 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2006efke film
size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal will be shooting buildings in grey overcast light, Portraits too. Looking for soft high lights and rich dark tones. Any help to get me into the ballpark with exposure ratings and developing times would be appreciated. > size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal > will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with exposure ratings and developing times > would be appreciated. That stuff is crap. Get some Ilford FP4 or Fuji Neopan 100 Across and develop in D-76. > That stuff is crap. Get some Ilford FP4 or Fuji Neopan 100 Across and > develop in D-76. When is the last time you even took a picture, UC? Show us. j spake thus: >>That stuff is crap. Get some Ilford FP4 or Fuji Neopan 100 Across and >>develop in D-76. > > When is the last time you even took a picture, UC? Show us. I think he hit his peak with "Waffle Boy". It's been all downhill ever since.  SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) : j spake thus: : >>That stuff is crap. Get some Ilford FP4 or Fuji Neopan 100 Across and : >>develop in D-76. : > : > When is the last time you even took a picture, UC? Show us. : I think he hit his peak with "Waffle Boy". It's been all downhill ever : since. In the interest of political correctness the image has been renamed "big hat". You can find it and other drek here: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Micha el+Scarpitti&offset=0 Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you > : j spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You can find it and other drek here: > http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Micha el+Scarpitti&offset=0 Don't neglect our bipedal friend: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberPhoto.asp?ID=1281 >size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal >will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >with exposure ratings and developing times >would be appreciated. EI32, 1:100, 15 minutes @ 70F. Just like the old Pan-F. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net > size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal > will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with exposure ratings and developing times > would be appreciated. You already know the answer: start with the manufacturer's numbers, then adjust to taste. I think it's unfair to label the Efke films "junk", but they *are*, in effect, 1950s films: they must be handled accordingly, and will produce 1950s quality pictures. Unlike modern films, they tend to be intolerant of overexposure. Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte laura halliday spake thus: > I think it's unfair to label the Efke films "junk", but they *are*, > in effect, 1950s films: they must be handled accordingly, > and will produce 1950s quality pictures. Unlike modern films, > they tend to be intolerant of overexposure. Interesting, hadn't heard that. So what happens to them with overexposure that doesn't happen with more modern films? SignatureJust as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) > laura halliday spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Interesting, hadn't heard that. So what happens to them with > overexposure that doesn't happen with more modern films? Nothing. I tested Efke films with a sensitometer and a exposure variation of 17 stops (that's more than 1:100.000...) and found nothing exceptional. The films (Efke 25, 50 and 100) go up to about 3.0d (depending on developer) and that's it. I think the crap about "they tend to be intolerant of overexposure" comes from the flowery prosa Fotoimpex/J&C uses as descriptions. Martin > I think it's unfair to label the Efke films "junk", but they *are*, > in effect, 1950s films: [...] and will produce 1950s quality pictures. Nonsense. In such hopes I did a self-portrait with Efke 25 and the outcome was still a year 2006 sixty year-old man. Bummer. > I think the crap about "they tend to be intolerant of overexposure" > comes from the flowery prosa Fotoimpex/J&C uses as descriptions. It's from Freestyle's web page, actually. They sell the stuff, and I assume they know something about it. The original quote is: "Do NOT over-expose Efke Emulsions! This film is not recommended for pull processing." I've never used Efke film, but have shot various Maco and Foma emulsions. Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..." ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte >The original quote is: "Do NOT over-expose Efke Emulsions! >This film is not recommended for pull processing." Now I wonder why in the world any film would be ".. not recommended for pull processing." ? The only film I ever had trouble with pull-processing was Tech Pan and I don't think I was the only one. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net : > laura halliday spake thus: : > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > Interesting, hadn't heard that. So what happens to them with : > overexposure that doesn't happen with more modern films? : Nothing. I tested Efke films with a sensitometer and a exposure : variation of 17 stops (that's more than 1:100.000...) : and found nothing exceptional. The films (Efke 25, 50 and 100) : go up to about 3.0d (depending on developer) and that's it. : I think the crap about "they tend to be intolerant of overexposure" : comes from the flowery prosa Fotoimpex/J&C uses as descriptions. I've been using Efke-25 exclusively for over a year and find that it'll handle over exposure almost as well as Tmax. Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you > size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal > will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with exposure ratings and developing times > would be appreciated. efke is now sold as ADOX film. There is development data at: http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=2 Evidently the film is being made at the old ORWO (Agfa) plant. J&C states that they are inspecting the film before sale suggesting that manufacturing QC leaves something to be desired. ADOX film was quite popular in the 1950's, especially the single coated, thin emulsion, film they made for 35mm use. The thin emulsion resulted in less loss of sharpness from irradiation and image spread. Most films of the time, and even now, have two or or sometimes more coatings of emulsion, each with a somewhat different characteristic. This is to control characteristic curve shape and to obtain increased exposure latitude (the error in exposure allowable for good tonal rendition). The modern equivalents of these early films share with the originals rather less latitude and a tendency toward excessive contrast. They have a "look" which is hard to duplicate with more modern emulsions. Other ADOX films were conventional double coated types, I don't know if those are also being made now. For very fine grain I suggest using Kodak T-Max 100, Delta 100, or Fuji Acros developed in full strength Microdol-X or Perceptol (they are nearly identical). The speed loss is around 3/4 stop but contrast is easy to control and grain nearly as fine as the late, lamented, Kodak Technical Pan. The resulting negatives have a noticable improvement in smoothness of tone rendition over most other 35mm films. However, the combination does not produce much in the way of acutance effects, a sort of optical illusion of sharpness. Tabular grain films such as those mentioned above have thin emulsion layers and very good resolution but still have a very large exposure latitude. They do require care in development because they increase in contast faster with development time or temperature than conventional films. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > efke is now sold as ADOX film. There is development data >at: >http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=2 > > Evidently the film is being made at the old ORWO (Agfa) >plant. No. It is made in Croatia. The old Agfa/Orwo factory in Wolfen <http://www.ifm-wolfen.de/index.htm> closed in the 1990s. Part of it is now a museum, well worth visiting, by the way. > ADOX film was quite popular in the 1950's, especially the > single coated, thin emulsion, film they made for 35mm use. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and a tendency toward excessive contrast. They have a "look" > which is hard to duplicate with more modern emulsions. With a compensating film developer, such as Edwal FG-7, the original film (KB-14) produced wonderful sharp negatives with a fairly wide (wider than any paper) tonal range. It also had far less red response than modern films, which yields without a filter pictures similar to modern films with a green filter. If it could be compared to a Kodak film, it would have been Panatomic-X. Panatomic-X however had more red response, and came on a much thicker base. With similar developers it produced similar negatives. There simply is no modern film like it, except for Efke KB-25, which is supposedly the same film with a new name, the 25 being the ISO speed, the 14 being the same speed in DIN). When I last shot a roll of it, over 10 years ago it was. If you take the time to expose it properly and use the correct developer, it can produce wonderful photographs. With other developers it will still produce good negatives, but will may have too much contrast and be very sensitive to how you expose it. Whatever developer you use, it will produce negatives that are different than most films, and a world apart from T-Max and the C-41 process black and white films. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> ADOX film was quite popular in the 1950's, especially >> the [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Geoff. From the curves at http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1 it appears that KB-25 and KB-50 are rather high contrast films. I suspect the warning about pull processing has to do with the already short developing times in the developers listed, D-76 and its Ilford equivalent ID-11. Time are given for full strength developer in both cases. The curves show the film is capable of very high densities, more than log density 3.0 The use of a low contrast developer is worth exploring. Even POTA seems possible although that might be too low in contrast. Probably the speed would be even slower than indicated. Highly diluted Rodinal is another possibility. I also suspect that T-Max 100 or the Ilford or Fuji equivalent, processed in Microdol-X, Perceptol, or D-25 would yield at least as fine a grain, better resolution, and be much easier to control as far as contrast. It would also be faster than something like KB-25 in a very low contrast developer. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > From the curves at > http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the film is capable of very high densities, more than log > density 3.0 There's the problem in a nutshell. D-76, while it will produce useable negatives from KB-25 is really the wrong developer for it. It's like developing Verichrome Pan film in Dektol. Remember Kodak tri-chem packs? It could be done, but not the best thing you would want to do. > The use of a low contrast developer is worth exploring. > Even POTA seems possible although that might be too low in > contrast. Probably the speed would be even slower than > indicated. Highly diluted Rodinal is another possibility. As I keep saying a compensating developer like FG-7, would be perfect for this film. I believe that highly diluted Rodinal, or HC-110 would work this way. My expectation is that the developers of the film (pardon the pun), were aware of the action of highly diluted Rodinal, it was the standard for European film develepment at the time. Keep in mind that when the film was created, most people developed their own film, and there were many developers available at your local camera store. IMHO D-76 is more of a "last man standing" choice for developer, than the best. It produces good results with almost any film and in powder form is easy to ship and store. When I got into photography in the mid to late 1960s, most people who had their own darkrooms had several developers on their shelves. > I also suspect that T-Max 100 or the Ilford or Fuji > equivalent, processed in Microdol-X, Perceptol, or D-25 > would yield at least as fine a grain, better resolution, and > be much easier to control as far as contrast. It would also > be faster than something like KB-25 in a very low contrast > developer. Maybe, maybe not. It would have to be shot with a green filter. T-Max has it's own contrast problems, if not carefully exposed and processed, it will produce negatives with blocked highlights or no shadow detail. Keep in mind that KB-14 (it's original name) was designed for landscape photography. Long tonal range is far more important than speed. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ I've using tfx-2 (a J&C reformulation of fx-2). I use a semi-stand development with 5sec of gentle aggitation every 3min. I agree that this film works best with a slow compensating developer! : > From the curves at : > http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAction=Custom&ID=1 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > the film is capable of very high densities, more than log : > density 3.0 : There's the problem in a nutshell. D-76, while it will produce useable : negatives from KB-25 is really the wrong developer for it. It's like : developing Verichrome Pan film in Dektol. Remember Kodak tri-chem packs? : It could be done, but not the best thing you would want to do. : > The use of a low contrast developer is worth exploring. : > Even POTA seems possible although that might be too low in : > contrast. Probably the speed would be even slower than : > indicated. Highly diluted Rodinal is another possibility. : As I keep saying a compensating developer like FG-7, would be perfect : for this film. I believe that highly diluted Rodinal, or HC-110 would : work this way. My expectation is that the developers of the film (pardon : the pun), were aware of the action of highly diluted Rodinal, it was the : standard for European film develepment at the time. : Keep in mind that when the film was created, most people developed their : own film, and there were many developers available at your local camera : store. IMHO D-76 is more of a "last man standing" choice for developer, : than the best. It produces good results with almost any film and in : powder form is easy to ship and store. : When I got into photography in the mid to late 1960s, most people who : had their own darkrooms had several developers on their shelves. : > I also suspect that T-Max 100 or the Ilford or Fuji : > equivalent, processed in Microdol-X, Perceptol, or D-25 : > would yield at least as fine a grain, better resolution, and : > be much easier to control as far as contrast. It would also : > be faster than something like KB-25 in a very low contrast : > developer. : Maybe, maybe not. It would have to be shot with a green filter. T-Max : has it's own contrast problems, if not carefully exposed and processed, it : will produce negatives with blocked highlights or no shadow detail. : Keep in mind that KB-14 (it's original name) was designed for landscape : photography. Long tonal range is far more important than speed. : Geoff. Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you >I've using tfx-2 (a J&C reformulation of fx-2). I use a semi-stand >development with 5sec of gentle aggitation every 3min. I agree that >this film works best with a slow compensating developer! ???? TFX2 was a updating of Crawley's original FX-2 formula by Bill Troop which was first marketed through Photographers Formulary. And if you mean the same formula which is sold at : http://www.jandcphoto.com/browseproducts/TFX-2-Film-Developer.HTML .... then I note that the bottles appear to have the Photographers Formulary style labling. FYI, I found TD3 to be more interesting. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net : >I've using tfx-2 (a J&C reformulation of fx-2). I use a semi-stand : >development with 5sec of gentle aggitation every 3min. I agree that : >this film works best with a slow compensating developer! : ???? TFX2 was a updating of Crawley's original FX-2 formula by Bill : Troop which was first marketed through Photographers Formulary. And if : you mean the same formula which is sold at : : http://www.jandcphoto.com/browseproducts/TFX-2-Film-Developer.HTML : .... then I note that the bottles appear to have the Photographers : Formulary style labling. FYI, I found TD3 to be more interesting. Isn't that what I said? :-) (for the humor impared I was joking :-)) It is it about TD3 that you prefer over TFX3? Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you > >> ADOX film was quite popular in the 1950's, especially > >> the [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > be faster than something like KB-25 in a very low contrast > developer. Exactly as I said before: That stuff is crap. Get some Ilford FP4 or Fuji Neopan 100 Across and develop in D-76 (1:1). > efke is now sold as ADOX film. Yes, but not exclusively. In the US, J&C (http://www.jandcphoto.com, among other URLs) imports the film via their European partner (Fotoimpex, http://www.fotoimpex.de), which packages it using the ADOX name. Freestyle (http://www.freestylephoto.biz) imports the film from the manufacturer, Fotokemika (http://www.fotokemika.net) and sells it using the Efke name. AFAIK, the two products are identical under their labels, although as you said, J&C claims to do additional quality-control checks. I don't know if these checks have any real effect on the probability of your getting good film, though. Incidentally, J&C is moving to a larger facility and they're currently running an inventory-reduction sale: Buy $100 or more and get 25% off. Selection is currently limited, though; their stocks have run low on many products. Disclaimer: I'm unaffiliated with J&C except as an occasional customer. > Evidently the film is being made at the old ORWO (Agfa) > plant. I don't think so. My understanding is that it's manufactured in Croatia. I think I heard that the formula for the film originated with ORWO, but my memory is a bit foggy on that. Reports I've seen indicate that the Fotokemika plant is quite primitive by modern standards, with one result being greater batch-to-batch variation in the emulsions than is common with products from Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, or (the now deceased) Agfa. There's a new Efke 400-speed (available from Freestyle) that's somewhat controversial. Some claim it's made in the Croatian facility, but others claim it's an Agfa emulsion that Fotokemika's spooled into their own cartridges. If the latter, supplies will eventually run out. I've shot one roll of the 35mm KB400, and my subjective impression is that it's a more modern film than the other Efke products, so I tend to favor the respooled-Agfa hypothesis. J&C doesn't sell this product under the ADOX label; they're among those who claim that it's rebadged Agfa film. (An earlier Efke 400-speed film was known to be respooled Ilford stock, but that product has been discontinued.) > ADOX film was quite popular in the 1950's, especially the > single coated, thin emulsion, film they made for 35mm use. I have no idea if the current ADOX/Efke films are related or similar to the ADOX films from the 1950s. The current products (with the likely exception of Efke KB400) are old-style emulsions, though. They're grainy for their speeds, but the ISO 25 product is slow enough that it's actually quite fine-grained. Personally, I like it a lot, although I mostly use Ilford Pan F+ 50 for most of my low-speed B&W photography. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > > size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal > > will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > suggesting that manufacturing QC leaves something to be > desired. The problem stems from importation, when I tested the 4x5 film the base fog was way to high, indicating the film was x-rayed. I spoke with John about this, and choose not review the 100 speed because he could not provide me an emulsion without the problem. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal > will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with exposure ratings and developing times > would be appreciated. The problem with slow films is that they have a narrow range of grain sizes, alll of which are on the small end of the scale. This limits the latitude of which the film can be made capable. Use a medium-speed film. > size 120, speed 50, developer Rodinal > will be shooting buildings in grey overcast [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with exposure ratings and developing times > would be appreciated. Very slow films suck. Forget about it! > Very slow films suck. Forget about it! What a case. When are you going to detox? > > Very slow films suck. Forget about it! > > What a case. When are you going to detox? Isn't he the w.nker that touts kodachrome 25? SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.