bergger,efke,rollei retrò advice me!

danzyc · Feb 18, 2008

hello people i m posting one shot that my friend have made a lot of years ago shot with rolleiflex and GEVAPAN 100 iso film...
how i can achieve nowadays the same look????
i think that gevapan is agfa apx and agfa apx is now rollei ???!!....

how do you think to the new bergger film compared to efke and rollei retrò?
many thanks

Brad Bireley · Feb 18, 2008

I want to know also!

cmo · Feb 18, 2008

The Gevapan was made from 1952, had 160 ASA. At that time there were no modern films like APX, FP4 or even Tmax.

Probably you will get a very similar look with Efke/Adox 100 film. It is a traditional "thick emulsion" film, made on old machines using old recipes.

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CHS_Films.html

Uhner · Feb 18, 2008

Efke films have thick emulsion? I thought that thick emulsion films definitely were a thing of the past and not something that still can be bought new.

Anyway, do you mean that certain processes like water-bath development still works well with efke films in the way Ansel Adams described in the Negative?

Cheers

C

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 18, 2008

cmo said:
Probably you will get a very similar look with Efke/Adox 100 film. It is a traditional "thick emulsion" film, made on old machines using old recipes.

Thick emulsion films were products of pre-WWII technology. Au contraire, Adox/Efke films were the first thin emulsion films. What we consider retro nowadays was in fact bleeding-edge in the 1950's.

At any rate, regarding the OP's question, I would suggest: get a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad for the Zeiss lenses, and a traditional grain film with an upswept curve like Plus-X or Tri-X 320TXP. A developer like Rodinal or HC-110 would work well.

What's noticeable here is not grain/sharpness/blah whatever, but tones. Notice that the light is soft and diffused, coming from a window. The hair has some kind of brylcreem, and the skin is slightly oily. That's your highlights, and you want to keep them brilliant. Certain film/dev combinations enhance the highlights (like those I quoted above), others enhance the midtones (e.g. tri-x in xtol). So you want something that gives good highlight contrast.

Films with good highlight contrast also have less details in the shadows, which gives you nice dark shadows like that picture. In lighting your scene, you thus want to make sure that the light ratio between the illuminated side and the shadow side is not too broad, otherwise you will have a completely black background. Experimentation is key.

danzyc · Feb 18, 2008

i have a rolleiflex with 75 planar 6 elements.....could i start with efke?

danzyc · Feb 18, 2008

the efke is the best "old times" emulsion??

bergger or rollei retro?

thanks

Aurelien · Feb 18, 2008

If I were you, I would try the Bergger BRF 200. It's a "copy" or a remake of the Kodak Double-X. I love this film. I use it a lot.
You can also try Foma Films. They are pretty good. But Efke is bas quality, because emulsion is very fragile.

cmo · Feb 18, 2008

Uhner said:
Efke films have thick emulsion? I thought that thick emulsion films definitely were a thing of the past and not something that still can be bought new.

Anyway, do you mean that certain processes like water-bath development still works well with efke films in the way Ansel Adams described in the Negative?

Cheers

C

As far as I understand what efke/Adox is doing they have probably the most old-fashioned machinery and recipes.

Water-bath development? I have no idea, what's that? Presoak? My only experiments so far, not finished yet, is with Adox 25 in a Pyro developer. Very promising, looks kind of old-fashioned. But I think you will need to try on your own.

cmo · Feb 18, 2008

mhv said:
Thick emulsion films were products of pre-WWII technology. Au contraire, Adox/Efke films were the first thin emulsion films. What we consider retro nowadays was in fact bleeding-edge in the 1950's.

At any rate, regarding the OP's question, I would suggest: get a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad for the Zeiss lenses, and a traditional grain film with an upswept curve like Plus-X or Tri-X 320TXP. A developer like Rodinal or HC-110 would work well.

What's noticeable here is not grain/sharpness/blah whatever, but tones. Notice that the light is soft and diffused, coming from a window. The hair has some kind of brylcreem, and the skin is slightly oily. That's your highlights, and you want to keep them brilliant. Certain film/dev combinations enhance the highlights (like those I quoted above), others enhance the midtones (e.g. tri-x in xtol). So you want something that gives good highlight contrast.

Films with good highlight contrast also have less details in the shadows, which gives you nice dark shadows like that picture. In lighting your scene, you thus want to make sure that the light ratio between the illuminated side and the shadow side is not too broad, otherwise you will have a completely black background. Experimentation is key.

Interesting... does the "thick vs. thin" subject from today's point of view mean the T-grain films are super-thin? As far as I know one target of emulsion research was to save on silver, for obvious cost reasons.

Regarding the highlights, in the scan the highlights are quite burnt. This can also be an effect of the scanning process.

Aurelien · Feb 18, 2008

My big reproach on Efke films is the bad quality control. You have often pinholes and scratches in emulsion.
I have tried Efke 25 in PMK following Ed Buffaloes' recommandations. It's nice.
Concerning the Efke's machinery, the coating machine is very old : she was built in 1949...

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 18, 2008

cmo said:
Interesting... does the "thick vs. thin" subject from today's point of view mean the T-grain films are super-thin? As far as I know one target of emulsion research was to save on silver, for obvious cost reasons.

Regarding the highlights, in the scan the highlights are quite burnt. This can also be an effect of the scanning process.

AFAIK, t-grains can cover a larger surface for less silver than traditional "thin" emulsions, so I suppose they could be called super-thin...

cmo · Feb 18, 2008

Aurelien said:
My big reproach on Efke films is the bad quality control. You have often pinholes and scratches in emulsion.
I have tried Efke 25 in PMK following Ed Buffaloes' recommandations. It's nice.
Concerning the Efke's machinery, the coating machine is very old : she was built in 1949...

WHEN did you have that problem? Some years ago I heard about it, tried about 15 rolls in the last weeks, and there were no such problems.

jim appleyard · Feb 18, 2008

cmo said:
WHEN did you have that problem? Some years ago I heard about it, tried about 15 rolls in the last weeks, and there were no such problems.

Some folks have problems with Efke, some don't; it's hit or miss. when I shoot Efke, I shoot two, if not three of each shot. Not an efficient way of shooting. Great film, poor QC.

Ian Grant · Feb 18, 2008

Shot today with any modern film a good printer could achieve exactly the same look in the print. There's some burning in of the background around the head, very tell-tale it shouldn't show.

Ian

George Papantoniou · Feb 19, 2008

I am afraid I'll have to disagree with you...

The "look" of this image comes from:

a. the lighting (30%)

b. the format of the neg (10%)

c. the lens on the cam (15%)

d. the film developer used (10%)

e. the paper used for printing (30%)

f. the paper developer used (5%)

If you try to use the same lighting, with a Rolleiflex and a Planar (or Sonnar), develop your film in a tanning developer and print on a REAL fixed grade chlorobromide paper you'll probably get the result you want, whichever film you use. The problem is how you'll get your hands on a paper like the one I describe, since they're almost extinct...

Ian Grant · Feb 19, 2008

George, you missed the most important part out of your percentages, and I'd guess 50% is the skill of the printer.

Ian

mabman · Feb 19, 2008

Aurelien said:
If I were you, I would try the Bergger BRF 200. It's a "copy" or a remake of the Kodak Double-X. I love this film. I use it a lot.
You can also try Foma Films. They are pretty good. But Efke is bas quality, because emulsion is very fragile.

Actually, everything I've read about BRF 200 indicates it's supposed to be a copy of Super-XX.

The movie film "Eastman 5222" is Double-X - quite usable for stills - "short ends" are available inexpensively from film stock distributors (35mm only, though).

Mark Antony · Feb 19, 2008

I think the Forte films are the most 'old fashioned' I've tried, I think classic Pan and Bergger are both Forte.
Forte are now sadly no longer making film, but there is a lot around, Personally to get that look I'd use Forte in 120.
Mark
I have a little test on my blog
Fortepan 100
Still trying nail a good setting but rating at EI 64 and developing for 8 mins in Rodinal is getting there for me.

Aurelien · Feb 19, 2008

Well, as far as I know, BRF films are a bit different from Forte films. They are close, but not the same.

Forte is now closed, but as for papers, I think Bergger is going to keep producing films, using Harman facilities. So, BRF are going to be available again. But stocks are not depleted yet, I have received yesterday a pack of BRF 200 in 120.

bergger,efke,rollei retrò advice me!

danzyc

Attachments

Brad Bireley

cmo

Uhner

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

danzyc

danzyc

Aurelien

Advertiser

cmo

cmo

Aurelien

Advertiser

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

cmo

jim appleyard

Ian Grant

George Papantoniou

Ian Grant

mabman

Mark Antony

Aurelien

Advertiser

bergger,efke,rollei retrò advice me!

Attachments

Membership Council

Advertiser

Advertiser

Membership Council

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency