bmattock
Veteran
First of all, let me say that I bought a bunch of short-dated Efke 35mm film from JandC for $1.99 per roll, so your results with fresh film may vary...
Ann-Marie and I went to the "Acorn Festival" in Four Oaks, NC yesterday. Not a huge deal, just kind of a small-town annual event, a chance to put the kids on some rides and have a corn-dog or a funnel-cake, listen to some bands play, you know, the traditional small-town America kind of thing.
I took a classic Canon FX SLR with all Canon FL-mount lenses (35, 50, 135, 200). All are really nice glass, capable of great sharpness, and the camera is in working condition, so it was really down to me and the film and my processing ability to get some good shots. FWIW, I used the 'correct' Canon lens hoods on all the shots I took. I'm nothing if not a completist.
Efke film is made in Croatia, and the KB 100 is pretty nice. You can also get ISO 25 and 50, I believe. The cardboard box each roll comes in has processing instructions printed inside, but they're not in English, understandably. You can get processing times at the Massive Dev Chart.
I shot the film at EI 100, but based on my negs, I may have underexposed, my negs were pretty thin except for those bracketed shots where I intentionally over-exposed a stop or two. Could have been my processing too, so bear with me.
I shot three rolls of 36-exposure. The first two rolls I souped in Kodak D76 1+1 at 9 minutes and 72 degrees F. A bit much - I could not get the water cold enough. One chart I found for this combo said 8 minutes, the other said 10, so I put it in for 9. But again, it was 4 degrees warmer than I originally intended and I didn't compensate.
The last roll, I threw in with a roll of HP5+ that I had laying around. Not the greatest match-up, since the MDC said 14 minutes for the HP5+. I split the difference and processed for 10 minutes, and this time I had refrigerated some water so I had 68 degrees F.
I should also mention that I gave each roll a pre-soak in plain tap water for two minutes, to remove the anti-halation backing - which may or may not have been necessary. I read conflicting opinions on the 'net.
I scanned the negs after drying and cutting with Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV, using Linux and Vuescan 8.1.43. I processed them in The Gimp 2.2.
Typically, I scan my B&W negs using Vuescan as if they were 'generic color' negs. I desaturate them in The Gimp and then go on from there. However, these negs definately were coming out looking as underexposed as I thought they were when I looked at them - very dark, deep shadows, loss of detail in the blacks bigtime, lots of grain. So, I changed my scan settings to "B&W neg" and used the default film choice that comes up, which is "Kodak T-Max 100." That seemed to give me some negatives with a nice looking histogram and some real tooth, grain under control.
Now, the film itself. I like it! I has a tendency to lateral curl - that is, it curls lengthwise and does not lay really flat. But a lengthwise curl is much easier to deal with than the type of curl that appears to want to curl back up into the roll shape it had when it was in the cannister. The biggest problem with this type of curl is getting the neg flat enough to make sure the scanner can get good focus on the entire frame. I suspect I could flatten these negs (now that they're sleeved) in a big book or something for a week or so and get better scans. However, I didn't.
I am pleased with the retention of sharpness with this film. Edge detail is good, grain is acceptable, I'm not sure what else I can say about it. Here is a shot of the Acorn Queen, taken with a 135mm lens at f3.5.
I will say this - at the 'regular' price that JandC charges for fresh Efke KB 100, I would not switch from Kodak Tri-X - the prices are virtually the same. But for this short-dated batch at about 2/3 the cost, it is quite nice.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PS - I got too much sun and I'm feeling a bit punky today. Therefore, I am scanning. If I come across another decent shot that shows this film's capabilities, I'll post it in this thread.
Ann-Marie and I went to the "Acorn Festival" in Four Oaks, NC yesterday. Not a huge deal, just kind of a small-town annual event, a chance to put the kids on some rides and have a corn-dog or a funnel-cake, listen to some bands play, you know, the traditional small-town America kind of thing.
I took a classic Canon FX SLR with all Canon FL-mount lenses (35, 50, 135, 200). All are really nice glass, capable of great sharpness, and the camera is in working condition, so it was really down to me and the film and my processing ability to get some good shots. FWIW, I used the 'correct' Canon lens hoods on all the shots I took. I'm nothing if not a completist.
Efke film is made in Croatia, and the KB 100 is pretty nice. You can also get ISO 25 and 50, I believe. The cardboard box each roll comes in has processing instructions printed inside, but they're not in English, understandably. You can get processing times at the Massive Dev Chart.
I shot the film at EI 100, but based on my negs, I may have underexposed, my negs were pretty thin except for those bracketed shots where I intentionally over-exposed a stop or two. Could have been my processing too, so bear with me.
I shot three rolls of 36-exposure. The first two rolls I souped in Kodak D76 1+1 at 9 minutes and 72 degrees F. A bit much - I could not get the water cold enough. One chart I found for this combo said 8 minutes, the other said 10, so I put it in for 9. But again, it was 4 degrees warmer than I originally intended and I didn't compensate.
The last roll, I threw in with a roll of HP5+ that I had laying around. Not the greatest match-up, since the MDC said 14 minutes for the HP5+. I split the difference and processed for 10 minutes, and this time I had refrigerated some water so I had 68 degrees F.
I should also mention that I gave each roll a pre-soak in plain tap water for two minutes, to remove the anti-halation backing - which may or may not have been necessary. I read conflicting opinions on the 'net.
I scanned the negs after drying and cutting with Konica Minolta DiMage Scan Dual IV, using Linux and Vuescan 8.1.43. I processed them in The Gimp 2.2.
Typically, I scan my B&W negs using Vuescan as if they were 'generic color' negs. I desaturate them in The Gimp and then go on from there. However, these negs definately were coming out looking as underexposed as I thought they were when I looked at them - very dark, deep shadows, loss of detail in the blacks bigtime, lots of grain. So, I changed my scan settings to "B&W neg" and used the default film choice that comes up, which is "Kodak T-Max 100." That seemed to give me some negatives with a nice looking histogram and some real tooth, grain under control.
Now, the film itself. I like it! I has a tendency to lateral curl - that is, it curls lengthwise and does not lay really flat. But a lengthwise curl is much easier to deal with than the type of curl that appears to want to curl back up into the roll shape it had when it was in the cannister. The biggest problem with this type of curl is getting the neg flat enough to make sure the scanner can get good focus on the entire frame. I suspect I could flatten these negs (now that they're sleeved) in a big book or something for a week or so and get better scans. However, I didn't.
I am pleased with the retention of sharpness with this film. Edge detail is good, grain is acceptable, I'm not sure what else I can say about it. Here is a shot of the Acorn Queen, taken with a 135mm lens at f3.5.
I will say this - at the 'regular' price that JandC charges for fresh Efke KB 100, I would not switch from Kodak Tri-X - the prices are virtually the same. But for this short-dated batch at about 2/3 the cost, it is quite nice.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
PS - I got too much sun and I'm feeling a bit punky today. Therefore, I am scanning. If I come across another decent shot that shows this film's capabilities, I'll post it in this thread.
Last edited:
taffer
void
Thanks for the review Bill ! I've been myself curious about Arista films (that you submitted a while ago), Foma and Efke. Current prices for Neopan 400 / Tri-X range around 3.5 - 3.9 euros here so it may be a good idea to have some cheaper options available...
Just like you, I'm still a bit reluctant to the idea of bulk loading myown film, as mainly any mistake done during the process or some bad felt etc could lead to a whole scratched roll of film...
Just like you, I'm still a bit reluctant to the idea of bulk loading myown film, as mainly any mistake done during the process or some bad felt etc could lead to a whole scratched roll of film...
bmattock
Veteran
taffer said:
Taffer,
Thank you for the kind words. Here's another shot which seems to have come out well. I took this with my 200 f3.5 Canon FL lens - at short range. Seems the 200 FL can focus in close. And it is sharp...the Efke is showing its best here...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Last edited:
taffer
void
Very good looking results and tack sharp lens. I'll have a second look to European prices, btw I also had that issue with Vuescan and underexposed shots, switching to a B&W film profile really helps to save some frames...
Any other interesting tip for this film ? I recall reading somewhere that it's a bit delicate and easily scratched but don't remember if it was Efke, Foma or some other emulsion...
Any other interesting tip for this film ? I recall reading somewhere that it's a bit delicate and easily scratched but don't remember if it was Efke, Foma or some other emulsion...
bmattock
Veteran
taffer said:
I didn't have any problems with it scratching - I used Kodak Photo-Flo 200, soaked for 2 minutes in it after a 20 minute rinse, squeegee'd it between my wet fingers, and hung it up for a couple hours. Nothing unusual to report - perhaps I made my initial batch of Photo-Flo too concentrated - a tiny bit is more than enough - and I got some little chemical circles on a couple of frames, llke a water spot but tinier. My fault, though.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Last edited:
taffer
void
Thanks again Bill ! The massive dev. chart recommends iso 250 for Acufine, I wonder if it's the same for Diafine...
R
RML
Guest
Taffer, Efke film can be bought from Berlin. The website is IIRC http:www.impex.de .On a blue moon I bought 10 rolls for 33 euro, including shipping to Holland.
I used my films with a yellow filter, which seems to bring out the green sensitivity a bit more.
I used my films with a yellow filter, which seems to bring out the green sensitivity a bit more.
taffer
void
Ouch Remy sorry for not noticing your answer ! 
I've seen that it's at $1.99 per roll on JandC for the 'almost outdated' rolls, pity I can't find the same in fotoimpex
You know, always looking for that extra euro
Oscar
I've seen that it's at $1.99 per roll on JandC for the 'almost outdated' rolls, pity I can't find the same in fotoimpex
You know, always looking for that extra euro
Oscar
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
EFKE 100 is a good old-fashioned film. I like the latitude of it, and tonality.
I've found that is scans OK after developing with DDX, Rodinal gives it an outstanding look but scans poorly.
EFKE 100 in DDX examples attached, a macro of a azalea and a 2400 dpi crop of it
His borther EFKE 25 scans great, and the lack of red sensititivty lends itself to very interesting pictures
Example here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3206567
I've found that is scans OK after developing with DDX, Rodinal gives it an outstanding look but scans poorly.
EFKE 100 in DDX examples attached, a macro of a azalea and a 2400 dpi crop of it
His borther EFKE 25 scans great, and the lack of red sensititivty lends itself to very interesting pictures
Example here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3206567
Last edited:
R
Roman
Guest
Damn, only saw this after I came back from BCN - I had some Maco UP100+ (which is repackaged Efke KB100) with me, would have given you a roll if I had known, Oscar!
And yep, it is Efke that has to be treated carefully when processing it, since it scratches easily.
BTW, Efke has a distinct look compared to other films, among which differences are much smaller; and it is grainier than every other film in that speed range (except Forte 100). I like it for its old-fashioned look, but for something more regular looking, yet cheap, Fomapan 100 is a better choice; the great Agfa APX 100 can also be had cheaply here in Europe, under the guise of Tura P100 (or P150 for 'old' APX); FotoImpex used to have loads of Orwo-branded Ilford FP4+ too, for a good price; and you might alos look at their new Adox line, which is FP4+ and HP5+.
Also, you might look at the homepage of www.foto-riegler.at, they used to have a big sale on the Maco UP100 and 400, IIRC.
Roman
And yep, it is Efke that has to be treated carefully when processing it, since it scratches easily.
BTW, Efke has a distinct look compared to other films, among which differences are much smaller; and it is grainier than every other film in that speed range (except Forte 100). I like it for its old-fashioned look, but for something more regular looking, yet cheap, Fomapan 100 is a better choice; the great Agfa APX 100 can also be had cheaply here in Europe, under the guise of Tura P100 (or P150 for 'old' APX); FotoImpex used to have loads of Orwo-branded Ilford FP4+ too, for a good price; and you might alos look at their new Adox line, which is FP4+ and HP5+.
Also, you might look at the homepage of www.foto-riegler.at, they used to have a big sale on the Maco UP100 and 400, IIRC.
Roman
R
RubenBlaedel
Guest
I am trying the efke 25 iso for roll film at the time - I will post some results next week - it was the only B&W film I could get in 25 ISO and I really hope that the ortho/pan charateristic of the film ads some darker skies without having to filter - best Ruben
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Ruben, it'll be exactly the opposite. Blue records perfectly, red records as black
Is like looking at the world with a cyan filter in fornt of your eyes.
Is like looking at the world with a cyan filter in fornt of your eyes.
taffer
void
Ey don't worry Roman, to be honest I didn't even remember about this either
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
KB100 as 100 in Rodinal 1+100 + 4g/l vitamin C 15 minutes gave pretty good results
Scanned from negative (aesthetics aside)
1st Full frame
2nd detail of it to shjow grain and stuff at 2700 dpi
(Polaroid Sprintscan 35+/Vuescan)
Scanned from negative (aesthetics aside)
1st Full frame
2nd detail of it to shjow grain and stuff at 2700 dpi
(Polaroid Sprintscan 35+/Vuescan)
Last edited:
doubs43
Well-known
If I'm correct, the KB EFKE films are the old Adox formulations that have been around for a donkey's age. (That's a long time!) Back in the mid - late 1960's when I first showed an interest in photography I discussed the Adox films with my father who had used them years earlier. Pop had high praise for the Adox films. The problem was finding it. Local camera stores only carried Kodak and a couple of other common brands.
I have a 100 feet roll of EFKE-25 and maybe this coming weekend I'll have an opportunity to run some through my camera. It should be interesting.
Walker
I have a 100 feet roll of EFKE-25 and maybe this coming weekend I'll have an opportunity to run some through my camera. It should be interesting.
Walker
I recall using a few rolls of Adox film in the mid-60's... My notes show that it was KB-17 (ASA=40) and that I liked the fine grain and tonal qualities when developed in FR's X-22. Later I ran some in Diafine and just noted it had good densities.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Ruben, how didi your tests go?
RubenBlaedel said:
R
RubenBlaedel
Guest
I will know after the weekend - since I got it all wrong with the filters as you pointed out i shot a few rolls more - ruben