Who uses EFKE 25,50,100 frequently..

B

Bertram2

Gone elsewhere
Local time
11:47 PM
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
1,416
....and would be so nice to report about his experiences ?

Dev in D76 o.k.? X-tol better ? Or any other suggestions ? Tonality of EFKE 50 and 100 is said to be fine, true ? 25 is said to be MF like, exaggerated ?

Has it the classical look, comparable to Tri-X ? I hate Black OR White films , and I am looking for fime greys, good tonality and I am willing to pay with less contrast :D

Many thanks for all your helpful input !

Regards,
Bertram
 
Very few old school emulsions can match the latitude of Tri-X; and proper comparision for slower ones would be Plus-X anyway :) I shoot Fortepan 400 myself but would switch to Tri-X if not the price difference.

It is not to say they are bad though, just less forgiving and have a different look.
 
Bertram,
Could you help me understand your objective? Less contrast than the new TriX? I have found it to be evenly balanced if a filter is not involved. Ilford's FP4 is similarly balanced. I have not tried any of the films you listed, but plan to when my APX 100 runs out. I really like the APX 100.
 
Efke 100

Efke 100

Hi - this is just opinion and what happened when I tried it. You can see a picture at:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24278&cat=500&ppuser=1346

I found it terribly contrasty at first. I tamed it by rating it about 60 asa and underdeveloping by about 1/3rd on the quoted time in Rodinal. I like the look of it, but I have never been a big fan of Tri-X so I'm not much help! I have also found it to be the curliest film ever (especially in the 127 version) and sometimes badly behaved when going onto a spiral and drying. It's more relaxed (like everyone) in warm humid conditions.

I have actually found the Foma product easier to live with, having tried quite a lot of both and I like the look just as much. I'd say the EFKE is the more old fashioned look of the two. I'd recommend trying it though as it is not expensive and you can afford to play around to see if you can make it do things you approve of.
 
I have used some 30m(100 ft) rolls of EFKE 100, and like it very much.
Please run a search since we have discussed this already and development times were already discussed.
EFKE 100 is great all purpose film, works great in Rodinal and DDX, so I don;t see why it shouldn't work with D76 or Xtol

EFKE 25 is awesome grainless and sharp, I develop it in Rodinal 1+100
 
Richard Black said:
Bertram,
Could you help me understand your objective? Less contrast than the new TriX? .
Click to expand...
No, not less contrasty like Tri-X, I want something looking like Tri-X, but with low ISO. The Kodak T-grain stuff makes me sick, you know ! ;)

bertram
 
titrisol said:
I have used some 30m(100 ft) rolls of EFKE 100, and like it very much.
Please run a search since we have discussed this already and development times were already discussed.
EFKE 100 is great all purpose film, works great in Rodinal and DDX, so I don;t see why it shouldn't work with D76 or Xtol

EFKE 25 is awesome grainless and sharp, I develop it in Rodinal 1+100
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check the archive, missed this discussion !

bertram
 
Manolo Gozales said:
Hey:)

IIRC, Bill Mattocks is a great fan of the Efke emulsions. I'm sure he'll be along soon to give us the benefit of his experience.

ManGo
Click to expand...

A pity, we've promised to stay out of each others threads to avoid a further contribution to the global clima prob, too hot, you know ! ;)
And we both will keep our promise, works fine this way. :angel:

bertram
 
lushd said:
Hi - this is just opinion and what happened when I tried it. You can see a picture at:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=24278&cat=500&ppuser=1346

I found it terribly contrasty at first. I tamed it by rating it about 60 asa and underdeveloping by about 1/3rd on the quoted time in Rodinal. I like the look of it, but I have never been a big fan of Tri-X so I'm not much help! .
Click to expand...

Interesting anyway, the sample shows quite the opposite of what I expected.

bertram
 
Bertram2 said:
A pity, we've promised to stay out of each others threads to avoid a further contribution to the global clima prob, too hot, you know ! ;)
And we both will keep our promise, works fine this way. :angel:

bertram
Click to expand...


Raid is also a user as I recall. Perhaps he will also contribute to your question.

I intend to buy some soon in both 120 and 4x5. I haven't used any since 30 years ago when it was still callled Adox. I liked the 120 then. I don't recall what I developed it in, but mostly all I had was D76 in the Army Craft Shops in Korea. Sometimes I was able to buy other emulsions from the Korean market or chemicals to mix and experiment with. However, ususally it was D76. If I had to guess, I would say it was 1-1. Diafine sounds nice as mentioned above.

Hope to hear others experiences.
 
Last edited:
I've used Efke 25 and 100 in 120 (6x6 and 6x9), and like both films. I develop them in Rodinal 1+100 and don't agitate too much. The negatives come out really nice, the 25 ones particularly "lushious". The first roll of 25 I shot I had developed commercially (I handed a tech sheet in with the film) and they were quite nice too.

Efke 25 Sample 1

Efke 25 Sample 2

Efke 100 Sample1

Efke 100 Sample 2 Baaaaa
 
I used to use the 25 speed in 120 but have gone back to delta100 now, the efke
is extreamly fine grained and hold huge detail, fairly hight contrast, but being a single
layer film it can clip detail in the shadows, or if you expose for the shadows you can
loose the highlights (I develop in Prescysol EF). Having said this it does give a certain "look" which can be very nice. The main problems with it are that it is quite a
delicate emulsion when wet and very easy to scratch. I have also found it quite difficult to print (on an enlarger), but this could be due to my printing methods not
the film itself.
Hope this helps

Andy
 
I've been shooting Efke PL100 in 4x5" and larger for a while. I like it in Acufine at EI 200 (all these shots were made with this combination. Click the image to cycle through about a half dozen shots)--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/halloween

and at EI 50 in ABC pyro, but this would probably be too grainy for most people's tastes in 35mm. I don't seem to have anything conveniently scanned with that combo.
 
I use Efke 25 from time to time and realy love the look for some subjects. I started using it in the 60's when it was Adox KB 14 and also used KB 17. I always develope in Rodinal and find the tonalith to be excellent, excellent fine grain and extremely sharp. One thing it does not look like is Tri-X. Efke 25 is much cleaner and crisper with almost nonexistant grain. One thing to watch is over developement. It's easy to build contrast and in turn it's easy to hold contrast down by under processing. I love the way it responds to plus and minus developemnet. To me the 25 still looks like the Adox KB14 that I knew in the 60's. I highly recommend it if you're a technical guy and control process carefully. I also love Delta 100 and 400 and have made them my standard since thir introduction. I process in HC Ilford and have found no other film that I like for general shooting as well. The ilfor Delta films have real guts and respond to exposure and developement very well.

I might add that I print on an Ilford B&W MC diffusion head. Diffusion has different characteristics than a condensor. I also print my larger negs on a condensor Durst 138 Laborator. I love the condensor for some subjects but not all as I don't like diffusion for all subjects. For that matter there's no perfect film, developer or paper either.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

www.x-rayarts.com
 
oftheherd said:
Raid is also a user as I recall. Perhaps he will also contribute to your question.

I intend to buy some soon in both 120 and 4x5. I haven't used any since 30 years ago when it was still callled Adox. I liked the 120 then. I don't recall what I developed it in, but mostly all I had was D76 in the Army Craft Shops in Korea. Sometimes I was able to buy other emulsions from the Korean market or chemicals to mix and experiment with. However, ususally it was D76. If I had to guess, I would say it was 1-1. Diafine sounds nice as mentioned above.

Hope to hear others experiences.
Click to expand...


My "contribution" here differs maybe from the rest as I do not anymore develop my own film since I got kids. When sending out EFKE 25, 50, or 100 and when getting back the prints, I can distinguish the prints immediately from other prints made from other brands of B&W film. The prints are sharper looking and the whites are beautiful. Nothing to hate about EFKE. It is an execellent film.
 
Many thanks to all who have sent an info, special thanks to those who went the extra mile with uploading samples ! "Ein Bild sagt mehr als tausend Worte!" is the old German saying.
The films look more contrasty than I expected them to look, intersting x-ray's info about over- and underdeveloping tho.

I need a very slow film for a project , which deals with extreme motion blur as a central element of composition and so I am looking what could work best. I think I'll give ADOX 25 and 50 a try in any case and I'll try Ilford Pan F too, about which I also know nothing.
TechPan I excluded since it needs a special soup and because it is too expensive.

Usually I shoot ISO 400 neg films because my priority at handheld shooting is on short shutter times. At slow films I am a kind of illiterate.

Best regards,

Bertram
 
Dont forget that you can use neutral sensity filters to effectively reduce the ISO of your film. If you use a 1.2 ND you reduce the iso of 400 to 25. Each .3ND is like reducing the ISO by 50%. EI -100 to 50
 
x-ray said:
Dont forget that you can use neutral sensity filters to effectively reduce the ISO of your film. If you use a 1.2 ND you reduce the iso of 400 to 25. Each .3ND is like reducing the ISO by 50%. EI -100 to 50
Click to expand...

No I don't but I would really apreciate the fine grain and tonality as a side effect so to say ! :)
bertram
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom