Thin negs with Efke 100 sheet film

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003.

  1. I'm doing developer tests with Efke 100, and I'm having one hell of a time
    trying to get a dense enough negative. So far, I've gotten semi-decent results
    with D-76, Rodinal and Microdol-X, but have had to use very long development
    times: tonight, for instance, the best I got was in D-76 full-strength for 13
    minutes (at 70°). Even then, the image is definitely on the thin side.

    I'm wondering if this film should be rated at a lower EI, like maybe 50
    instead of 100.

    Does anyone have experience with this film?

    And if you're wondering, the main reason I'm using it is because it's about
    all that's available in 9x12. I'd like to avoid cutting down 4x5 sheets. (I
    also like the idea of using film from Croatia.)
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Nebenzahl

    Neil Purling Guest

    Have you checked out http://www.digitaltruth.com ?
    For D76 1+1 they say 9-14min, but I think the formulation for D76 has
    changed slightly.
    It doesnt give times for EFKE 100 sheet film in Rodinal at 1:25 or 1:50 for
    100ASA, but the film has a natural speed of 200ASA in daylight and the time
    would be 14min in Rodinal 1:50 and 24min for 1:100.
    I use this developer with EFKE minature film and it is a 'edge' developer
    and enhances sharpness.
     
    Neil Purling, Oct 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not that I know of; this is an old formula.
    Yes, at the expense of coarse grain.

    I'm a little confused by your reply: the film (Efke 100) is rated at 100, in
    daylight or any other light.

    I tried Rodinal, at 1:50 (12 min.) and got OK results, but the negative was
    still on the thin side.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003
    #3
  4. Did you consider that it might my a hardware failure - like your
    cameras shutter or your lightmeter?

    If a film responds the same (wrong) way with three totally differrent
    developers... well.

    All Efke films have a higher light sensibility than the imprinted
    ISO/ASA/DIN on the package.. I tend to ignore this, but you can rate
    them all a stop faster.
    Why is that? ;-)

    Gruss, Roman
     
    Roman J. Rohleder, Oct 18, 2003
    #4
  5. Could be the film is fogged, what's the FB+fog reading,......(.15) or higher
    with D76 indicates that it was and will lower overall contrast and speed.
    Remember how AA advocates pre-exposure to reduce contrast?

    Film purchased from overseas will always be subject to this issue unless
    steps are taken to insure that customs does not X-ray it.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 18, 2003
    #5
  6. Assuming you have a dark slide: Do a test shot by withdrawing the dark
    slide only 25% of the way and exposing the film at ASA100, then withdraw the
    slide 50% of the way and repeat the same exposure, then repeat at 75%, and
    finally at 100% withdrawal... This will give you four zones on the negative
    exposed at ASA's of 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 respectively... Pick a developer
    and soup the negative at that manufacturers recommended time for a ~100 ASA
    negative... The negative will then tell you what 'your' personal ASA with
    that film and your camera should be...

    Denny
     
    Dennis O'Connor, Oct 18, 2003
    #6
  7. I don't like that method, as there will be some ambient light bouncing around
    inside the camera that at first exposure will fog the whole sheet, maybe a small amount
    but some never the less. Since base fog is an indication of problems
    with the emulsion fogging the whole sheet is not a good idea, if you plan on reading
    from it....and I don't like reading from the edge of film as that too has limitations
    and problems,....five sheets is not extravegant to solve these issues.

    Better practice would be use five sheets on non exposed and bracket the rest
    recording the setting, you can notch the four exposures to keep track.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 18, 2003
    #7
  8. Could be it's not that good a film to begin with. I used KB21 (Adox)
    and found it to be very grainy and not as fast as rated.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 18, 2003
    #8
  9. Yeah, a slide may be a bit reflective but it will still get him inside the
    ball park on one sheet... Then he can get anal...

    Denny
     
    Dennis O'Connor, Oct 18, 2003
    #9
  10. David Nebenzahl

    Andrew Price Guest

    Any idea why Efke does that?

    I saw the warning in the Fotoimpex catalogue, and the advice not to
    overexpose or overdevelop the 25 and 50 films for that reason.
     
    Andrew Price, Oct 18, 2003
    #10
  11. No, the film is definitely not fogged at all. Unexposed areas are clear.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003
    #11
  12. This isn't the problem, since I ran two batches of tests using two different
    cameras and shutters. And I've tested the shutters and found them both accurate.
    I have an affinity to the Balkans. I even know someone here from there (Zagreb).
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003
    #12
  13. Actually, I like your idea; I think a good compromise would be to make two
    exposures per sheet. This way, at least *most* of the part of each exposure
    would be free of the effects of stray light. I just might try it.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003
    #13
  14. Look, asshole: did I ask you for a critique of this film, huh? No. I asked for
    someone *with experience with this film* for advice. You have none. The whole
    world knows that you use those miniature cameras, while the format under
    discussion here is 9x12. Different animal altogether.

    Get it? The room for the discussion you're looking for is down the hall, three
    doors to the left. Now get out of here.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Willi Beutler rants in his book "Meine Dunkelkammerpraxis" about the
    introduction of the DIN range implying that it will lead to "wrong"
    sensitivity ratings if compared to the old standards (like Scheiner).

    He had a certain affinity to the Adox stuff (TT Neofin!), so it might
    result from his position.

    I´ll reread that chapter.. and try to sort it out. :cool:
    Gruss, Roman
     
    Roman J. Rohleder, Oct 19, 2003
    #15
  16. I am currently in the midst of film/developer calibration testing, so I'm
    constantly walking around mumbling to myself about one stop this way and two
    stops that way, and lessee the temp was 1F too high so I reduced
    developement by 45 seconds and therefore???

    &*^%$(#* it, now I've forgotten how many stops that was!
    Denny
     
    Dennis O'Connor, Oct 19, 2003
    #16


  17. I quite specifically said I used the Adox KB14, 17, and 21. The 21 was
    not very good at all. Grainy and slower than rated, and flat. IF the
    Efke is identical, it's nothing to write home about.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Oct 20, 2003
    #17
  18. You used a *different film* [1], in a completely different format (35mm vs
    9x12). You're not even playing in the same stadium (to use a metaphor you
    might be able to understand).

    [1] Unless someone can prove that Efke is the same as Adox--otherwise, that
    assertion is in the same category as your other precious "myths" you're always
    ranting about.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 20, 2003
    #18
  19. Why do you claim the Fotokemika/DuPont/Adox relationship being a myth?
    It is a well documented story..

    The Efke can´t be the same as Adox. The plant locates some hundred
    kilometers south of Cologne or Neu-Isenburg, the film base is another
    one (since the market for that stuff is very limited and demand is
    falling)..

    But Efke comes pretty close to Adox, since they got the license to
    produce it, but not the right to use the name.
    Gruss, Roman
     
    Roman J. Rohleder, Oct 20, 2003
    #19
  20. And all these belabored responses in this thread, and not *one single* helpful
    one from someone, God forbid, with actual experience with this film.

    Oh, well, just remember this is Usenet ...
     
    David Nebenzahl, Oct 20, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.