak's Rekordak 35mm film with similar spx and results ... i used Agfa cine-positive film for some time in the 1980s, shooting at ASA(ISO) 6 and then processed as reversal slides ... no grain! great for projection on large screens ...

[@LoFiAxolotl]

I grew up right next to the Agfa factory in west Berlin... and the Adox factory wasn't far either... this makes me incredibly nostalgic to my youth... don't think i'd have a use for the CMS 20 II because i do like the HP5+ grain but it's wonderful to think that Film is still at a point where digital cameras can't compete in resolution

[@cirrus1964]

I am 75, and was my whole working life a pro photographer. As far as I recall, Agfa was located in Leverkusen.

[@LoFiAxolotl]

Agfa Leverkusen was/is owned by Bayer, the actual Agfa was taken by the Russians and eventually returned as reparations to Germany and because of trademark issues turned into ORWO eventually

[@paulbonge6617]

Agfa-Brovira was gorgeous paper to print on! It was a very sad day indeed when Agfa announced they were discontinuing the line!

[@cirrus1964]

@@paulbonge6617 well, every pro I have known, used Ilford, amateurs used Agfa. Besides, I never in my life met any amateur, who was skilled to enlarge and print. Why, as the average time it takes to get skilled is 2 years. But was ok, as amateurs did it for pleasure, pro's to make a living. Ans, ones you could handle printing, you were allowed to start taking pictures. And average of a total period, and you felt secure and far above average, one started a studio under his own name.

[@paulbonge6617]

@@cirrus1964 you know it's perhaps fortunate that the comment I was working on seems to have disappeared because I was as unkind to you sir and MORE, as you were to me. My father and Minor White, Aaron Siskind, Paul Caponigro (Sr.) were friends, I learned from my father and Aaron Siskind among others. My father was featured in an early issue of Aperture soon after Minor began publishing it, also he was considered a Master printer and he/we used Agfa Brovira! Those prints of his are in the collections of MOMA, & The ICP, among others, and his work was shown with a few others at the George Eastman House, Photography at Mid-Century. This replacement comment won't get nasty and I was a party to discussions, mid and late 70's among "Professional" photographers over Agfa/Ilford and one thing seemed common among Ilford users sometimes grudgingly admitted. Frankly they could't print on Agfa! Agfa was a difficult paper to master, but when you did, it yielded stunning results and much inkier blacks than Ilford which was just a tiny bit softer and forgiving of a paper. Arguments that somehow Agfa was for amateurs are simply just foolishness. If that was the case, then it would have been a more forgiving paper and easier to print on, but it most certainly WAS NOT forgiving or easy! The silver matrix and emulsion of Agfa was very fine and responsive, perhaps its extra fine grain made it too responsive at times but just step down a paper grade. Your argument is moot about amateurs and if their skill isn't up to par, then it would have been even more obvious if they used Agfa as I said it was a more difficult paper to use and took a lot of investment in printing until you could master it. I'll gladly put up a Lyle Bongé archival print of Mardi Gras against anything printed on Ilford any day. Don't get me wrong though, Ilford is a very fine paper, always was. It came down to an aesthetic choice and had nothing to do at all with amateurism. I got your belittling and derogatory put down of me and I will accept it in respect for your professionalism in other areas, (not here) and for general peace. I'm sure you are a fine photographer with a storied career, however that is only my assumption, and you can only assume my creds as we could both be sour-pussed old TROLLS couldn't we, and only out looking for a squabble today?

[@ManCalledMif]

2:52 excellent demo of lighting diffusion technique. love the idea of gigantic prints from a little negative

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Good ole parchment paper! Has lots of uses such as cutting small, using as a ground glass and checking for focusing on old folding cameras.

[@MathieuAlepin]

The results are lovely. Thanks for the parchment paper lighting tip and for making these videos!

[@davidjazay9248]

I shot it when it was still available in 120. Amazing film, and let's hope they can bring back the 120.

[@Socrates...]

Please do more of this type of video, I really appreciate it, thanks

[@hullion]

I like the direct face on shots, almost abstract. More decorative than the shells themselves 😀

[@ikorin]

Preflashing paper really helps with the transparent base layer of the film to avoid high contrast.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

It does too and I nearly went down that route but I literally had one sheet of that paper left! When I pre flash after tests I have to then flash however many sheet I want to print and a couple extra for more tests, however, in the past I have just literally flashed the paper without tests and had good results.

[@ikorin]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBossI feel like this film would be the best for projection after reversal as it does not print well in darkroom and no digital scanner setup can get that information 😂 I wish they had it in 120 format. Strange part they mentioned the machine is broken but at the same time CHS 100 is available 🤷‍♂️

[@rick-fstop-lewis]

INSANE CLARITY!! I have an old 100ft. roll of kodak technical pan that is WAY outdated and I think I will roll a couple to see how sharp it is.....IF the film is still any good. You always seem to have some really cool props!! Lovely shots!!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I've never used that film Rick. Good luck with it.

[@joshualesperance8679]

I only have just started experimenting with this film. I actually cut it down and shoot it in my minox sub-miniature cameras. So far I have only shot a couple of rolls, and I develop it in Caffenol-CLCN. What I can say so far is that even with an 8mm by 11mm negative...it is still grain free! I compared two similarly composed photos, one with the minox and adox cms 20, and another with my hasselblad 500cm with kentmere 100 developed in XTOL. Even though the 6x6 negative is 35 times larger, the minox image was higher resolution! Absolutely incredible film with the right subject matter.

[@chriscorey5164]

Very beautiful photos. Thanks so much for this informative video.

[@jonc133]

I used to use Kodak Tech Pan for landscapes, developed in dilute Agfa Rodinal. The problem when printing from the negatives was finding grain to focus on.

[@michaeldimmitt2188]

Thanks Boss! I was just living in Berlin and wanted to shoot some ADOX, and especially the high resolution stuff. Thanks again!

[@JacobdelaRosa]

I shot a roll of this for a personal project and it really is mind blowing. One of the best BnW films I ever shot

[@kneadedmassage9751]

VERY NICE! I'm going to watch this again later.

[@martinklotzer7345]

Your photos of the shells remind me a lot of photos from Andreas Feiniger. I think you know the great BBC Master Photographers series from the 80s. Mr. Feininger shows a lot of his photos in an episode of this series. He also shows how he takes photos of shells with a large format camera. This series and also your videos are a great inspiration for me.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thanks Martin. I had to google this. Wow. His photographs are amazing. Looks like he uses locations for his shells, not sure if they are naturally lit or if he used a light. Interesting thought. I may have to try that!

[@ianfrankish5114]

Great video! I used Agfa APX25 back in the 90’s for copy work and that was amazing!

[@francisville4132]

I recently bought this film and KZbind for some results. You had uploaded this just 30 second ago. I've just started watching but thank you!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Coincidence. Hope it works well for you. Just be careful loading it in bright light. Light can seep into the canister.

[@REMY.C.]

"I'm the first".

[@francisville4132]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss that’s very good advice! Thank you. I will shoot the 120 and just develop in Rodinal. Cheers!

[@francisville4132]

@@REMY.C. I did not want to go that way 😄

[@SaxSpy]

how do you scan it to take advantage of the resolution?

[@MacShrike]

Very beautiful shell shots!

[@jameshanes7574]

We have plenty of shell shops in Florida where I live. A broken shell can be interesting. Sometimes they have holes in them bored by other creatures.

[@PaulSaxbyPhotography]

Very impressive resolution. I wonder what it would be like in medium or large format.

[@devroombagchus7460]

Very difficult to get some depth of field.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I can imagine insane for landscapes in 120 at all of the formats. One thing I want to try

[@Scooter_123_abc]

Back when it was available my favorite film for 35mm B&W was Panatomic-X, which had an ASA of 32. I used to rate it at EI 16 to gain a stop of over exposure. That allowed me to develop it in a 1:3 dilution of D-76 with 2-3 minute pauses in the agitation so that High density areas would exhaust the local developer while it retained the ability to work in the low density areas. The result of this was extended highlight detail and increased detail in the shadows. In many ways this acted to reduce contrast but the curve had an S shape to it so the mid-tones retained a nice level of contrast. The end result was 16x20 prints that had the appearance that a 4x5 camera had been used with Plus-X pan sheet film. I will also note that focusing my 45MX with these negatives using a grain magnifier required using detail in the negative instead of using the grain because it was too small to see and at that time I had 20/10 vision and was able to read 2 point type.

[@Spuzzmacher]

Oooh here we see the rare FM3a in its natural habitat. Sleek, nearly silent it crouches, black as night, ready to pounce. Gorgeous images. Looks like I have some new film to try out.

[@retrofocusing]

Great video! I have an ongoing experiment with one of these films: a half-finished roll of Adox CMS 20 has been sitting in one of my cameras since June 2018. I think I should finish it this year and see how well the 5 year old latent image keeps up with the fresh exposures!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

That would be interesting to see! Email me if you get interesting results I'd love to see. Cheers.

[@tankthetuba]

Hi Roger, I've recently bought a few rolls of CMS 20 II and the associated Adox developer. I've not got round to shooting any just yet, but I'm planning to do some really detailed stuff around our village church...some of the carved pew ends are amazing! I'll let you know how I get on with it. Keith Sharples. 👍🙂📷🎞️

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Hey Keith. Yeah send me some pics when you do.

[@just_a_quick_ride]

It's a fantastic film for architectural photography, and I've used it hand held on a bright day with a good lens - the Nikon F5 helps keep it steady!

[@motorvelo]

How can a specific camera ‘keep it steady’? More modern film user rubbish.

[@just_a_quick_ride]

@@motorvelo The F5 body, without batteries or film, weighs 1.2 Kg. The F3, in comparison, weight 0.7 kg.

[@killersax]

Interesting and entertaining video. I love your low-cost approach to lighting using (clean) fish-and-chips wrappers

[@thenutter2003]

cool video and photos never used that film but i have seen folk on here making big prints from this film.

[@jw48335]

Hey Roger - I tested that Adox stock with a Sigma Art 105mm, one of the sharpest lenses ever made at 220lp/mm. When I converted it using a Sony A7R4 with composite mode, it came out with 80mp of real resolution. It was interesting - the macro lens on the Sony appeared to be the limitation. I expect had I done a darkroom print and then scanned that with the V850, I would have gotten 8x10 negative level detail :)

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Yes thats why I went in the darkroom to see it on 10x8. Shame I couldn't get a focus enlarged though. Next time

[@killersax]

This film is obviously very sharp, but 500 megapixels is bogus. Even if the film delivers the claimed resolution, no lens will resolve that much detail on a 35mm negative, even your Sigma. (220 lp/mm implies 440 pixels/mm, so total number of pixels would be 24*36*440^2 or roughly 167 mp, again assuming it actually delivers its claimed resolution.) Further, 500mp resolution would require about 380lp/mm which would be impossible at an aperture smaller than f/2 because of diffraction. As you point out, the macro lens on the Sony limits the scanned resolution, though a professional drum scanner might do a little better. But the same lilmitations would apply to an enlarging lens if you tried to enlarge first, then scan. So even if the film can deliver its claimed resolution (perhaps viewed through a microscope??) There is no way to actually take advantage of it.

[@redauwg911]

@@killersax Yes i agree, I was thinking more like 25 MP

[@Bigtbone205]

I would happily challenge a duel set-up taking the same photo using this film and my sony a7r5 with my 35mm GM lens any day. Specifically printing 2metre wide and looking at the resulting resolution, grain etc. I just don't buy it. It does look like a really nice product though, good to see you can get very high quality from 35mm film without having to go with medium format

[@liveinaweorg]

When you were zooming in to 500% my first thought was 'Identifying focus in the enlarger is going to be a bugger'!. That was a lot of work to get the desired result but well worth it. Fabulous!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Yes it was literally non existent grain so focusing was crossed fingers!

[@SuperSuperka]

Macroshots always looks detailed. Best way to check details - shoot outside landscape at infinity.

[@ale_s45]

Wow the detail

[@paulbonge6617]

Greetings Roger, I'm back and again wowed by the shells and this film stock. Back in the day, when seriously shooting and looking for sharpness, tonality, fine grain and edge acutance, it was always Panatomic-X that was loaded in the camera. At 32 ASA and even pushed to 64 it was and remains the finest film stock ever made. I think that has been surpassed by this ADOX CMS 20 II. I've recently begun dusting off my remaining F3, and just ordered a few rolls of film. I'm not getting back into the darkroom though; those days are past me now. Just noticed that comment @ 5:32 "Edward Weston can't'ev been wrong, could he?" Edward was never wrong! 🤣 Gave me a giggle that did!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Enjoy the F3 (again)! ha ha. Yeah darkroom is another cost on top of an already increase in film price. Handy if you have a dedicated room indoors and it's always set up.

[@paulbonge6617]

@ I still have mine and my father’s old darkroom on the property. It’s a stand alone building about 4m x 8m but it’s packed full of two lifetimes of stuff now, but all our negatives and prints are in another building where I work now and have a temperature and humidity controlled archive.

[@jugobetrugo4168]

Amazing video, thank you for your excellent work!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Many thanks!

[@jonathanhotopf1823]

Try 4x5 CMS20 if you really want to blow your mind! Great vid as usual.

[@largophoto]

Just got myself a beat up Calumet ..for this very reason $160 - need to get a few more dark slides - and Arista / Foma / cms20

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I didn't know they did it at 4x5!!! I missed that! Okay. Cheers.

[@paulrees9531]

The shell still still life Looks great on this film. You’ve been inspired me to start shooting on film again . I was using 10 x 8 fp4 On campaign between 1989 and 1999 when I moved to Hasselblad digital . Seeing you in the dark room reminds me of all of my trauma periods, ha ha Shooting bang in Copenhagen and coming back to London after 10 days and hoping to God there was something on my film :) Nice video I also like the black-and-white print on the wall of the beach huts.

[@loncle.bonkle]

Would love to try some macro film photography. Your work on these always looks amazing!

[@ale_s45]

I love how the negatives of the shells look like actual shells themselves

[@discojelly]

That is nuts! Awesome shots, Sir!

[@mueslimuncher1950]

Put a scratch in a bit of film leader with a pin. Focus on that in the neg holder, then replace it with the negative.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Genius idea!

[@blazerbarrel2]

Cut the development on the film processing and pre-flash your prints to catch some background tone to try to control contrast . Nice have to try it . Used to use adolux and techpan film for similar results .

[@maxencelemoine4190]

I have one roll, I guess I should give it a try. I really like the results

[@michaeljenner1795]

Just a thought; you might want to try some of that adhesive putty they use in galleries to keep the framed pieces from swaying on the wall. It would allow you to shape it and have the shell stick to it, but just temporarily, easy to remove. You can reuse the putty and buy it in small amounts in a craft or hardware store.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I usually use blue tac but didn't have any. It is a tad hard though and never thought of a putty! Cheers.

[@tadeusz11000]

Love your, Dark Side of the Moon, pics Rog!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Hey Tad. Cheers mate.

[@davidgifford8112]

I’m sure there is a KZbin video out there that tested ADOX fine grain film, perhaps the same film stock with a studio tripod and ultra slow shutter they managed an equivalent of 33mp. That seemed an outstanding result to me. I find it hard to believe that 500mp equivalent is possible unless large format plate stock is used.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I don't even know how they test it for an equivalent. They claim it on the website so tests must have been made. If you find the video post it on the comments. Cheers David

[@devroombagchus7460]

Beautiful images!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thanks :)

[@hoorayforpentax3801]

Nice. Have you considered using Blu-Tack to hold the shells?

[@michael195b]

Great shots. Once tried a roll of Eastman 2366 duplicating film at 6 iso. Mainly sensitive to blue light but gave amazing negatives with no grain at all and clear negatives. Keep the great videos coming! Developed it in ID11 which made it very contrasty

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thanks for sharing Michael. I've not tried that film

[@jackyleecs]

Fabulous tones! :)

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

They are!

[@wcwendychapman]

Just wondering why the medium depth of field? How did you decide on 4 or 5.6 versus f8-11? Thanks. I like the images with diffused light.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thanks. I didn't want to exceed 1second shutter speed as I wasn't sure of the reciprocity. Knowing I was in shallow waters I was also interested to see how they turned out, but yes, usually I'm at f11/f16.

[@trulsdirio]

The ADOX stocks were always curly for me, to the point I sometimes struggled to even get them on the development reel.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Not only my film then? Cheers :)

[@bernardkealey6449]

Loved the vid. Nice to see stock like this; will be interested to see if folk have thoughts about the thinness of the film. I kind of do, but can’t quite articulate it so I’ll shut up and listen to those who have more experience… It’s understandable - but still a pity - that Adox only package/spool their film in 35. 120 would be awesome. “Honey, I had to buy an x-pan, because CMS20 ii isn’t available in 120” isn’t going to fly in my house, alas.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

It is available in 120 and 4x5 ( I just read in the comments here about the 4x5). The thinness of the film is okay but you need to load it in subdued light or light can seep into the canister and bounce all over the film through the sprocket holes. Mostly edge leaks. As for the clearness of the film base any dark shadows rendered on the film (which are very transparent anyway) have nothing (no base fog) to hold it back when you print. The light from the enlarger rips straight through the film onto the paper making the shadows even darker or possibly totally black. Thats how I see it Bernard.

[@bernardkealey6449]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss oh that’s great they do have it in 120! They need to update their site because if you search it for “120” the result is “why we still can’t produce 120” - albeit from Sep 2022…

[@Kitsaplorax]

My father used Panatomic X souped in Microdol X for microscopy when he was a grad student in Geology in the early 1960's. Insane resolution.

[@danem2215]

I still have a roll of this laying around. Once I get bored of my new DSLR hopefully, I'll get to shooting it before the expiration date. I had bad experiences with copy film before so I haven't been in any rush to try it out, but you certainly got nice tones. Better be nice in D76, I'm not buying special dev!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Hey Dane. You'll get some crunching contrast in D76, which is fine if you head that way. It's fun experimenting though. Hope the DSLR is giving you enjoyment.

[@jhogan54321]

Thanks so much.... what a wondeful video! I'm wondering how a set up like this would turn out with a pinhole camera

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Very nice I would imagine. Obviously you'd need to account for the wideness of pinhole. You could try different distances like a few inches away to a foot away and different camera angles. I have some pinhole negs of similar set up. Obviously softer focus.

[@jhogan54321]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss If you ever print the negs it wold be great to see them. Yes, as a beginner in Pinhole it's quite a challenge workng out the distance issue. I thought I had it sussed on the last outing but I am still a little "distant", so to speak. Happy with the results but not exactly what I planned. I have heard that ADOX CMS 20 is touchy loading and can spoil the first few shots... also very challening in developing. I have CHS 100 which I will be testing next week.

[@cdl0]

Excellent video: the optical resolution of the largest (20-inch) enlargement on the paper print for the apertures and sizes stated in the video is probably about 75 µm for a perfect system with no optical aberrations.

[@jamescaldwell5]

I only shoot digital these days but I still found this video very interesting. At a 500mp equivalent this film will def test the sharpness of your lenses. I upgraded to a 60mp full frame digital camera a little over a year ago and since I love shooting wide open with my prime lenses, I found that the sharpness of my images is lens limited not Megapixel limited. Depending on your lens you might want to stop down to F8 to get the sharpest results possible.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thats why I chose the Nikkor Micro. It's a great lens. I'd liked to have stopped down more but wasn't sure if reciprocity would have kicked in! Hence why I kept it at 1 second and faster.

[@redauwg911]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss f/2.8: Sharp all over, does have some light falloff f/4: Little, if any, falloff f/5.6: Diffraction limited in center; seems like it is all over actually. Even illumination. f/22: Diffraction takes the edge off the sharpness

[@cangooner]

About 30 years ago (!) I used to shoot a lot of Technical Pan, and can totally relate to your grain focuser struggle. 😁 I really miss that stuff and so recently ordered some wonderfully-named Lackadaisical 8 from Flic Film. It is re-spooled Orwo DP-31 copy film. I expect it should behave somewhat similarly to the Adox, but now I'm thinking I'll have to try some of the Adox too. Could be an interesting comparison. Nice to be able to scratch that old super fine grain, high-contrast, stupid slow itch.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I've not heard of that but I know ORWO do have some interesting films. Just be mindful of the developer.

[@cangooner]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Agreed - I will definitely not be going off-piste developing that one :)

[@Nuka_Gaming]

Id be interested in some landscape work with this film

[@mnoliberal7335]

The CMS film is available in 120 and 4x5 for what, 25,000 and 190,000 pixels?

[@killpop8255]

How does it compare with APX25 or PanF+?

[@erikepskamp1991]

Thanks for the video. I have 2 rolls that I have been waiting to try out. I also have the recommended Adotech IV developer. Maybe I will try it out at the local botanical gardens; I've been waiting for some inspiration and the right subject. Could you imagine this in medium format?

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

It would be nice to see in 120. Apparently I learned ADOX machine broke so can't produce it in 120 anymore. There is still some out there if you hunt about.

[@SloopJohnBeeRockabilly]

Would shooting at f11 or f16 have given appreciably more depth of field, bearing in mind the closeness of subjects? I was wondering what a negative print of one of the paler shells would look like 🤔 Looking forward to shooting a 25ASA film for landscapes in my Halina pseudo TLR 120 camera sometime soon. 👍📸

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Definitely would John. But I would need slower shutter speed. I was keeping to 1 second as I wasn't sure of the reciprocity on that film. I could have with the continuous light if I put that on full power and brought it closer. Landscapes should look good!

[@andyvan5692]

great video, by the way with this film what is the reciprocity failure time?, as you do a 1 second exposure without accounting for it.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I'm really not sure thats why I kept to 1 second max. Most films kick in after 1 second. But I just found this online. (1 Sec. + 1/2 F-Stop, 10 Sec. + 1 F-Stop, 1/1000 Sec. + 1/2 F-Stop). If thats true I should have allowed half a stop more exposure for my 1 second... but then I think I would have over exposed a few.

[@marcoscalet3115]

A very good film indeed ! I have tried it one year ago, the only issue I had was focusing the grain under the enlarger, definitely impossible…. Seems better suited for scanning

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Yes it was invisible Marco.

[@michaeljasterfotografie3985]

Dankeschön für das schöne Video, guter Job ich liebe es, das Video inspiriert mich wieder eine analoge Kamera zu nutzen danke

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Gern geschehen. Ich wünsche Ihnen alles Gute für die Rückkehr zum Film!

[@johnjk2014]

is it possible to develop this film in Fx 55 developer will it give the fine grain result

[@LovelyRedBird]

Thank you for your wonderful content ❤

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@johnstewart8134]

I have yet to purchase their recommended developer. Have so far used 510-pyro with the rolls I’ve shot with a very nice outcome. Another great video

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thats interesting. I think 510 Pyro is supprising us all John

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

*surprising.

[@robifleming]

I shot two rolls last summer and was blown away by the results.

[@odukar2315]

I like SPUR developers. SPUR Acurol is my favorite for all my Ilford films because I get the best sharpness, contrast, and minimum grain. My Adox CMS 20 is waiting for "Shells" in the fridge! ;-)

[@rg3412]

I think Edwin Puts would have loved to see your work

[@ale_s45]

Amazing

[@ceeby69]

This really is a fantastic channel and I learn lots from it and I do get a lot of inspiration. I am a relative beginner, but Roger's videos have always been so helpful. Just read his bio on the Ilford website. It seems we have a lot in common, roughly same age, same hair and beard, South Londoner moved to the South coast, I use and FM3A and recently brought myself a "stinky bargain" F3 limited after watching one of Roger's videos. ;-) Nothing more relaixng that watching these videos after a long day. Keep up the great work 👍

[@paulbonge6617]

I Loved and adored my FM2's, each and every one of them. They kept on going, dented, scratched and in all elements imaginable (as well as my 2 F's and 2 F3's). And, my favorite walking around lens, was and still is at times on my DSLR's & Mirrorless cameras of today, my beloved sharpest and oft most underestimated lens made! Yes, the Nikon 55mm micro-nikkor!! Lovely shots and beautifully printed!

[@AnotherOtherMan-alive]

That's a film you could use for some really amazing macro work, maybe rent out the probe lens (if you've an EF body like the elan 7) and see what comes up

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I've seen those probe lenses. They produce great results from what I have seen.

[@AnotherOtherMan-alive]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I was thinking with that film, you could get some extra 'magnification' via cropping. Would be ideal with some sand or a geode.

[@ericlundquist3466]

Well done, sir. It's definitely a first-rate video. I recognize that ending song from Tring Shoe repairs, lol. He uses it in his intro.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thank you kindly Eric. Yeah it's off KZbin studio collection.

[@largophoto]

..you want me to try some Adox .. ok then got myself a Calumet 4*5 ..need to get the film.. :( ..and the subject .. cheaper to get a round trip ... :) ..cheers

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

HA HA, well done Nick!

[@davidroberts6766]

I have a roll already…going to give it a go!

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Best of luck David.

[@dadautube]

great ... this film's spx and image results remind me of the good old times cine-positive 'sound' film ... (probably not in use today anymore?) it's (was?) a super fine grain emulsion that comes in both B&W as well as color formats ... very low ISO (say ISO-0, yes Zero!) for the starters ... then its sensitivity can be increased using different developers and other developing tricks ... its main use is for producing positive copies of negative cine films for projection on large movie screens ... today of course, most movie theaters use digital projection, so, this material is probably either fully discontinued, or used in niche markets perhaps ... i used to work with the B&W version of that film (from Agfa) to shoot mostly copies of text and diagrams and/or images in books for a university in the 1980s ... then, depending on the order, i either developed them as negative for prints, or as reversal for transparent slide projection on large amphitheater screens for educational purposes ... great results! barely any visible grain ... it can be used like lith film as well btw ... or as panchromatic material for normal images ... the reason it was also called 'sound film' was because it was also used for recording optical sound for movies ... i still love to experiment with that film someday ... many possibilities for various kinds of photography! 🙂

[@JanneRanta]

A question about stand development and pushing film. Since with rodinal 1:100 you basically develop so that all the developer is exhausted adding time to the development wouldn't work well for pushing film. I read somewhere that you could add 1ml per stop of developer instead. Do you know if that works? I'm planning on testing this soon.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I believe it would work Janne without adding more developer. The stand will, as you know, exhaust itself in the highlights but I don't think stand would give you contrast if thats the reason you are pushing, such as on a dull day. But if you're pushing for more speed in good light I would stand normally. I have always been in the mind that Rodinal needs at least 10ml of developer for any one film, although I have not seen any difference with just 5ml, but I often use 10ml anyway for a stand. So if I am developing a 35mm film I will mix up 1000ml of developer (10ml for 1/100) just so I know the film gets a good development.

[@JanneRanta]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I was thinking about pushing kentmere 400 3 stops after watching grainydays video about it. He showed amazing results with it. I think I will first try without adding developer to see how it'll turn out.

[@stevebarnett5048]

I’ve used CMS20 in the past using 510 Pyro to develop it but overall I think Adotech IV is the best if a little expensive per roll. Yet even though you aren’t likely to be using this film all the time the cost is moot for MF quality in 35mm, so it’s a great film for landscape on a tripod.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

I think so Steve, if you're on a special project of sorts then it's small cost for getting the results you want. As you say, not your every day combo.

[@TrueFisp112]

I used this one quite a lot when it still was available in 120 format, a bit tricky to develop though (Adotech II-IV). Then the coating machine @ Adox broke and the film was no more. Several years have passed and it will most probably never return as a MF film. You could make insane enlargements and focusing was a pain - because there was no grain to focus on! But it's probably very (or even more) useful in 35 mm. Maybe I should try that... I still have an opened 50 ml bottle of Adotech IV in the fridge, maybe it still works...

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Yes a few have mentioned to me about the machine at ADOX. I imagine the cost of fixing it would be crazy.

[@TrueFisp112]

Yes, it's with almost certainty a lost cost/benefit project. Just like Forte/Adox Polywarmtone paper. They made the emulsion again (have some aged in the fridge), but the paper will never come back. Still - happy printing wishes from Sweden!@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss

[@LAR1945]

Loved 2415 Tech Pan 120. Going to try some 500 mgp (😳) Adox soon. BUT just found 100' of Kodak 2475 Recording Film in the freezer - just to investigate the other side of my pastlife😂

[@davidspidell4270]

I would love to hang out and drink a few beers and talk photography with you. Well, that's not going to happen, but your videos are the next best thing. Thanks for all the information.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

If you're ever on the Island David.

[@davidspidell4270]

@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I will take you up on that offer. Maybe I can move into your guest room for a month or two. I'm just kidding. Love your videos.

[@WilliamDuckett]

It would be really great to have this film as a 16mm Cine film, they'll be just low ISO enough to match films in the 30s/40s making it easier to use your old Kodak BB or Model E correctly as it was in the time

[@dct124]

You could use it for street if you're ok with running a flash.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Yes you could easily. I wouldn't want to use flash on street photography though. Not in todays society anyway. I'm sure someone would scream

[@dct124]

@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss 🤣 you're probably right. But there's a guy on one of those walkie talkies videos that does do that old technique of not caring. Shoot first, ask questions later 😅

[@SirFunky]

now make it medium format

[@rg3412]

I would love to see a print of yours where instead of printing the entire shell, you crop to zoom in a bit so that the abstract spiraling pattern fills the entire image. This would be a more minimalist, abstract image that would mess with the viewer’s head and look so unique I think

[@chriscard6544]

very good review

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Glad you think so!

[@michaelarndt-fotografie1282]

Just some extra information: Adox CMS 20 II and Spur Ultra R 800 are the same film, and Adotech developer is quite certainly rebranded Spur Nanotech. So there is actually only one 500 megapixel film and one special developer for it. The film is an Agfa Gevaert microfilm that is presumably discontinued, so it's likely that CMS 20 II will disappear from the market some day. This would also explain why the price went up by more than 100% from 2022 to 2023 and why Adox haven't resumed production in 120 format after they repaired their machine. But it's not confirmed that the Agfa film is actually discontinued, unlike Agfa Copex Rapid, another ultra-high resolution film which is still available on the market, just like the corresponding Spur Dokuspeed special developer. BTW, CMS 20 is also a great film for landscape or architecture. At ISO 20 in bright daylight it can be shot handheld at f/5.6 (wide angle), f/4 (standard lens) or f/2.8 (short telephoto).

[@Frisenette]

EI 10 - 20 is fine for handheld and moving subjects in good light.

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Does not leave you much room to play with on the aperture. Unless you're super steady in the hands. I might give it a go with the spur film. Have to be a good sunny day as you say

[@IainHC1]

Interesting Mrrrrrr Bonnnnnd!! 🙂

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Yesh mish funny fanny

[@257squadron]

Look forward to seeing some more results Roger. This film really tests the quality of your optics and processes!

[@skytrooper506]

Can't get it in the US.

[@LennyG2006]

I'd like the negative version as a print.

[@stevemuzak8526]

Perfect for instagram.

[@claudiogomes6283]

Very good video ❤

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Glad you liked it

[@NoosaHeads]

Photographer's Formulary TD3 developer. Way less expensive than SPUR or Adotech and (IMO) better. The negatives are thin but they have all the information on them. Highly recommended. (I use it on my stock of Technical Pan film and occasionally, CMS20/2)

[@ShootFilmLikeaBoss]

Thanks :)

[@killpop8255]

Anyone know how they equated the film to 500 megapixels?

[@michaelarndt-fotografie1282]

800 lines per millimeter and 36x24 mm negative size, that's 552,960,000 pixels.