efke/adox banding/defects

[Photo Engineer]

David, you have pointed out the reason that I would hesitate to condemn any producer or product. Some companies have a glitch from time to time.

We really don't know what caused this defect, how frequent it is or how many products or coatings are involved.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

This is true. Polaroid has had some notorious glitches from time to time--large wedge shaped areas on the film that don't print or spots of uncoated emulsion--and it's maddening when it happens and you are trying to get something and going through film at a few bucks a sheet. They've been to bankruptcy and back, too, but Polaroid's customer service is excellent, and they'll always give you the benefit of the doubt and send a voucher for new film, and somehow we don't get these rants about how people are giving up on Polaroid.

 

[Dave Krueger]

David, you have pointed out the reason that I would hesitate to condemn any producer or product. Some companies have a glitch from time to time.

We really don't know what caused this defect, how frequent it is or how many products or coatings are involved.

PE

Posts about problems with Adox/Efke don't seem to be that rare and defects are a problem whether the cause is known or not. J and C says on their website that Adox film gets special treatment to make sure it's cut right, packaged and labeled correctly, free from streaks, and meets speed and density specs. They don't make that kind of statement about Ilford. I suspect that they do that because Efke/Adox has established a history of defects and inconsistency.

One could say I'm condemning them, but I think I'm only pointing out the obvious.

-Dave

 

[mikebarger]

Concerning polaroid products, I suspect a larger percentage of Efke users are looking for a finished product. "Most" of the people I know, and it is a small circle, are only using polaroid for testing.

Problems with a test print aren't generally as much of a problem as having a glitch with your negative.

I've shot one box of Efke 4x5 and had a coating problem. I have used many, many HP5 and Tri-x products through the years without a single glitch.

Anyway, different strokes for....

Mike

 

[Colin Graham]

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

Dave, I certainly didn't mean to single your post or anyone else's out. I've had a very wasteful few months and wasn't in the mood for the thread to take a 'you get what you pay for/serves you right for using cheap film' bent. More prevention than anything.

 

[dr5chrome]

We get all the films in for processing. This defect we see in all the films.

I will not list in the order of the amount of defects we see per manufacture. However, I can tell you that Efke films are not on the top of the list. No film manufacture can be perfect all of the time. it's the nature of the beast.

I knew this was a manufacture defect, but I didn't know what exactly caused it. We learn something new everyday from PE, don't we..

dw

www.dr5.com

 

[Dave Krueger]

Concerning polaroid products, I suspect a larger percentage of Efke users are looking for a finished product. "Most" of the people I know, and it is a small circle, are only using polaroid for testing.

Problems with a test print aren't generally as much of a problem as having a glitch with your negative.

I've shot one box of Efke 4x5 and had a coating problem. I have used many, many HP5 and Tri-x products through the years without a single glitch.

Anyway, different strokes for....

Mike

Even people who use Polaroid as a final product still get to see the results immediately (in time to reshoot).

So far the one box of Efke that I have has been fine, but the sheer number of complaints is cause for concern. Add to that the fact that the film reportedly has terrible reciprocity characteristics and short shelf life and it starts losing it's appeal.

I'm sure every manufacturer has occasional problems, but I don't see retailers running special quality control verification tests on those other manufacturers. And, like you, I've shot A LOT of other films without any noticable problems. When I go out on a road trip with the 4x5, I do everything in my power to reduce the likelihood of failure. That includes carrying film that I have confidence in.

 

[Dave Krueger]

I will not list in the order of the amount of defects we see per manufacture. However, I can tell you that Efke films are not on the top of the list.

The idea that there are films of even poorer quality doesn't do much to build confidence in Efke.

 

[avandesande]

I am considering having freestyle set aside a bunch of boxes from a lot and testing a couple boxes. Seems like buying in bulk is the thing to do now anyway.
I have never liked the look of ilford films or I would use them.

 

[Photo Engineer]

We get all the films in for processing. This defect we see in all the films.

I will not list in the order of the amount of defects we see per manufacture. However, I can tell you that Efke films are not on the top of the list. No film manufacture can be perfect all of the time. it's the nature of the beast.

I knew this was a manufacture defect, but I didn't know what exactly caused it. We learn something new everyday from PE, don't we..

dw

www.dr5.com

I would disagree that this problem is seen in other films.

I have coated from 4" through 10" to 21" and then 42" on Kodak machines and have only seen this defect one or two times on the 4" and 21" machines used for pilot materials, and then only due to problems with the formulation which leads to pump surging through viscosity problems.

At Kodak, it has been my experience that this is only a problem during the pilot development cycle as the formula is tuned prior to full scale manufacture.

It is avoided in production by just this pilot procedure.

Ever square centimeter of Kodak film and paper is inspected by scanners which detect such sine wave patterns and the product that has them is scrapped. The same is true of missing emulsion, streaks and other things such as hair, dust, lint and an insect or two. Defects happen, but 100% scanning eliminates the problems.

I think that only Agfa, Ilford, Kodak and Fuji do this type of QC.

Just to continue this line of thought. Kodak equipment constructs a defect map of a master roll and then a computer program calculates the optimum cutting pattern to yield defect free product from the master roll. Therefore, assuming a streak 1000' from the end of a master roll, and 3" long, the cutting program programs the computerized slitter and chopper to avoid that spot and to make the right decisions on how many rolls of what film to make of that particular master roll.

The equipment has elaborate safeguides to prevent fluctuations in film speed during coating as well as pump speed to prevent sine waves. Elaborate filtration and degassing equipment prevents bubbles and streaks and clean room procedures with white smocks, gloves, foot coverings and hats are used to eliminate dandruff, lint and other particulate matter.

Again, how many companies do this? The answer again is Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and Agfa. There may be others of course that do some of this or even all of this. These are the ones I know of.

I would like to add that this type of defect, the sine wave pattern, can be introduced by continuous machine processing. Roller transport machines with a jerky motion can cause much the same thing.

PE

 

[RobertP]

PE, I've seen another photographers 12x20 tmax 400 negatives that have almost the identical banding that is shown here. Now I have no idea what caused it but I did witness it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If that is so, there are two possible sources.

1. The manufacturer. If that is the case, return the film as defective product, in this case Kodak.

2. The process.

The only way to determine which is to remove an unexposed sheet and observe it on a uniform light table. The defect will be obvious in raw stock if it was done by the manufacturer. If it is not there, it was done in the processing step.

This can result in a jerky drum process without prewet and with rapid development, and it can also take place if no stop bath is used.

It is not usually seen in dip and dunk. At least, I have never seen it.

I have seen it in 9" aerial film procssed in the big HF processor. Also in the wind tank processor. These cases were both due to jerky processing agitation.

In the case of process induced banding, it will almost always be at right angles to the direction of processing.

If you give the film a uniform exposure and plot the density from either, it will be a sine wave with the frequency of the machine oscillation whether it is from coating or processing. This is one way to determine the problem in manufacturing.

PE

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

ADOX or efke ?

Could the above posters please indicate if they were using ADOX or efke film and if ADOX when it was purchased and which emulsion number it carries ?

We had these issues before branding it ADOX and tightening quality control about one and a half years ago. Therefore we are very interested in this information.

It can be of great help.

Regards,

Mirko

 

[RobertP]

If that is so, there are two possible sources.

1. The manufacturer. If that is the case, return the film as defective product, in this case Kodak.

2. The process.

The only way to determine which is to remove an unexposed sheet and observe it on a uniform light table. The defect will be obvious in raw stock if it was done by the manufacturer. If it is not there, it was done in the processing step.

This can result in a jerky drum process without prewet and with rapid development, and it can also take place if no stop bath is used.

It is not usually seen in dip and dunk. At least, I have never seen it.

I have seen it in 9" aerial film procssed in the big HF processor. Also in the wind tank processor. These cases were both due to jerky processing agitation.

In the case of process induced banding, it will almost always be at right angles to the direction of processing.

If you give the film a uniform exposure and plot the density from either, it will be a sine wave with the frequency of the machine oscillation whether it is from coating or processing. This is one way to determine the problem in manufacturing.

PE

PE, Although I don't feel comfortable speaking about someone elses work or methods I can attest to the fact that the film was tray processed using the shuffle method. If these thing apply to tmax 400 film couldn't the same thing apply to the Efke film, being how Efke is so finicky and delicate to handle? Would you recommend trying another development technique? (provided the banding is consistent with being at right angles)Also Adox/Efke emphasizes not to overrate this film. Do you think that by rating Pl100 at 100 instead of 50 (as many of us do) and extending the development time would have any effect on the banding? It really is a beautiful film and it would be a shame to give up on it especially if it is something in the processing that could solve the problem. But it sounds like it has been processed every way possible with the same results. I think the best we can hope for is the vendors are making them aware of this and maybe a little equipment maintenance and QC can solve the problem. I order the film in ULF sizes 5-10 boxes at a time so I wouldn't hesitate to return the lot and wait on the next coating run or a refund.

 

[RobertP]

Could the above posters please indicate if they were using ADOX or efke film and if ADOX when it was purchased and which emulsion number it carries ?

We had these issues before branding it ADOX and tightening quality control about one and a half years ago. Therefore we are very interested in this information.

It can be of great help.

Regards,

Mirko

Thanks Mirko

 

[dr5chrome]

PE;

we see this problem least in Kodak films, yes, but we have seen it. never that i can recall in the roll films. i can send you a sample if you'd like. Kodak B&W films also carry defects other films do not.

we have seen this banding problem in Ilford films more than in Efke films, mostly in the 120 formats, very rarely in the large format films. Ilford does not reply to our inquires and has never replied regardless of the concern. Ilford film is our highest volume film. ironically, the film with the least problems is HP5, which is right up there as one of the best B&W films made, in our opinion.

we have never seen this problem in the FOMA films, yet.

we have seen this in all the rollei films, EXCEPT the rollei Ir-400

EFKE films are our 2nd highest volume film. Yes, we see these defects, but not often. we also see an occasional spotting. Robert; EFKE films have a long stable life. Efke film has a longer shelf life than Kodak B&W film. the reciprocity failure is also fairly wide. It also has a very wide EI.

these are our experiences @ 30-50 rolls a day on average.

dw
www.dr5.com

 

[RobertP]

PE;

we see this problem least in Kodak films, yes, but we have seen it. never that i can recall in the roll films. i can send you a sample if you'd like. Kodak B&W films also carry defects other films do not.

we have seen this banding problem in Ilford films more than in Efke films, mostly in the 120 formats, very rarely in the large format films. Ilford does not reply to our inquires and has never replied regardless of the concern. Ilford film is our highest volume film. the film with the least problems is HP5, which is right up there as one of the best B&W films made.

we have never seen this problem in the FOMA films, yet.

we have seen this in all the rollei films, EXCEPT the rollei Ir-400

EFKE films are our 2nd highest volume film. Yes we see the defect, but not often. we also see an occasional spotting. Robert; EFKE films have a long stable life. Efke film has a longer shelf life than Kodak B&W film. the reciprocity failure is also fairly wide. It also has a very wide EI.

these are our experiences @ 30-50 rolls a day on average.

dw
www.dr5.com

dw, It is good to hear the Efke/Adox film has a good shelf life. I try to keep a 4 year supply frozen and order and rotate the stock as it is used. That way if anything should happen (God forbid) I know I'll at least be able to shoot it for 4 more years. I've never experienced the banding with it then again I haven't been shooting a lot of open sky areas either where it seems to show up the most. I chose to stockpile the pl100 and pl50 not only because I like it but it seems that the slower speed films develope fog slower than the faster speed films. I have experienced that rare spot every now and then but it is not something that would deter me from using it. But I will take a sheet and expose a horizon shot when I receive new batches from now on just to check.

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE, Although I don't feel comfortable speaking about someone elses work or methods I can attest to the fact that the film was tray processed using the shuffle method. If these thing apply to tmax 400 film couldn't the same thing apply to the Efke film, being how Efke is so finicky and delicate to handle? Would you recommend trying another development technique? (provided the banding is consistent with being at right angles)Also Adox/Efke emphasizes not to overrate this film. Do you think that by rating Pl100 at 100 instead of 50 (as many of us do) and extending the development time would have any effect on the banding? It really is a beautiful film and it would be a shame to give up on it especially if it is something in the processing that could solve the problem. But it sounds like it has been processed every way possible with the same results. I think the best we can hope for is the vendors are making them aware of this and maybe a little equipment maintenance and QC can solve the problem. I order the film in ULF sizes 5-10 boxes at a time so I wouldn't hesitate to return the lot and wait on the next coating run or a refund.

I would discuss this with Kodak.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

After reading all of this, I conclude that there is either a processing problem if roller transport, or a manufacturing problem. I cannot tell which. I cannot help.

Take this up with your processing plant or manufacturer.

PE

 

[Lee Shively]

I don't think this has to do with a specific batch or lot number of Efke film. I tried Efke 25 not because of the price but because I had read good stuff about its old time look on forums both here and on photo net. These same threads also mentioned that there were serious problems with the film's technical quality but mostly dismissed the problem due to the aforementioned occasional bad batch. Unfortunately, if you search those posts, the same complaint has shown up in threads for several years which indicates to me that it's more than an occasional bad batch. The fact that the first two rolls of Efke that I shot had defects also tends to confirm this. In nearly 35 years of shooting film--a lot of film--I've not had that happen before.

 

[dr5chrome]

..would be happy to send you samples of this problem out of our collection.
no roller transport here....

dw

After reading all of this, I conclude that there is either a processing problem if roller transport, or a manufacturing problem. I cannot tell which. I cannot help.

Take this up with your processing plant or manufacturer.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I cannot do anything about these even if sent samples. I would discuss this problem with your customers or with Kodak.

This is (was) a very very unusual and very rare problem with Kodak, but I think that they might tell you that in the case of reversal processing this was not intended or recommended for Kodak film.

I would suggest negative and postive processes be run on separate samples to insure that it could be seen on both to prevent such a response, and to insure that there could not be such a response concerning it being a fault of the process.

That is a copout to be sure, but that would probably be the result.

PE

 

[Colin Graham]

Could the above posters please indicate if they were using ADOX or efke film and if ADOX when it was purchased and which emulsion number it carries ?

We had these issues before branding it ADOX and tightening quality control about one and a half years ago. Therefore we are very interested in this information.

It can be of great help.

Regards,

Mirko

Mirko, FWIW my problem boxes are 5x12 50 sheet labelled Efke; Em 510617 / Exp 2009 01. They were bought from J&C last fall.

 

[dr5chrome]

..im not sure if am reading that correctly. Is that a personal attack? Are you saying I am making this up?

of coarse these lines show in NEG or POSITIVE form. I develop NEGS too Ron.

I was Just giving you my experiences. Take it or leave it. Do not turn a helpful situation into a negative one..

dw

I cannot do anything about these even if sent samples. I would discuss this problem with your customers or with Kodak.

This is (was) a very very unusual and very rare problem with Kodak, but I think that they might tell you that in the case of reversal processing this was not intended or recommended for Kodak film.

I would suggest negative and postive processes be run on separate samples to insure that it could be seen on both to prevent such a response, and to insure that there could not be such a response concerning it being a fault of the process.

That is a copout to be sure, but that would probably be the result.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

This was no attack whatsoever.

It was merely what I believe Kodak would respond with.

Your reversal process is what they would term a non-standard, proprietary process and that Kodak took no responsibility for the results. Therefore, if it were to be shown in a standard process where there could be no quibbling, you would have the weight of evidence on your side.

That is all.

PE