A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Agfa Apx 400

Ludwig Stef , Feb 21, 2013; 03:12 p.m.


I recently bought a bulk roll of Agfa Apx400 (exp. date 03/2014).
I bought it cause I need a 400 film.
I read I should expose it at 200 to get the best result, loosing the speed.
Is it really bad if I expose it at 400 or 320 and develop in Rodinal, say at 1:50?
Or should I use another developer, like Rodinal special?

Any advice about dev times, E.I and developers appreciated.




    1   |   2     Next    Last

Larry Dressler , Feb 21, 2013; 03:48 p.m.

OK that was the last run if I am not mistaken of the real APX400 that was more like 200. Wait... the last run of that expired in 2012. I wonder if this is the Lupas replacement that is said to be made by someone else. Did you get any development times with it? as I may be able to figure it out from there.
The APX400 was never very good in Rodinal even the old stuff. One way to check is to do a semi-stand development in Rodinal 1-100 and see how you like the results at 400.
I prefer Xtol or HC-110 the most with almost any 4000 B&W film now and Rodinal Special is more like HC-110.

John Shriver , Feb 21, 2013; 04:39 p.m.

Rodinal is a speed-losing developer -- hard to get box speed with a 0.56 contrast index. Less shadow speed than D-76.
Also, Agfa's APX 400 was noted for a rather "optimistic" ISO 400 rating when fresh. (Note that Agfa tended to rate their films and developers for a contrast index more around 0.65. That's much higher contrast than any other vendor used.)
If you want a real ISO 400 film, consider HP5+, Tri-X, TMAX 400, or Neopan 400.

Ludwig Stef , Feb 21, 2013; 04:41 p.m.

Larry, John Thank you for the reply.

Here a picture of the box, no developing info inside.

Larry Dressler , Feb 21, 2013; 04:54 p.m.

All the Bulk APX 400 I got from the last run was in round plastic cans..... Lord knows what that is. That looks like what Ultrafine uses for their bulk film. I just dug through some old boxes and the expire 2010 and 2011 cans have the same design.

Michael Howard , Feb 21, 2013; 05:29 p.m.

I believe the "Agfaphoto" stuff is from the last run as well, it was leftovers bought up and repackaged. This looks EXACTLY like the last spool of APX 100 I bought in bulk from Ultrafine. They added a couple of years...

The APX 100 was definitely AGFA-made, though, same process times, etc. I'm betting this is some of that post-closing lot. Use HC-110, not Rodinal, and rate at 200 or 320, I see little difference.

Larry Dressler , Feb 21, 2013; 05:41 p.m.

Michael I bet you are correct as it was known that 2 pancakes went into deep freeze and that would extend it longer. Ultrafine is known for their freezer too.
This was shot at box speed in HC-110 dilution H from the last batch at EI-400.

Jose Angel , Feb 21, 2013; 06:10 p.m.

The APX400 was never very good in Rodinal even the old stuff.

Why? I have read this affirmation several times, but never knew the reason. Many of my best prints has been made from APX400 in Rodinal 1+100 (12x12"). Sincerely, I wonder what I have missed...

Larry Dressler , Feb 21, 2013; 06:18 p.m.

It to me was just not the same Jose. When they retooled and started the plant back up it was just not the same. The pre retooling was better in Rodinal. In 120 and larger it was great I was speaking of 35mm IMO that is how it went down.

Michael Axel , Feb 22, 2013; 12:26 a.m.

Jose, I feel the same as Larry. As good as Apx is, it just doesnt have enough life for me when developed in Rodinol. HC110 is a perfect developer and tends to retain film speed.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses