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
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
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
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.
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
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.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
Thanks MirkoCould 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
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.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
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.
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
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
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?