ADOX/EFKE/BERGGER/JANDC Quality

er1483 · Dec 21, 2006

Hello,
I'm new to ULF and have been contemplating using these films. For 8x10 and smaller sizes I've always used Ilford and Kodak. But at huge sizes like 8x20 good ol' TMAX, HP5 and FP4 become fairly pricey (I'm still a student). I've read numerous threads on this forum which contained positive responses to cheaper films like efke, bergger etc.
I am curious if anyone has had any negative experiences with these films. Has anyone encountered quality control problems in the manufacturing of these films? What about emulsion consistency problems from box to box? No matter what the cost of a particular film is, the last thing I want is for a really good shot to be lost because of random technical glitches.

Thanks.

doughowk · Dec 21, 2006

I'm also new to ULF, and have only used Efke 100 and J&C 400. The Efke had density bands which pretty much made it useless. The J&C 400 is fine, but I could use some more contrast for alt process. Have ordered Berger 200, and plan to order FP4 next month, so will be testing those in near future.

Terence · Dec 21, 2006

To an extent you get what you pay for. Ilford and Kodak have impeccable quality control. However, I have ruined FAR more shots with my technique than I have found ruined due to quality control with Efke/ADOX. The Efke/ADOX is cheaper, so I can shoot/ruin more.

For a once in a lifetime shot, go with Ilford or Kodak. For learning how to make mistakes in ULF (which has many more possible mistakes than 8x10), go for the others.

I have had NO issues with the J&C brand film, either. I've only used Berrger in 120, but have had no problems.

Alex Hawley · Dec 21, 2006

I've been using J&C 200 and 400 for three years now in 8x10. Just started with Efke/Adox this year in 4x5 and 8x10. Have never had any quality issues. All my flubs have been of my own doing.

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 21, 2006

Efke/Adox 100 and J&C/Forte 400 are beautiful films. You need to handle them carefully. These emulsions are soft, but I haven't had any quality issues myself with them.

Also, don't buy up more than you can use in about a year. They don't have the keeping qualities of modern films.

mgb74 · Dec 21, 2006

David A. Goldfarb said:
...Also, don't buy up more than you can use in about a year. They don't have the keeping qualities of modern films.

Is this true even if the film is frozen?

Scott Peters · Dec 21, 2006

Nice films. It's tougher to build density in low light situations with the jandc 400 and that's why I now carry both (efke 100 for low light or low sbr - builds density nicely) (this is for AZO or plat.) In normal or high sbr ranges the 400 is a nice film. I have not had quality issues with either. I tray develop and do not have issues with the EFKE> I am careful and the pyro helps with the emulsion. I will admit that the TMAX 400 I ordered is REALLY nice (probably my preferred film), but again more than twice the price...

I hope to heck that my efke lasts frozen, as I bought a bunch when JandC had their big sale - no way I can shoot it all in a year....I was told that it would last...it better.

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 21, 2006

In general, slower films hold up better frozen than faster films, and the Efke/Adox films are slower, so they should hold up longer, but I'd rather buy it as I need it.

Alex Hawley · Dec 21, 2006

One of the best bargains going is J&C 100. Its made in China, not Europe. I've gone through about 2o sheets of it with no complaints. Ryan McIntosh is doing very well with. Check out the price. All you have to do is learn how to use it.

er1483 · Dec 21, 2006

Scott Peters said:
Nice films. It's tougher to build density in low light situations with the jandc 400 and that's why I now carry both (efke 100 for low light or low sbr - builds density nicely) (this is for AZO or plat.)

So is the jandc 400 a more low contrast film? I believe that the JANDC website says it works well with pyro though. What speed to you rate this film?

Scott Peters · Dec 22, 2006

I rate the 400 at box speed or higher...depending on sbr with pyro hd (metol - tray developed) for azo or plat/pall.

The jandc 100 is not avail in 7 x 17. I do like it in 8 x 10 however and would agree its a nice film. Would like to see in larger sizes.

Bob Carnie · Dec 22, 2006

Josef Sudek , was happy to use any film that he could get his hands on . The image is what it is all about rather than posssible film defects. If you look closely at the great works of the past you will see many artifacts that would not be suitable for our modern times.

er1483 · Dec 22, 2006

I agree Bob, if I had a really great picture with technical issues, I would still print it anyway. In the long run, content determines a successful image. However there are times when mysterious blotches or scratches can seriously detract from an image. I just want to know what I'm getting into with these films.

Neal · Dec 22, 2006

Dear er1483,

My only experience with the films you mentioned are Efke25 in 35mm and Bergger BPF200 in 4x5. Zero problems with Efke25, but only a few rolls to go by. BPF200 in 4x5 makes lovely photographs, but the interleaving paper in my box was not cut cleanly. I found I had to blow off the surface of the film after loading it into holders.

Neal Wydra

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 22, 2006

Another film to look at is Foma Fomapan 200, aka Arista.EDU Ultra 200. I've been using it heavily in 5x7 and have loved it. I don't know if it is available in ULF sizes at all, but up to 8x10 it certainly is, and it produces some beautiful images for pt/pd printing. It is more delicate than Kodak, but less delicate than the Efke/ADOX, and a LOT cheaper than the Bergger or Ilford. I was frankly underwhelmed by the Bergger in 8x10 when compared to Ilford FP4+. Bergger loses at least a stop if not more over box speed, which negates the advantage.

doughowk · Dec 22, 2006

Any defects become more noticeable for larger film size. Density banding, for example, on 4X5 may not be noticed; but on 7X17 it becomes evident & difficult to correct. On the plus side, ULF sheet film negatives are easier to retouch; and, presuming only contact printing, defects are not magnified.

User Removed · Dec 22, 2006

I've been using the JandC Pro 100 in 8x10 for several years now with never any problem. However, just recently JandC had a close out sale on the film and I believe it cannot be purchased anymore.

I was planning on going back to using Efke 100, however I just noticed that the price of it went up again! It's nearly up to the same price as Kodak and Ilford! Therefore, I might just start using HP5 or maybe Tmax or TriX. I'm not sure how ANY of these film work in Pyro-HD, so if anyone could throw out a suggestion, that would be good.

All the best,

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

juan · Dec 22, 2006

Ryan, I was not able to get much in the way of expansion out of HP5 or TMX with Pyrocat HD - at least not as much as I get from PL100.

I've seen Doug's prints and I have some 8x10 PL100 that seems to have the same banding. This is not just a blemish that can be printed around. It's a serious problem.

JandC 400 seems to work OK, but again, doesn't have the expansion and contraction that PL100 has. TriX 400 in 120 seemed to work well with Pyrocat HD, but I have not tried TriX 320.

I'm further flumoxed by shooting a lot of 2 1/4x3 1/4. I'd like to have a film that's available in that size, 4x5 and 8x10. That seems to limit things to HP5 and PL100.

Sigh, why can't the world do what I want?
juan

ADOX/EFKE/BERGGER/JANDC Quality

er1483

doughowk

Terence

Alex Hawley

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

mgb74

Scott Peters

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Alex Hawley

er1483

Scott Peters

Bob Carnie

er1483

Neal

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

doughowk

User Removed

juan

ADOX/EFKE/BERGGER/JANDC Quality

Moderator

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency