efke/adox banding/defects

[Colin Graham]

Wow I've been pulling my hair out with pl100. I've tried everything, tray developing, tank, ema, semi-stand, and I'm still plagued by the banding. I've seen some threads about this in the past and wonder if anyone has discovered, if not a cure, then a workaround. Simple defects, like the odd density change in the upped right corner I can deal with but I cant print my way out of this banding. Would a non-staining developer make any difference? I've lost so many negatives to this I cant tell you; I hate to bash efke and have been reluctant to post this but I'm at wit's end. If it were every sheet I'd just trash the box but it's not, so it's especially frustrating. This example I shot a backup and both are banded. I'm down to seven sheets of TMY so this is my only film in quantity until the Ilford gets cut. Thanks for any help.

 

[epatsellis]

colin,
have you tried a straight developer, e.g. D76 or ID11? That would be the first thing I try.


erie

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Your example is a defect that plagues 2nd, 3rd tier manufacturers of film that use older coating lines that are very worn.

 

[Photo Engineer]

This defect is called 'coating chatter' and is caused by either uneven film speed during coating or uneven pump speed delivering the emulsion to the head depending on the coating method.

It can also be caused by a variation in air flowing across the film support still wet with emulsion and just beyond the coating head. This defect is less often seen though.

It creates a sine wave of emulsion with the frequency of the chatter causing a series of light and dark bands of emulsion in the final negative.

Ungood.

It cannot be solved in any way by development or agitation.

I posted a scan of a piece of raw film here on APUG to show the problem.

PE

 

[jim appleyard]

Try using Kodak's Plus-X or Ilford's FP-4. I think you'll find supurb quality control.

 

[Lee Shively]

I shot a couple rolls of Efke R25 120 a month or so ago. I really liked the rich tones but almost every negative had specks that came through as dust spots in the prints. A couple negative had clear areas. It took a lot of spotting to clean up the final prints.

I really wanted to like this film but I don't trust it. I still have a number of rolls but I will only use them when I can back shoot with Ilford PanF+. It's too bad because it's really a beautiful film if you can get around the lack of technical perfection and/or quality control.

 

[Colin Graham]

I really wanted to like this film but I don't trust it. I still have a number of rolls but I will only use them when I can back shoot with Ilford PanF+. It's too bad because it's really a beautiful film if you can get around the lack of technical perfection and/or quality control.

Truly. I love it, but cant trust it anymore. As I said, I have a bunch of fp4+ on order, but wanted to try and make do until it gets shipped. I guess I'll just shoot 4x5 until it gets here. Thanks all.

 

[User Removed]

I was having the exact same problem with developing that film in tubes, so I started doing trays and still have the problem.

I've always suggested Efke films to other photographer, but after this ruined tons of amazing photographs, and I see it's also having a negative effect on other photographer using the film also...I will no longer suggest this film to people, nor will I keep using it myself.

I've trying burning/dodging the lighter and darker bands....and that surly did not work. Basically, your image is trash now.

This problem has also come up with using JandC film with me, but not nearly as much as Efke. I'm going to start using Kodak now, since they seem to be the best about quality control.

 

[kjsphoto]

That is why I only use HP5+ period. Excellent quality control and no need to worry of losing a shot because of the manufacture.

 

[juan]

I've got it in the most recent boxes of 8x10 PL100. I've had the problem occasionally in the past, but it seems to be almost every sheet on my most recent purchases. I've tried minimal agitation tube developing with Pyrocat P and 510 Pyro, and brush development in trays with Pyrocat and PC-TEA - they all have the problem.

My only solution is to shoot subjects that contain varied pattern across the whole film and avoid open areas such as sky. If the subject is complex enough, you don't notice the banding.

I really liked that I could get PL 100 in all the film sizes I shoot. No other film that I'm aware of comes in 120, 2x3, 4x5 and 8x10. Despite the inconvenience, I'll have to switch to some other brands.
juan

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I notice that Foma makes sheet film. Perhaps an importer, such as Freestyle could persuade Foma to cut into ULF sizes? Does Foma have the same banding issues? Foma is already available in the USA in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 sizes.

 

[mikebarger]

Guess I'm in the same boat as several above, tried it and got tired of the problems. Back to Tri-x 400 in 120 and HP5 in 4x5.

Mike

 

[P C Headland]

I use Efke 25 and 100 in 120, 9x12cm and 4x5, and always in cameras older than myself.

Apart from emulsion damage when my "taco" band liberated itself from the film, or streaks from non-light tight film holders, I've not suffered any problems. I develop them in Rodinal 1+100 for 18-20 minutes with reduced agitation, or 1 hr stand at 1+100.

Perhaps there is a problem with a particular batch or run?

 

[Lee Shively]

Does Foma have the same problems as Efke?

I ask because I also have several rolls of Fomapan 100 in 120 size and I'm paranoid now as to whether or not I should back it up with FP4 or Plus-X when I try it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've shot a good amount of Foma in 5x7 and not had any banding problems. I've had the odd sheet which looks like it had some kind of coating defect, but because of the random nature of the defect, I can't say it wasn't something I caused (not cleaning/drying my Jobo drum well enough being the most likely culprit, second most likely being mis-handling the film while loading it in my film holders).

 

[Photo Engineer]

In the case of this type of defect, often the smaller the format the less evident the problem becomes. On 35mm, one frame may be light and the next one dark compared to each other, but you may not notice it unless the change in density starts in the middle of a frame. Chance will dictate this.

In addition, it is harder to detect on the small busy frame.

I could not say what companies have this problem nor will I say which one(s) I have tested for this defect. It would not be fair to the company or companies that produce such products as many they make are quite good and we don't know how widespread this fault is.

I would like to add that any company with just one machine making film and paper both will likely have the same problem with their paper.

PE

 

[jmailand]

Does Foma have the same problems as Efke?

I ask because I also have several rolls of Fomapan 100 in 120 size and I'm paranoid now as to whether or not I should back it up with FP4 or Plus-X when I try it.

I've had a few emulsion problems with both Forte and Foma in 120, but surprisingly not in in the 35mm I have used. I, probably like most people, bought the stuff because its sold so cheap by Freestyle & ect. I’ve just decided to use the film up in old classic and toy camera grab shots were possible emulsion defects add to the charm. But for anything serious I'm back to Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford. You get what you pay for as the saying goes.

James,

 

[Dave Krueger]

Trust...

As a few people posted above, it's all about trust.

I've recently tried some of the films made by less widely known companies including Adox PL100 4x5 and have not had any defects I can attribute to the film. But, I've certainly seen enough people post complaints about various manufacturers that I'm beginning to wonder why I should even try (or continue to use) their products. The fact that it only happens sometimes with some batches is no comfort. The occasional loss of a negative due to defects is too much to risk in the name of saving a few bucks (if there's any savings at all) on a cheaper film.

As much as I'd like to support smaller film companies (they may be all that's left someday), I'm slowly switching over to Ilford for as many products as I can find Ilford substitues for. I just don't hear many people compaining that they have batches of Ilford film with streaks, or pin holes, or separating emulsion, etc, etc. I think after many years of buying Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford products, I simply took it for granted that film was film and one roll would behave exactly (or very close to it) like the previous roll. If anything, I now have a new respect for the big names that gave us that kind of consistency.

I know this comment offers no help to those who depend on these companies for sheet sizes that the major suppliers don't readily produce, but it's been on my mind and needed an outlet.

 

[Colin Graham]

I began using efke because Ilford went in receivership and had already lost my beloved apx 100. I tried efke and happened to really, really like it. Cost is irrelevant. I didnt make a camera and film holders to shoot a format I really wanted to shoot just to save a couple of bucks on film. I'm irritated as hell with the defects, but get even more irritated when people assume I use efke because it's cheap. It's an outstanding emulsion, just happens to be dispensed on crappy equipment. Maybe they'll update their prodcution lines but I doubt it. So there goes another film. If it had the QC of Kodak or Ilford, I'd pay extra for it. Please dont assume people only use efke because it's cheap.

 

[PaulH]

You have until March 1 to get in on the Ilford special film order.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[jim appleyard]

. Please dont assume people only use efke because it's cheap.

Not at all! I think most people assume that others use Efke, or another brand, because it has a different look to it. I posted earlier about using Kodak or Ilford because of QC, but so far, I like what Efke 25 has given me. I've only done 2 rolls and I'm still nailing down my times, but it does look good. However, possiblity of a defect lurks in the back of my mind.

 

[Dave Krueger]

Please dont assume people only use efke because it's cheap.

No, I assume they use it because the defects add a unique character to their images...

I've seen people post about cost being a factor for their using it. If I weren't such a lazy bastard, I'd search for some of them. Sorry if my post implied that the only reason anyone would use those films is because of the cost and I certainly wasn't specifically singling you out. I actually thought that at least some people used it because it was one of the few companies to supply films in uncommon sizes. Some may use it to support smaller producers (which was one of my motives for trying it). In fact, didn't my post suggest those motives?

-Dave

 

[jim appleyard]

Actually, Freestyle's price for Efke 25 in the 120 size is $2.99. For 100' of 35mm the price is $36.99. I wouldn't call these cheap prices.

 

[jhorvat]

I didn't have any problems with Efke 25 in 4x5 size , developed in Rodinal 1+100 and in Perceptol 1+3.... is it possible only some batches have this problem? In that case, testing 1 sheet from the batch would do the trick. If it is faulty, it should be replaced, shouldn't it?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use Efke PL100, because I like the way it looks. I haven't had the banding problem, but maybe I've been lucky.