EFKE R25 Spectral Sensitivity & Red Filter

I agree. But while there is a lot of overall contrast, the local contrast in the 2 main areas (sky and foreground) isn't that great. I was hoping or more density in the sagebrush patches in the one on the far left and far right. When I looked thru the red filter they really popped out but don't show up with a whole lot of extra density in the negatives. I am pleased with the amount of detail in the foreground. With all this talk about this film, I was worried that the foreground would be almost blank. The one in the middle is especially pleasing with all the detail in the trees and rocks on the left! The real negative is really great in this area - I'm looking forward to printing that one.

I'll be sure to post more negatives and prints as I move along. The weekend is coming up and I'm sure I'll get a lot done, perhaps even all the remaining negatives. (It sure helps to have a motor drive on the 5x7 and 8x10).

-Mike

Preliminary results are in and it looks like a photo (get it?) finish between the EFKE 25 and TMAX 100 as far as the effects of the #25 red filter. I gave both the same extra exposure (3 stop more than indicated). The TMAX negs are in the washer now and I'm running another 6 thru the JOBO as I write. I'm processing the TMAX negs in Rodinal, too, as I screwed up the first batch in the Pyrocat-HD. (it was either the developer, the developee or the wine - at least I don't recall dumping Zinfadel into the JOBO).

I'll take some more blurry pictures of the TMAX negatives when they're dry and post them.

Then, we can all break open a bottle of wine and have a judging party, ok?

Love and Kisses,
-Mike

BTW, I am drinking wine, eating fine smoked oysters and listening to the great Renee Olstead as I process film. How good can a low-carb lifestyle be, huh?

OK, all the 5x7's are done! Thank goodness for JOBO. On to the 8x10's - I have no idea how many of those I have to do, but it's not as many as the 5x7's. At any rate, all I need are the 5x7's to compare per the topic of this thread. The negs will dry overnite and I'll post some pics of them tomorrow. I know you are all breathless with anticipation.

Got some 8x10's done. It was AGFA APX 100 film, dated 01/97! No fog - they look awesome. They will make lovely contact prints, I do believe. Developing them in Rodinal 1:50 for 13 minutes and the highlight densities look right on the money. Lots of detail in the shadows, too. Should be done with all negatives later today.

-Mike

Well, the washer is full of film and it's hissing away. I've had 1.5 bottles of wine, 3 tins of smoked oysters, listened to: Renee Olstead, Heart, Led Zeppelin, Sissel Kyrkjebo, Tony Bennett & k.d. lang, Cyndi Lauper and Matt Dusk. All that and I've barely used any Rodinal concentrate. That would be 10 8x10's and probably 30 5x7's processed tonight - Rodinal is amazing. I am it's slave. Next, PhotoFlo hang 'em up and hit the sack.

I'll post the 5x7 TMAX negs to compare to the EFKE ones as soon as I can for those interested.

'Nite, Mike.
'Nite, John Boy!

mikewhi said:

What is KB14? I don't recognize that as a brand..

Thanks.

-Mike

Click to expand...

KB14 is an old Elfe 20 ASA (yep that old) Film. There's a (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

KB17, R17

Bear in mind AA made 'Moon and Halfdome' on R17

OK, here are some comparisons. Same scenes shot moments apart with EFKE 25 and TMAX 100. Both rated at mfgr. ASA ratings. Both taken with the same camera\lens. I used a Red #25 filter and gave +3 stops more exposure than indicated by a Pentax 1Deg. Digital spotmeter modified by Zone VI and approved by me, Mike. I metered the foreground, placed the dark areas on Zone III (for non-zoners, I metered the shadows and closed down 2 stops from what the meter said then opened up 3 stop for the filter factor). Bother were processed for 'normal' development times. Unfortunately, I didn't do my own testing\calibration on these films so I used published figures. I developed in Rodinal 1:50.

At any rate, the shadow is what's important in this comparison (at least the comparative density in what should be the thin areas).

I wold be interested to hear comments on the results.
The results are not as close as I thought at first. I'ts pretty clear that the EFKE shadows have much more detail than the TMAX, resulting from more exposure. It would seem that this film actually requires a smaller filter factor than the TMAX film does - or I'm rating it too low. Looking at the lake where the trees are on the lar left, there is a lot more detail in the EFKE film - getting close to a half-stop more, I'd guess. Using my densitometer to measure densities, there is also a lot more local contrast in the EFKE netagive. There isn't that much difference in the absolute density between the densest areas of the 2 negatives, but when I measure the densities in the trees on thr far right half way up the negative, there is a lot more of a difference in the EFKE film.

Another striking difference is that in the sky, the TMAX negative is thinner in the bluer-parts of the sky, that parts that the red filter should filter out. This is a good thing. I will get more contrast in the sky from the TMAX film.

I'm thinking that I need to test and establish a personal ASA speed for the EFKE film. It may well need to be faster than 25 for me. The neative is more dense overall than the TMAX film which cannot be accounted for by the development.

Could the spectral sensitivity of the film have anything to do with this extra overall density?

-Mike

Here is an 8x10 EFKE ASA 100 negative taken on the same trip. Also used with a Red #12 filter, +3 stop factor. This looks particularly nice. DR is in the range for Azo.

-Mike