Efke sheet films, QC problems?

[Jim Chinn]

It's to bad Efke has not fixed these problems. there have been intermittent complaints for a couple of years now. I used to advise anyone starting out in LF to buy Efke film because of the cost. But what is the point if all your effort is ruined by bad film and every exposure is a crap shoot? I am on a pretty fixed budget for film. I was hoping to havew the opportunity to expose more film with efke, but it looks like I will stick with Ilford. At least then if something is amiss with the negative I know it is on my end of the process and not the factory.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Jim;

I liked that pun; "crap shoot". Think about it!

PE

 

[Jim Chinn]

Didn't think about the pun when I wrote it, but must have welled up sub-consciously.


I won't hold my breath for Efke to really improve. As PE has pointed out in other posts, Efke is being made on very old machinery in an old plant. It probably is impossible for them to meet the standards of Ilford or Kodak. It might be possible for them to monitor production more closely, and keep bad product from being packaged. Obviously some of the film turns out alright. The 4x5 film I bought a couple years ago was fine. Maybe they need to increase prices closer to Ilford to provide better production.

One thing to keep in mind is that if Efke goes away you basically have Ilford as the lone reliable source for LF and ULF film. Kodak has done some special efforts for ULF with TMY and tri-X but those deals always seem somewhat uncertian. Was not one of the problems with the last special order that it took months for Kodak to cut and package some of the film sizes?

I guess I get nervous with the possibility of ony one manufacturer that is willing to coat and cut sheets bigger then 8x10 with out having to lay out cash and have faith you will eventually get some film months down the road.

So I hope Efke takes these problems seriously. If they don't no one will be willing to take a chance on their film.

 

[Terence]

I have seen some negs from the early 1900's that didn't seem to have many defects. Assuming technology then was primitive compared to the end of the century, how did they do it?

 

[haris]

I have seen some negs from the early 1900's that didn't seem to have many defects. Assuming technology then was primitive compared to the end of the century, how did they do it?

Same machines, but now more than 50 years older?

 

[PHOTOTONE]

One thing to keep in mind is that if Efke goes away you basically have Ilford as the lone reliable source for LF and ULF film.

You are completely forgetting about Foma. I use Fomapan 200 (well actutally the Arista brand of the same emulsion) in 5x7 and have no issues of banding. I have shot well over 100 sheets in the last couple of months.
Foma (and Arista brand marketed by Freestyle, which is actually Foma film) is available in quite a large assortment of LF and ULF film sizes. They are also a supporter of this forum.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Same machines, but now more than 50 years older?

I, for one, would think that the "issues" relating to the banding, could be corrected with equipment repair and maintenence. Particularly if the equipment did not "band" when it had less wear on it.

 

[haris]

I was joking, I have no clue

 

[Photo Engineer]

The machinery may be OK, but may just need adjustment. See my earlier post on this.

PE

 

[Paul Howell]

I am going though all of my old negatives, I am up the mid 70, I found a fair number of KB14 negatives in 35mm and 4X5, several hundered 4X5, Southern Eroupe and Turkey. I dont see any QC issues, but 30 years without much in the way of upgrades or replacement is a long time for any industry.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...That said I have NEVER had an issue with Kodak film producing exactly what I expected...

Nor have I had an issue with Ilford film in that regard.

...I have learned in life that most of the time you get what you pay for...

My experience has been subtly different and is best summed up as "one pays for what one gets."

 

[Colin Graham]

I started a similar (there was a url link here which no longer exists)earlier this year about the banding defects. I'd hoped they would have improved their QC because I miss it and would pay more for it. But there's nothing quite like having a cross country trip ruined by emulsion defects. I always test new boxes, but in my experience the defects were irregular enough not to show up at the top and bottom of a box, the two sheets I always test with.