Efke 25 or Ilford Fp4+ in 9x12 for 40x50cm enlargement?

[JPD]

I'm planning to take landscape photos and group portraits using 9x12 film (almost the same as 4x5") and maybe make a 30x40 cm (12x16") or a 40x50 (16x20") enlargement to frame. I have a fresh box of Fp4+ and hermetically sealed Efke PL25 in the freezer. Which film would you have used?

Fp4+ is a high quality film with probably no defects. The Efke 25 may have small defects, but the enlargements would be grain free. Even with large format like 9x12 the Fp4+ grain might start to show if enlarged this much? Grain is not a defect, but then I could as well use a 6x9 camera with Pan F+ or APX 25 (that I also have a stash of).

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I would probably just choose by “look” or tonality. 3.5x enlargement is not so substantial that a slow speed film will show itself to be remarkably improved over a medium speed film. Sniffing the print, I see HP5 grain at that degree of enlargement, but not so much with FP4. The exception might be if you anticipate very large smooth areas of mid tone, like walls, sky or very out of focus backgrounds. If these are likely scenarios, it may be worth testing to see what enlargement ratio you can tolerate. The format in these tests wouldn’t matter, just match the enlargement ratio. For me, I saw that my 6x7cm negs topped out at 8x10, so I finally got an 8x10 camera to make satisfactory (to me) prints up to 24x30 or 30x40.

Also, at a point, slow films can actually make things softer by either opening the lens out of its ideal working stop or forcing exposures long enough to render blur in blowing leaves, hair, grass, clouds, the camera, etc. A portrait sitter may drift slightly, blink, etc. This gets compounded when the slower film pushes exposure times into reciprocity failure (or deeper into r.f.) and the exposure time difference can go from 4x over to 8x or more.

As an FP4 user who these days strives for great sharpness, I limit enlargement to 4x and ideally 3x. But I like unusually smooth and sharp prints. If your capturing and developing technique is strong (critical in large format), I think FP4 will deliver, unless you subjectively prefer the Efke 25 look.

Jarin

 

[Ian Grant]

Either film, I use both in 5x4.

Ian

 

[trendland]

I'm planning to take landscape photos and group portraits using 9x12 film (almost the same as 4x5") and maybe make a 30x40 cm (12x16") or a 40x50 (16x20") enlargement to frame. I have a fresh box of Fp4+ and hermetically sealed Efke PL25 in the freezer. Which film would you have used?

Fp4+ is a high quality film with probably no defects. The Efke 25 may have small defects, but the enlargements would be grain free. Even with large format like 9x12 the Fp4+ grain might start to show if enlarged this much? Grain is not a defect, but then I could as well use a 6x9 camera with Pan F+ or APX 25 (that I also have a stash of).

WHAT A QUESTION!

My answer : Friend - you have NO idea what you are playing with, you (obviously) have no idea what "resolution" is ?
So what do you need ? An enshurance against "grain" ?
There is Loyds London - be sure if you will call them - they think about you!
(they manage all kind of enshurances afaik)!
And don't get nervious - they will enshure your case - the police of Loyd's would also be not very expensive!

Seriously (from point to point) :

To me enlargements from 35mm in 30 x 40 are still OK! And I mean with color film !
Coming to the double : 40 x 60 thats the last border for tolerance (with color film) !

But this is not so with bw enlagements (special films - no Hp5 a.s.o.)

there the double is a normal border - so we have 60 x 80

[ one of my first enlagement I made in bw was in 100 x 140 (all in cm oft course)...]

This was from Ilford XP1 (c41 / bw film ) at 400 - 800 ASA!

Let me state T H E N you have grain (Loyd's London will NOT ensure that case)

But coming to format : 4,5 x 6 has around 2,9 x the squere of 35 mm!

That should be OK to your 30 x 40 enlargement with normal bw film!

But of course such statements like "should be OK" are relative - what is your intention ?

Perhaps you want to have a look from the absence of A N Y visiblle grain ? - OK.,...?

So it has to be like a 9 x 13 / 10 x 15 print from Tmax100 - because there is indeed no grain
(also from inspection with a loupe - hart to identificate grain from this smallest formats)
13 x 18 is also without visible grain - OK!
We should double it to come quite near to 20 x 30 ( it is more necessary to double - right but never mind I am real lousy in maths and I don't want to need a calculator for the next steps)

Let us have the idea of a "near double" at 20 x 30 then you will be much good with 4,5 x 6!
(remember the squere) And with 6 x 9 there is the next format avaible to you :30 x 40 aha I soon
understand - you will indeed not want to see the smallest grain - hmm crazy !
Otherwise Loyd London has to pay the sum of 1.000.000 because you have an ensurance-police for that case!
Ensure friend - there is no grain ! There is no grain with Tmaxx 100!
What you are shooting (Fp4 / efke 25)! In 9x12 !
Well that should be good for a double of your format : 40 x 60 without the smallest grain
- I swear - just belive me!

What you can make with your Fp4 - it is a film not from finest grain?
I would recomand a box speed ISO 50 and development with Perceptol!
The same I would use with your efke 25 !! Yes realy (this is no joke)!
So you come with efke at box speed 12 to the next format : 60 x 80 - without visible grain! Try perceptol and have a look what will happen to grain of ISO25 films!

Coming to tonals - of course tonals will suffer from that pull! But not extreme!
And - hope I understand you correct : Your concern is just in regard to grain / format not so much
in general?

So what I would recomand : Fp4 or efke25 use both films and compare = both are best to 9x12!

with regards

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm planning to take landscape photos and group portraits using 9x12 film (almost the same as 4x5") and maybe make a 30x40 cm (12x16") or a 40x50 (16x20") enlargement to frame. I have a fresh box of Fp4+ and hermetically sealed Efke PL25 in the freezer. Which film would you have used?

Fp4+ is a high quality film with probably no defects. The Efke 25 may have small defects, but the enlargements would be grain free. Even with large format like 9x12 the Fp4+ grain might start to show if enlarged this much? Grain is not a defect, but then I could as well use a 6x9 camera with Pan F+ or APX 25 (that I also have a stash of).

I'd choose FP4 just because of my high=quality perception of Ilford films over the less experienced Efke.

 

[trendland]

I'm planning to take landscape photos and group portraits using 9x12 film (almost the same as 4x5") and maybe make a 30x40 cm (12x16") or a 40x50 (16x20") enlargement to frame. I have a fresh box of Fp4+ and hermetically sealed Efke PL25 in the freezer. Which film would you have used?

Fp4+ is a high quality film with probably no defects. The Efke 25 may have small defects, but the enlargements would be grain free. Even with large format like 9x12 the Fp4+ grain might start to show if enlarged this much? Grain is not a defect, but then I could as well use a 6x9 camera with Pan F+ or APX 25 (that I also have a stash of).

Sorry to Sweeden!

I mixed you with a "Newbee" who is not knowing about! Later I noticed - your format is also
40 x 50 - well that could be a hard job for the Fp4 ?
But if you expose it much and develope short (that is with perceptol as you might know)
it should work!
The film I would prefer for max quality in the format is Delta100/ISO 50 / Tmax100/ISO50!
with regards

But then we are talking about 50 x 70 / 60 x 80

with regards

 

[Nokton48]

4x5 FP4+ will deliver a really good 16x20 in my experience. Not so familar with sheet Efke 25 but I have a lot of it in my freezer. Why not test each one, and see what you prefer? You could make 8x10 prints from part of the negs (center or edges), and compare them side by side. Then you will know.

 

[Paul Howell]

FP4 developed in D76 or other standard developer will not show much in the way of grain at that magnification. I think the difference will in the tones, as I recall EK 25 is not a true pan chromic film and has limited latitude or dynamic range due to higher contrast. I would think about FP4 for land scrapes and maybe the EK 25 for portraits. On the other hand if you shooting landscapes on a dull overcast day EK 25 might work out really well.

 

[trendland]

I'm planning to take landscape photos and group portraits using 9x12 film (almost the same as 4x5") and maybe make a 30x40 cm (12x16") or a 40x50 (16x20") enlargement to frame. I have a fresh box of Fp4+ and hermetically sealed Efke PL25 in the freezer. Which film would you have used?

Fp4+ is a high quality film with probably no defects. The Efke 25 may have small defects, but the enlargements would be grain free. Even with large format like 9x12 the Fp4+ grain might start to show if enlarged this much? Grain is not a defect, but then I could as well use a 6x9 camera with Pan F+ or APX 25 (that I also have a stash of).

Yeah better to read a tread complete before answer (for avoid missunderstandings)

Indeed if you have 6 x 9 with APX 25 and...PanF it comes to the same from my experience!

The Fp4 has much sharpness and you simply can create edge effects from it what is not so much
the issue with PanF.
But Agfa 25 should be superior from resolution/smallest grain in 6x9 compared to FP4 at 9x12!
And to "tune" the Fp4 in the descibed manner is also possible with the APX 25!
If it would go about PanF 6x9 vs FP4 9x12 - well I have some doubts that PanF's grain is the half of FP4's grain? Fp4 is sharper/nice tonals a good "allroud film" hmm I would state the PanF isn't able from the less format to be as good or better!
And the efke possible will not work like original characteristics? Expiration date long time ago?

Because otherwise there is no question about - then of course the effke25 in 9x12 is the best film
in concern of resolution in concern of smallest grain and the tonals of a brand New efke 25
(it is discontinued right) are not "worste" !

with regards

 

[trendland]

FP4 developed in D76 or other standard developer will not show much in the way of grain at that magnification. I think the difference will in the tones, as I recall EK 25 is not a true pan chromic film and has limited latitude or dynamic range due to higher contrast. I would think about FP4 for land scrapes and maybe the EK 25 for portraits. On the other hand if you shooting landscapes on a dull overcast day EK 25 might work out really well.

Paul btw I am not up to date : is the efke 25 still avaible?
Or does the distributor meanwhile change its Name?

with regards

 

[JPD]

Interesting thoughts. I have been trying to remember my previous experiences with these films. Fp4 shot with a Rolleiflex 6x6 and developed in D-76 1+1 looked good when enlarged to 18x24 cm (4x), and the grain just started to become visible at that size. Efke 50 in D-76 1+1 was grainless enlarged to 24x30 cm (5x). Efke 25 in 6x6 has less grain than the 50 version and should look fine at a 6x enlargement, about 30x40 cm. Cropped, of course.

Fp4 9x12 would be fine for 30x40 cm.
Efke 25 9x12 could give a similar result for 50x70 cm.

I like the looks of both films and I have twelve film holders, so I can load them with six of each.

 

[Nokton48]

Good plan!

 

[JPD]

But Agfa 25 should be superior from resolution/smallest grain in 6x9 compared to FP4 at 9x12!
And to "tune" the Fp4 in the descibed manner is also possible with the APX 25!

APX 25, exposed at 12 ASA and developed in Rodinal is fantastic. It's an option!

And the efke possible will not work like original characteristics? Expiration date long time ago?

It's been hermatically sealed and frozen since I bought it, and from one of the last batches before Fotokemika stopped their production.

 

[Nokton48]

I have about 500 6.5x9cm sheets of Efke 25 deep frozen, also bought as the film was heavily discounted and being discontinued. So I will follow this thread with great interest. 6.5x9cm is not easy to find in the USA. Have some in 9x12 also

Best of Luck with your project!

 

[JPD]

Searching for scans of these films was a bad idea. Scanning can magnify the grain in a terrible way. Grain aliasing.

I would probably just choose by “look” or tonality. 3.5x enlargement is not so substantial that a slow speed film will show itself to be remarkably improved over a medium speed film. Sniffing the print, I see HP5 grain at that degree of enlargement, but not so much with FP4. The exception might be if you anticipate very large smooth areas of mid tone, like walls, sky or very out of focus backgrounds. If these are likely scenarios, it may be worth testing to see what enlargement ratio you can tolerate. The format in these tests wouldn’t matter, just match the enlargement ratio. For me, I saw that my 6x7cm negs topped out at 8x10, so I finally got an 8x10 camera to make satisfactory (to me) prints up to 24x30 or 30x40.

Also, at a point, slow films can actually make things softer by either opening the lens out of its ideal working stop or forcing exposures long enough to render blur in blowing leaves, hair, grass, clouds, the camera, etc. A portrait sitter may drift slightly, blink, etc. This gets compounded when the slower film pushes exposure times into reciprocity failure (or deeper into r.f.) and the exposure time difference can go from 4x over to 8x or more.

As an FP4 user who these days strives for great sharpness, I limit enlargement to 4x and ideally 3x. But I like unusually smooth and sharp prints. If your capturing and developing technique is strong (critical in large format), I think FP4 will deliver, unless you subjectively prefer the Efke 25 look.

Jarin

I "sniff" my prints, so I have never agreed with the talk about the "optimal viewing distance". One of the photos I have in mind is a portrait at the corner of an old brick building, and I want the person plus the brick wall next to him to be in focus, and a shallow depth of field. The less grain the better. I will probably use an old dialyte or maybe the Rietzschel Linear (eight element "improved" Dagor), stopped down just enough.

FP4 developed in D76 or other standard developer will not show much in the way of grain at that magnification. I think the difference will in the tones, as I recall EK 25 is not a true pan chromic film and has limited latitude or dynamic range due to higher contrast. I would think about FP4 for land scrapes and maybe the EK 25 for portraits. On the other hand if you shooting landscapes on a dull overcast day EK 25 might work out really well.

Good points. It's difficult to get nice skies with Efke 25, even with a yellow filter.

 

[JPD]

I have about 500 6.5x9cm sheets of Efke 25 deep frozen, also bought as the film was heavily discounted and being discontinued. So I will follow this thread with great interest. 6.5x9cm is not easy to find in the USA. Have some in 9x12 also

Best of Luck with your project!

Thanks! Fotoimpex have Adox CHS 100 II 6,5x9 in stock. The grain is finer than the old Efke 100/CHS 100 and it's orthopanchromatic, so it's similar to Efke 50. I would expose it at 50 ASA too for more normal shadow details when developed in D-76 1+1 or similar.

 

[Nokton48]

Yes! I buy from Photoimpex. I have 2.25x3.25 inch Adox CHS 100 also in the freezer. Looking forward to trying it. Good to know it's now also in 6.5x9cm

I also stocked up on the 6.5x9cm Efke PL100. One of my fave films..............

 

[trendland]

APX 25, exposed at 12 ASA and developed in Rodinal is fantastic. It's an option!



It's been hermatically sealed and frozen since I bought it, and from one of the last batches before Fotokemika stopped their production.

You are wellcome - not many film shooters have such extreme intentions in regards of bigger enlargements that they use sheed films for 30x40cm (including myself)

But "compliments" for that intention and "Bon Chance"

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any of the listed films will handle that degree of enlargement well. But Efke had a lot of quality control issues, which is why I gave up on it. FP4 is a highly predictable film. If you resort to roll film, you might still be able to get ACROS 120, which has finer grain than FP4, but with similar exposure and contrast characteristics, just a differing type of pan sensitivity. Pan F is slow and best for low contrast work (handles high contrast poorly due to the very pronounced S-curve); Agfapan somewhere intermediate - I never found it as versatile as FP4 or ACROS. Kodak TMax films are wonderful if you understand them, but require more careful exposure and development than the others, so might not be for everybody. They're the high-performance films of the class, so you need to know where the brakes are. So I'd probably recommend FP4 as the most cooperative option to begin with.

 

[Ian Grant]

Any of the listed films will handle that degree of enlargement well. But Efke had a lot of quality control issues, which is why I gave up on it.

Some of the quality issues related to the period where Agfa had just stopped making film and paper. Kodak dropped B&W papers, Ilford were restructuring. At that point J&C in the US were taking everything they could from EFKE regardless of the quality. I've used EFKE films from the 1970's up until they ceased manufacture and never saw a quality issue or defect. I still have a few boxes of PL25.

That was also the time when J&C were selling incorrectly cut Chinese sheet film, they'd ordered it cut to 5x4. 7x5 and 10x8 exactly, but that's the old plate and paper sizes, it's nominal for sheet film the ISO size is slightly smaller because it originally had to fit plate holders with film sheath inserts. Ilford made this same mistake when first trialling Harman Direct Positive paper.

When I first used EFKE films the hardening was poor so you needed to take extra precautions, I added hardener to the developer or used a hardening stop-bath, but EFKE had improved the hardening by the late 1980's although it's still softer than other manufacturers films.

Ian

 

[Kodachromeguy]

It's been hermatically sealed and frozen since I bought it, and from one of the last batches before Fotokemika stopped their production.

I wish I had bought plenty, as well. Sigh, another product that was discontinued while I was not paying attention. (But I was smart once; I still have 120 Panatomic-X film in the freezer.)