Comparison of FB plus fog of Tmax 100 and Efke PL 100

Donald Miller · Jan 17, 2006

I have recently shot some Tmax 100 that I bought at an estate sale. This is film that had an expiration date of 2001.

Yesterday I shot some of it under the same conditions that I shot Efke PL 100 (my usual film). I was amazed at the difference in film base plus fog of the two films. The Tmax, in this case produced, much lower base fog. The negatives exhibited much sharper dilineations between adjacent density regions and appear much cleaner.

The Efke was in date film. Both films were developed with Pyrocat in the same mamer.

I know that this film is not a good film for those who expose with UV sources but for enlarging, this film looks like a winner to me. At least based under very limited usage.

Has anyone else noticed the same difference? Or is this an anamoly?

Silverpixels5 · Jan 17, 2006

Your experience is the same that I have observed with both TMX and Delta 100. Price and tonality are what keep it from being my film of choice though.

Neal · Jan 17, 2006

Dear Donald,

Lots of folks love TMX. My favorite for 35mm.

Neal Wydra

Donald Miller · Jan 17, 2006

Silverpixels5 said:
Your experience is the same that I have observed with both TMX and Delta 100. Price and tonality are what keep it from being my film of choice though.

Ron,

You bring up a very valid point. It is the print that is the determining factor. I will print the Tmx before I decide my future course. The Efke is a great film in my experience.

Silverpixels5 · Jan 17, 2006

The look isn't bad at all...just different. I just seem to prefer the look of prints made from traditional grain negatives. TMY looks great for processes where you coat your own paper. I think its the texture of the hand coated paper that adds the character which seems to be missing from prints made on manufactored silver gelatin paper.

Mark Layne · Jan 17, 2006

Donald Miller said:
I have recently shot some Tmax 100 that I bought at an estate sale. This is film that had an expiration date of 2001.

Yesterday I shot some of it under the same conditions that I shot Efke PL 100 (my usual film). I was amazed at the difference in film base plus fog of the two films. The Tmax, in this case produced, much lower base fog. The negatives exhibited much sharper dilineations between adjacent density regions and appear much cleaner.

The Efke was in date film. Both films were developed with Pyrocat in the same mamer.

I know that this film is not a good film for those who expose with UV sources but for enlarging, this film looks like a winner to me. At least based under very limited usage.

Has anyone else noticed the same difference? Or is this an anamoly?

Donald
I recently found a film holder I exposed in 1992. One side FP4, the other TMX 100.
Both developed well but the TMX was unblemished whereas the FP4 had some kind of moisture mark or splotch. Both could have been useable but the TMX was almost free of base fog.
I have hesitated to use TMX widely until I test its filter response. There is an article on filter use on the website 'David Kachel's Front Door' where he says that TMY has a strange filter response where a red filter for example produces a REDUCTION in contrast.
Have you read this article?
Mark

Donald Miller · Jan 17, 2006

Mark Layne said:
Donald
I recently found a film holder I exposed in 1992. One side FP4, the other TMX 100.
Both developed well but the TMX was unblemished whereas the FP4 had some kind of moisture mark or splotch. Both could have been useable but the TMX was almost free of base fog.
I have hesitated to use TMX widely until I test its filter response. There is an article on filter use on the website 'David Kachel's Front Door' where he says that TMY has a strange filter response where a red filter for example produces a REDUCTION in contrast.
Have you read this article?
Mark

Mark,

I haven't read the article that you mentioned. Thanks for mentioning it I will look into it.

roteague · Jan 17, 2006

Thanks Donald for the thread. Even though I don't shoot much B&W, I still enjoy reading about it. BTW, have you tried a comparison of Fuji Acros and Efke PL100?

Donald Miller · Jan 17, 2006

roteague said:
Thanks Donald for the thread. Even though I don't shoot much B&W, I still enjoy reading about it. BTW, have you tried a comparison of Fuji Acros and Efke PL100?

No, I haven't had the opportunity to try Acros. All reports are that it is an excellent film. I look forward to giving it a try in the future.

By the way I spent yesterday at Tortilla Flats...Everyone said to tell you hello...LOL

roteague · Jan 17, 2006

Donald Miller said:
By the way I spent yesterday at Tortilla Flats...Everyone said to tell you hello...LOL

Even the Indian? Tortilla Flat is a place I haven't heard of in sometime now. I used to hang out at Apache Junction a lot when I lived in Az.

Mark Layne · Jan 17, 2006

Donald
Let me know your thoughts on that article
Mark

David A. Goldfarb · Jan 17, 2006

TMX exp. 2001 might be okay for UV sources. I had some older TMX 8x10" that I've used for albumen printing that's been fine. I'm not sure in what year they added the UV absorbing layer.

fwp · Jan 17, 2006

jdef said:
Hi Donald.

Your experience mirrors my own. I thimk TMX is the most maligned and misunderstood film on the market. When I first started processing my own film I standardized on VP/D-76. When I felt comfortable with that combination, my curiosity got the best of me and I tried TMX/D-76. I never bought another roll of VP, which I loved. TMX is nothing short of miraculous. I remember older photographers lamenting the loss of Panatomic-X, and couldn't understand why, given that TMX gave finer grain, better film speed ,better reciprocity, and better resolution. I have since learned that every film has a "flavor", even a great film is not to everyone's taste, and the numbers don't tell the whole story. I still think TMX represents a remarkable achievement in film technology, and is capable of equally remarkable results, even for a beginner with only one film under his belt. Efke is very nice, but comparing it to TMX is kind of like comparing a Cadillac to a Ferrari.

Jay

Jay

I think that improper development is the reason that the people that don't like TMX don't like it. (sorry for the clumsy sentence) When using TMX it's important to be consistant in control of temperature, aggitation, and development time.

chiller · Jan 17, 2006

Donald Miller said:
I have recently shot some Tmax 100 that I bought at an estate sale. This is film that had an expiration date of 2001.

Yesterday I shot some of it under the same conditions that I shot Efke PL 100 (my usual film). I was amazed at the difference in film base plus fog of the two films. The Tmax, in this case produced, much lower base fog. The negatives exhibited much sharper dilineations between adjacent density regions and appear much cleaner.

The Efke was in date film. Both films were developed with Pyrocat in the same mamer.

I know that this film is not a good film for those who expose with UV sources but for enlarging, this film looks like a winner to me. At least based under very limited usage.

Has anyone else noticed the same difference? Or is this an anamoly?

I have settled on Efke 100 in 5x4 as my film of choice. Using BTZS test data there is a marked difference in base fog between the films however for normal printing through an enlarger there is no difference other than printing time and that is not significant

As an example -- densitometer zeroed on the light source will give for me TMX 100 film base + fog of .04 and Efke is around .08.

There is a vast difference in the base materials but the finished prints don't suffer from the base differences.

And given a choice in 5x4 I will happily shoot the Efke 100.

Robert I have shot a reasonable amount of Acros in 120 in my Hasselblad and although it is a very good film to my tastes it lacks a distinct character. It's greatest advantage of course is its exceptional reciprocity failure -- or lack of.

It is no where near 100 iso if you want to get full shadow detail. And yes that will depend on the developer you choose.

Donald Miller · Jan 17, 2006

I have noticed that even though Efke PL 100 and Tmax 100 are advertised as having the same speed they are not the same. I am able to expose Efke Pl 100 at EI 100 at SBR 5 whereas Tmax 100 is nearer EI 50 at the same SBR.

Tmax is very unforgiving when it comes to underexposure.

chiller · Jan 18, 2006

Donald Miller said:
I have noticed that even though Efke PL 100 and Tmax 100 are advertised as having the same speed they are not the same. I am able to expose Efke Pl 100 at EI 100 at SBR 5 whereas Tmax 100 is nearer EI 50 at the same SBR.

Tmax is very unforgiving when it comes to underexposure.

Donald,

I like Efke so I'm a bit biased

I did however find Efke 100 to sit at about 64iso for me at .62 developed in D76 1+1 @ 21c

That is determined using step wedge testing and the negs confirm that -- for me

I still have 4 rolls of TMX 100 from a pack of 5 that expired in 1999.

The prints from the Efke have a rich, thick creamy look as opposed to a slick plastic anorexic look. Personal choice on film types is a wonderful thing -- and long may it continue.

roteague · Jan 18, 2006

chiller said:
Robert I have shot a reasonable amount of Acros in 120 in my Hasselblad and although it is a very good film to my tastes it lacks a distinct character. It's greatest advantage of course is its exceptional reciprocity failure -- or lack of.

It is no where near 100 iso if you want to get full shadow detail. And yes that will depend on the developer you choose.

Thanks Steve. I just sent of my entire 2005 output of B&W, all 20 sheets of Acros, for processing. Based upon advice from someone I know, it is supposed to be developed in Xtol. I'm looking forward to seeing if the results are worth keeping; I'll let you know. Obviously, I don't shoot a lot of B&W (I shoot about 50-60 sheets of Velvia a month, however).

chiller · Jan 18, 2006

Robert others will tell you it is the most magnificent film ever made and I won't argue with them. It is a very nice film but bland. APX 100 had character -- Tri X had character, Efke has character.

I suppose it is like a Ferrari from 2006 and one from the 70's -- they are both Ferrari's but one has character.

You will love the results with Acros Robert and when you want character, try Efke 100

juan · Jan 18, 2006

Donald, I recently tried some TMX 8x10 exp. date of 1996 and found, as you did, very little base plus fog. In making tests, I learned the reciprocity factor is greatly different than with PL100 - you might keep that in mind if you are shooting SBR5. The film I tried works fine with UV, so I'll second David - yours might work with a UV process, too.
juan

avandesande · Jan 18, 2006

efke films are also unforgiving as far as overexposure/overdevelopment. It gets very grainy and loses resolution. Maybe you won't notice it in LF but it is certainly apparent if you shoot 35mm.

Donald Miller said:
I have noticed that even though Efke PL 100 and Tmax 100 are advertised as having the same speed they are not the same. I am able to expose Efke Pl 100 at EI 100 at SBR 5 whereas Tmax 100 is nearer EI 50 at the same SBR.

Tmax is very unforgiving when it comes to underexposure.

photobackpacker · Jan 18, 2006

Hi Don:

I made the decision to standardize on TMax 100 ten years ago and have had great results with it. I have a good set of data (exposure, speed and contrast changes) you might expect during reciprocity departure as well as development times for Old and New TMax100. If you are interested, PM me and I will write them up and send them to you.

Bruce

roteague · Jan 18, 2006

chiller said:
You will love the results with Acros Robert and when you want character, try Efke 100

I'm sure I would Steve. However, when I went to Australia in 2004 I took a box of Efke PL100 along, and managed to shoot about 2/3 of the box (50 sheet), along the Murray River. A couple of weeks after I got home, I shot a few more sheets. When I went to put the exposed film with the rest of the exposed film, I found that all the exposed sheets had stuck together. Needless to say, the entire batch is ruined. I asked both John (at J&C) and PE about this, and can only conclude it was the high humidity here. I still have an unopened box at home, but until I can figure out how to avoid the sticking problem and how to get it processed in a more timely manner, I'll stick with QuickLoad Fuji Acros (for those rare occasions I shoot B&W). I checked and found I had the same issue with a box of Ilford Delta 100 I was playing with. I've never had any of this type of problem with any Fuji or Kodak film (color or otherwise).

herb · Jan 18, 2006

FB PLUS FOG EFKE ET AL CONTRAST ISSUE

I was re reading Bernard Seuss' Creative Black and White, when to my surprise he demonstrated that red filter does indeed reduce contrast. See page 98 and 99 for the proof.

I always thought the opposite, but in the book he demonstrates the proof very convincingly

JeffD · Jan 19, 2006

herb said:
I was re reading Bernard Seuss' Creative Black and White, when to my surprise he demonstrated that red filter does indeed reduce contrast. See page 98 and 99 for the proof.

I always thought the opposite, but in the book he demonstrates the proof very convincingly

Don't all filters reduce contrast range? At least, to a limited degree?

Comparison of FB plus fog of Tmax 100 and Efke PL 100

Donald Miller

Silverpixels5

Neal

Donald Miller

Silverpixels5

Mark Layne

Donald Miller

roteague

Donald Miller

roteague

Mark Layne

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

fwp

chiller

Donald Miller

chiller

roteague

chiller

juan

avandesande

photobackpacker

Advertiser

roteague

herb

JeffD

Comparison of FB plus fog of Tmax 100 and Efke PL 100

Moderator

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency