Efke sudden death

[chiller]

Firstly I love efke and this is not a knocking post.

I have just had a very unusual problem arise. All of a sudden my Efke negatives are as flat as flat. No contrast.

Developers use to test -- D76 -- Rodinal -- HC110

All negatives returned the same or similar density from each developer.

Light meters -- all returned the same readings. Gossen, Minolta and Soligor spot.

Thermometer == all three the same reading as they always have.

Timer [x2] both the same.

Anything I have missed?

Or has anyone had similar with a sudden change of contrast in the middle of a box? Film has been stored correctly.

Steve

 

[Donald Miller]

Firstly I love efke and this is not a knocking post.

I have just had a very unusual problem arise. All of a sudden my Efke negatives are as flat as flat. No contrast.

Developers use to test -- D76 -- Rodinal -- HC110

All negatives returned the same or similar density from each developer.

Light meters -- all returned the same readings. Gossen, Minolta and Soligor spot.

Thermometer == all three the same reading as they always have.

Timer [x2] both the same.

Anything I have missed?

Or has anyone had similar with a sudden change of contrast in the middle of a box? Film has been stored correctly.

Steve

Check the emulsion number on the box and get with whomever sold you the film. I had an instance a couple of months ago where some film other then Efke 100 (it tested as 25 ISO) made it into a Efke100 box. The negatives were underexposed and flat.

This was 4X5 film. In my case, John at JandC provided his usual fine service and replaced the film.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Are they flat like underexposed, flat like fogged or flat like underdeveloped ? (Can you tell the difference ?) What's their approximate mean density ? Is it like it is supposed to be (for a normally exposed and developed neg) ?

 

[Willie Jan]

i have the same problem with a box of efke/adox 100, i rate it also as 25..

i contacted www.fotoimpex.de in berlin and they say that it can vary with different batches... (Yeah, 2 stops!!!!!)
I now use ilford!

 

[chiller]

Check the emulsion number on the box and get with whomever sold you the film. I had an instance a couple of months ago where some film other then Efke 100 (it tested as 25 ISO) made it into a Efke100 box. The negatives were underexposed and flat.

This was 4X5 film. In my case, John at JandC provided his usual fine service and replaced the film.

Hi Donald,

I have just step wedge tested my film and it is definately 25 ISO. I took some out of my freezer to compare it to and the stuff from the freezer seems to give what I would expect for a 100 ISO film.

I will PM you to give you the emulsion number so we can compare.

 

[Changeling1]

Firstly I love efke and this is not a knocking post.

I have just had a very unusual problem arise. All of a sudden my Efke negatives are as flat as flat. No contrast.

Developers use to test -- D76 -- Rodinal -- HC110

All negatives returned the same or similar density from each developer.

Light meters -- all returned the same readings. Gossen, Minolta and Soligor spot.

Thermometer == all three the same reading as they always have.

Timer [x2] both the same.

Anything I have missed?

Or has anyone had similar with a sudden change of contrast in the middle of a box? Film has been stored correctly.

Steve

Yet one more example of why Kodak's film division should be nationalized!

 

[c6h6o3]

The negatives were underexposed and flat.

I know more than one photographer who has abandoned the use of Efke film for just this very reason.

This was 4X5 film. In my case, John at JandC provided his usual fine service and replaced the film.

He can replace the film, but he can't get back the moment. If defective film is used to make images on an expensive trip, which took months of planning to pull off, there is little consolation in replacement with unexposed film.

There's simply no other product in which consistency of quality is as important as it is with film.

 

[haris]

Last time when I bought 2 rolls of EFKE 35mm film (100 ISO), about year ago, under EFKE sticker on canisters were originally Lucky film stickers...

So did you really bought EFKE film when bought box of film on which is written EFKE. How do you know what film Fotokemika packed in EFKE box

Nothing surprized me anymore when EFKE or Fotokemika is in question...

EFKE is good film by my experience, but when you use EFKE film. I mean, if on packadging box or canister wrote EFKE, that doesnt meant you really use EFKE film .

 

[Harrigan]

Efke is good film if you get a good batch but I've heard from many users complaining about very inconsistent emulsions batch to batch. I've gotten great results with the box of efke 25 i tried in 8x10 but i am very hesitant to use a new box on critical images until its been shot, processed and fully tested. I don't have this problem with say tmx 100, i will use this film untested without hesitation due to EKC's excellent quality control. Certainly they've had problems as well but i've not seen them in anywhere near the amount of complaints you get with efke film.

 

[Donald Miller]

I know more than one photographer who has abandoned the use of Efke film for just this very reason.



He can replace the film, but he can't get back the moment. If defective film is used to make images on an expensive trip, which took months of planning to pull off, there is little consolation in replacement with unexposed film.

There's simply no other product in which consistency of quality is as important as it is with film.

Jim, Very true. My subsequent four or five boxes of film have been as they should be. I rarely shoot decisive moment images. And while my photographs can be repeated, the travel expense can be a pain.

Honestly, in almost three years of using Efke film, this was the first instance of any problems with inconsistancy for me.

 

[mark]

Now I am curious. The first two sheets of efke pl100 I shot in my 8x10 were under exposed. This was a recently bought box. I chalked it up to my lens having an iffy aperature scale so have not shot anymore. I will check the aperature scale using the adice I was given, but what might people suggest I do if the aperature scale is correct? Being on a limited budget I sort of have to use the film I got.

 

[pauldc]

Eureka - I have been having exactly the same experience. Efke 100 in 120 and 8*10 coming out flat and thin and having to print at grade 5 to get anything useful. Thanks for the insights everyone - this feels like a breakthrough after months of frustration.

Is it a case of Efke 100 being a very slow batch in my instance OR is it a case of Efke 25 being labelled as ISO 100. Are the 25 and 100 totally different films or infact just different speeds of the same thing?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

25 is a very different film from 100. Aside from being slower, it's also a more orthochromatic film.

I just bought two boxes of PL100. I guess I better test a sheet or two before bringing them to Hawai'i next month.

 

[pauldc]

This is my experience linked to batch numbers:

35mm Efke 100 batch 510507 - these seem fine at EI 100

120 roll film Efke 100 batch 510604 - consistently thin and underexposed

8*10 Sheet film batch 510613 - consistently thin and underexposed

 

[c6h6o3]

Honestly, in almost three years of using Efke film, this was the first instance of any problems with inconsistancy for me.

I haven't had much of a problem with them either but Scott Killian's been burned twice.

 

[david b]

Just another reason to support Ilford. Their film is THEIR film, not repackaged. The stuff is well tested and QC is top notch.

I've never had an issue with them.

 

[Kino]

In everyone's experience, has it been consistent *within* the box of Efke sheet film, that the ISO has been mislabeled or is it all mixed up with varying speeds and emulsions?

 

[Flauvius]

At what EI did you shoot the Efke 8x10 PL-100?

Seperately, was the coating on your 8x10 PL "bumpy", but in very small areas?

Flauvius

 

[jhavard]

I know more than one photographer who has abandoned the use of Efke film for just this very reason.



He can replace the film, but he can't get back the moment. If defective film is used to make images on an expensive trip, which took months of planning to pull off, there is little consolation in replacement with unexposed film.

There's simply no other product in which consistency of quality is as important as it is with film.

All the more reason to test each batch. Not every company has the means to have the QA and QC of Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. Even then, there's a reason film is sold in single batch pro packs. Just as it's a bad idea to go to a shoot with new and untested equipment, it's a bad idea to do a shoot without testing your film. At least with film, when the image sensor has gone bad, it can be replaced for a few dollars.

 

[david b]

But it sure is nice to throw in a roll that you have already test time and time again and know that you can get great results.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Okay, I just ran a sheet of my new PL100 4x5 batch #510616 along with some PL100 that's about a year old (sorry, I don't have the batch number), all EI 200 in Acufine, and the new film looks fine.

For those who are new to large format or who have recently moved to 8x10" or larger from 4x5"--be sure that you are accounting for bellows factor and reciprocity factor before assuming you have a bad batch of film. Test the film with a scene at infinity on a sunny day using no filters, if you're not doing step wedge tests.

 

[Donald Miller]

In everyone's experience, has it been consistent *within* the box of Efke sheet film, that the ISO has been mislabeled or is it all mixed up with varying speeds and emulsions?

The experience that I had seemed to be a case of the film had been mislabeled.

I have had no other problems since the one time.

 

[JBrunner]

Other than my own screw ups, (Yes, I do sometimes) I have never had any problems with Efke 25, and it is currently one of my favorite films. I have not shot enough 100 to comment directly.

It does (the 25 and the 100) have a rather soft emulsion when processed, but that is an inherent characteristic of this film. I have found that it tends to be a contrast building film, suited for flat light situations, rather than what you have mentioned, which I find surprising, based on my experience with it.

If you have any left from that batch, I would suggest a step wedge test, as Steve has done, to see if the problem lies with the film, or somewhere else.

 

[Papa Tango]

I cant speak for the 100, but I have given up on the 25. Variability within the box, and probably the best I could rate this batch I have is 6. Still somewhat underexposed. Looks like maybe I need to buy up a batch of tech pan, or shoot pan f at 25....

 

[david b]

Does J&C have anything to say about this?