Ken F.
Established
matti said:
Lemures-Ex
Jared S
clarence said:
I have never seen any indication of this. I have shot both films and they look a little different however they both have an old fashioned sort of "glow" due to the thin emulsions.
Jared
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
Regarding halation...
Adox used to make a big statement saying how it incorporates effective measures to eliminate halation in its films, which are of course known as Efke now. I wonder if some of these anti-halation measures had been removed in the current products so as to give it the reputation of being prone to this fault.
Adox used to make a big statement saying how it incorporates effective measures to eliminate halation in its films, which are of course known as Efke now. I wonder if some of these anti-halation measures had been removed in the current products so as to give it the reputation of being prone to this fault.
Andy K
Well-known
This just isn't fair! Now I'm going to have to buy some Efke25! 
I wonder if the rumoured Ilford Delta 25 (if it ever happens) will look as good as the examples you guys have posted here?
I wonder if the rumoured Ilford Delta 25 (if it ever happens) will look as good as the examples you guys have posted here?matti
Established
Andy K said:This just isn't fair! Now I'm going to have to buy some Efke25!
I think it is fair, as it is a cheap film
Also, 3 ml of rodinal isn't that expensive /matti
matti
Established
I wonder if there is something good about thin or missing anti halation layer. Or if the problem with halation in bright spots might give a nice light to other subjects? I must say that I couldn't distinguish halation from some sort of out of focus highlights, so it's just a thought.
/matti
/matti
sfb_dot_com
Well-known
sockeyed said:
I'm getting a tingle!! and that means I like it. It's nice to see some fine-grained stuff here on RFF for a change, and is certainly something I'd like to try. I think I might start with the more readily available Pan f then if I need a bit more I'll try the EFKE.
BTW - Also looked at your snow pictures and really enjoyed them too
Andy
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
matti said:
Matti,
thanks for sharing this ecperience and for the samples !
There are 10 ADOX 25 and 10 ADOX 50 on my shelf. I bought these stuff for a certain project and could not get my lazy butt up and start. up #til today. Shame on me ! Now these samples kicked my a.. hard enuff I think, I MUST start the project NOW ! My first rolls will be deved in D76, hope the tender greys come out as well as in your photos.Best,
bertram
matti
Established
Bertram2 said:
Thank's Bertram. The words tender greys really describes what I like about the film/dev. This is more interesting than the fine grain, I think.
/matti
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Hey Matti,
Well, exposure control is always tough. Setting the EI is one step, but proper metering is the other. If you are using any kind of averaging meter, and you like what you're getting out of those scans, perhaps you are underexposing with other film. Try rating all of them a bit slower - maybe TXT at 250 to start. That will help you get your exposure where you want it. The only problem with doing that across the board is that perhaps your "real" speed for TXT is 320, and you've now increased grain ever so slightly by overexposing by 1/3 of a stop.
When you say the negs are dark, do you mean as a negative or as a positive? If you mean as a negative, meaning they are dense, then you probably over-developed. The slower the film, the more inherently contrasty it is, and the more sensitive it is to development time. Reduce by at least 10% and see if that helps. It'll make scanning easier, too. Again, you gotta get your process calibrated.
I forget what Rodinal's response to soft water is...hm.
I find TXT in D76 1+1 to be closer to 320, using spot-metering of shadows. But you get a grittier look as you under expose, which is a classic look for TXT.
I just bulk-loaded 10 rolls of Efke 25 after reading your thread. I'll go shoot it next weekend. And I'll put up those R25 vs. APX 25 scans then, too. Happy shooting.
allan
Well, exposure control is always tough. Setting the EI is one step, but proper metering is the other. If you are using any kind of averaging meter, and you like what you're getting out of those scans, perhaps you are underexposing with other film. Try rating all of them a bit slower - maybe TXT at 250 to start. That will help you get your exposure where you want it. The only problem with doing that across the board is that perhaps your "real" speed for TXT is 320, and you've now increased grain ever so slightly by overexposing by 1/3 of a stop.
When you say the negs are dark, do you mean as a negative or as a positive? If you mean as a negative, meaning they are dense, then you probably over-developed. The slower the film, the more inherently contrasty it is, and the more sensitive it is to development time. Reduce by at least 10% and see if that helps. It'll make scanning easier, too. Again, you gotta get your process calibrated.
I forget what Rodinal's response to soft water is...hm.
I find TXT in D76 1+1 to be closer to 320, using spot-metering of shadows. But you get a grittier look as you under expose, which is a classic look for TXT.
I just bulk-loaded 10 rolls of Efke 25 after reading your thread. I'll go shoot it next weekend. And I'll put up those R25 vs. APX 25 scans then, too. Happy shooting.
allan
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
You know, regarding my earlier comment about how this film halates, I'm not so sure anymore if that's the case. O
Gosh, I wish I could just throw these things on light table so that the more experienced people could make their own evaluation.
What I mean is: the highlights blow, and they blow hard. I can't get any detail in my scans, neither with an epson flatbed or one of the school's nikon coolscans. It's like shooting with a DSLR all over again. And when the highlights blow, they also leak to adjacent areas of the film - the bloom doesn't spread far, but it makes for soft edges. Is this a film problem or a processing problem?
Gosh, I wish I could just throw these things on light table so that the more experienced people could make their own evaluation.
What I mean is: the highlights blow, and they blow hard. I can't get any detail in my scans, neither with an epson flatbed or one of the school's nikon coolscans. It's like shooting with a DSLR all over again. And when the highlights blow, they also leak to adjacent areas of the film - the bloom doesn't spread far, but it makes for soft edges. Is this a film problem or a processing problem?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
If it is blooming into other areas, that is halation, yes. An anti-halation layer should prevent that. However, I guess if you put enough exposure into an area that you'll get some halation no matter how good the AH is.
As I mentioned, slower films are more contrasty. You really gotta control highlight density during development.
allan
As I mentioned, slower films are more contrasty. You really gotta control highlight density during development.
allan
matti
Established
Allan, thanks for the pointers. I will try to tweak the exposure as you suggest. And not do like I have done too much, to change all the parameters at the same time. (Well, maybe sometimes I will do that too. )
The negatives look contrasty and dense, so maybe I should a couple of minutes less developement for the next roll. Will that take down the highlights a bit without loosing the dark parts?
I should start to look at the negs a bit more carefully with the loupe, as the scanner does some auto levels stuff.
About the halation. I found a picture shot into the sun (that is behind the clouds) that shows some of this, I think. The small branch of the tree seems eaten by the light. If I used my flatbed for scanning it, it wouldn't be noticable, though. I am enclosing the picture and an enlargement.
/matti
) The negatives look contrasty and dense, so maybe I should a couple of minutes less developement for the next roll. Will that take down the highlights a bit without loosing the dark parts?
I should start to look at the negs a bit more carefully with the loupe, as the scanner does some auto levels stuff.
About the halation. I found a picture shot into the sun (that is behind the clouds) that shows some of this, I think. The small branch of the tree seems eaten by the light. If I used my flatbed for scanning it, it wouldn't be noticable, though. I am enclosing the picture and an enlargement.
/matti
Attachments
sockeyed
Well-known
As Ken F. mentioned, Beau Photo in Vancouver has a stock of Efke in 25 and 100 in 35mm, but they seem to be out of everything in 120 and don't carry any 50.
I noticed something interesting with the Ekfe: vegetation sometimes comes out almost white, almost like an IR film. It must have something to do with its sensitivity to green wavelengths.
I noticed something interesting with the Ekfe: vegetation sometimes comes out almost white, almost like an IR film. It must have something to do with its sensitivity to green wavelengths.
filmgoerjuan
Established
I've only shot one roll of Efke 25 (only had one chance so far this season for decent weather, with enough light) and I have to say that it's become an instant favourite. The grain, what there is of it, is spectacular. Examples attached (developed in HC-110)
Attachments
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Matti,
Yes - reduce development. Exposure controls shadows, and development controls highlights. It is acceptably accurate to say that reducing development time by up to, say, 30% will not affect your shadow detail. If you want to get really into it, I can explain why that's not 100% correct, but it's close enough for your purposes.
I don't think that's really halation. Perhaps the film just can't resolve the detail from such a thin subject in front of such an intense backlight? I wouldn't worry about it in general.
The spectral sensitivity graph for R25 doesn't indicate any real increased sensitivity to green. It does have a tremendously reduced response to red, of course. I will have to shoot some vegetation and figure out if it's different. All film should be a bit more sensitive to yellow-green, though. But going pure white is something else entirely.
allan
Yes - reduce development. Exposure controls shadows, and development controls highlights. It is acceptably accurate to say that reducing development time by up to, say, 30% will not affect your shadow detail. If you want to get really into it, I can explain why that's not 100% correct, but it's close enough for your purposes.
I don't think that's really halation. Perhaps the film just can't resolve the detail from such a thin subject in front of such an intense backlight? I wouldn't worry about it in general.
The spectral sensitivity graph for R25 doesn't indicate any real increased sensitivity to green. It does have a tremendously reduced response to red, of course. I will have to shoot some vegetation and figure out if it's different. All film should be a bit more sensitive to yellow-green, though. But going pure white is something else entirely.
allan
matti
Established
I shot almost one new roll of efke 25 today. I think I will reduce developement time and/or maybe agitation and see what I get. I saw somewhere that efke is ortho/panchromatic, whatever that means. So I put a yellow filter on the camera today (oh! so now I will change two things at the same time ... again!)
/matti
/matti
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Matti,
Usually, you want to change one thing at a time. Unless you are agitating a LOT, I would stick to your agitation regimen and just reduce time. If you find that you're getting into some short times - close to 5 minutes - and still have too much density then consider reducing agitation, as well. But unitl that point just adjust your times.
You're metering through the lens, right? In that case you would have compensated for the filter without a problem. The yellow should slightly help, yes. It will slightly darken the blues and greens (the orthochromatic part means it's over-sensitive to blue) and lighten the reds just a tad. Personally, I might have gone with just a plain red filter. But I haven't tried it yet so who knows.
allan
Usually, you want to change one thing at a time. Unless you are agitating a LOT, I would stick to your agitation regimen and just reduce time. If you find that you're getting into some short times - close to 5 minutes - and still have too much density then consider reducing agitation, as well. But unitl that point just adjust your times.
You're metering through the lens, right? In that case you would have compensated for the filter without a problem. The yellow should slightly help, yes. It will slightly darken the blues and greens (the orthochromatic part means it's over-sensitive to blue) and lighten the reds just a tad. Personally, I might have gone with just a plain red filter. But I haven't tried it yet so who knows.
allan
Seele
Anachronistic modernist
Consulting my Adox technical information sheets (yes, they are the original ones when still in Frankfurt), these films were mad with "triple anti-halation protection", as in using a very thin emulsion layer, grey-coloured film base and light-absorbing backing lacquer. These of course make the Adox films much superior to the other early films, for they were the first true single-coated thin emulsion films anyway.
Matti, with the exception of the 21-type (ISO 100) films which are standard panchromatic, the slower ones are ortho-panchromatic which means they have extended green sensitivity.
Matti, with the exception of the 21-type (ISO 100) films which are standard panchromatic, the slower ones are ortho-panchromatic which means they have extended green sensitivity.
