Adox/Efke 50 samples?

[TNRL]

Does anyone have Adox/Efke CHS/KB 50 samples?

I have 20 rolls of Adox 50, and some samples (maybe recomendations for developers/dev times) would be really nice to have!!

If you have any samples you would like to post, I would really like some info about EI, developer, and dev times.

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

I got half a dozen rolls from J&C during their sale, and really liked it a lot. Exposed at 50 and developed in Xtol (stock) for 8 minutes, if I remember.
I Need to get some more of it, hm...

 

[srs5694]

I don't have any samples handy to post, but I've developed Efke KB50 exposed at box speed in Dead Link Removed 2+1 for 7:30 at 20C with good results. (Note that link describes two developers, DS-10 and DS-12.) I've been using DS-12 for most of my low-speed films lately and find that it does a very good job with them -- or at least, I subjectively like what I get.

 

[srs5694]

Actually, I just uploaded a couple of samples of 35mm KB50 processed in DS-12 to my Web site:

http://www.rodsbooks.com/building.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/broken-window.jpg

These are direct negative scans using a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 and VueScan software. The camera was a Canon Canonet QL-17 GIII.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I have a 100' roll and have souped it in FX-1, Rodinal and Thornton's 2-bath.
The last really pushes the speed but I think it loses a little by way gaining grainyness (or more correctly - clumpiness).
I would like to post pictures but havent worked out how to, yet.
I used Adox KB14 and 17 nearly 50 years ago and the various variations on the Beutler developer are best, I think. FX1 and 2 or DK-23 and the like.
Just took delivery of some Diafine and it will be interesting to compare the old with the new.
The picture of John is the Thornton's 2-bath. This was a real 'snap' shot and I was amazed I got anything at all. The EI must have been 150 at least.
The baby is one from 45 years ago dev. in FX-2. The others are also FX-2 but recent.
Cheers.
Murray

 

[Murray Kelly]

Didn't catch the other 3. Only the one that was 50 yo went.
Will attempt again

 

[Murray Kelly]

Nup! Won't work. I leave it to your imagination! Yay! I got it, finally - file size problems
Murray

 

[TNRL]

thanks a lot!

but what about grain? is there any 100% crops?

 

[Murray Kelly]

Mine are all full frame.
Murray

 

[srs5694]

but what about grain? is there any 100% crops?

Here are some comparison crops of some of my negatives, all processed in DS-12 and scanned at 2700 dpi on my Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400:

http://www.rodsbooks.com/efke-kb25.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/efke-kb50.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/ilford-panfplus50.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/fomapan-100.jpg
http://www.rodsbooks.com/tmax-100.jpg

These are not, however, scientifically controlled tests; they're just crops of some random photos taken with each of the films in question. Degree of development may vary and subjects certainly do. Still, my subjective impression, both from these crops and from prints I've made, is that Efke KB50 is similar in graininess to most conventional ISO 100 films. It's grainier than Ilford Pan F+ 50 and Kodak T-Max 100. If you're looking for an ultra-finegrain film, I'd say to go with one of those or with Efke KB25. (Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Acros 100 might do as well, but I can't speak to them from personal experience.) That said, I'd consider the the KB50's grain to be aesthetically pleasing, unlike (for instance) T-Max 400 grain, which I consider ugly. That is, of course, a very subjective matter.

 

[Murray Kelly]

I posted the pics with the intention that it can be seen that the original Adox KB17 is not like the original film.
Compare the old 45 yo image with the present day images.
There is not the definition we used to get from that 'old' film.
Sadly.

Murray

 

[Murray Kelly]

of course I meant modern versions of Adox KB17
Soory 'bout that.

Murray

 

[RobertP]

Has anyone tried it in pyro developers?