Efke versus Foma 100?

[athanasius80]

Does anyone have any user experiences with Efke 100 versus Fomapan 100 in 120 and sheet film? I'd love to hear people's opinions one way or the other and why.
Thanks!

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I've settled on Efke 100 as my primary slow speed film in both roll film and sheet film sizes up to 8x10. My developer is Pyrocat-HD. My secondary slow speed film is Efke 25, also developed in Pyrocat-HD.

I have not tested Fomapan 100.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I use Fomapan 100 as my standard film in 9x12 cm. I'm very, very happy with it; it has excellent tones, nice fine grain, gives full speed in my process and a solid EI 160-200 in Diafine, and prints onto cyanotype well.

I haven't tried the Efke -- saw no reason to spend the money on a box, I like the cheaper Foma so well.

 

[Gustavo_Castilla]

ca I ask you guys a question
I got some holder mixed and ended up under exposing some Elfke 25 ( the other holders had 100) I am planing to develop it on Fryday on rodinal 1: 25 or 1 :50 any tips on what may save the film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Gustavo, I'll reply on your other thread.

 

[richardmellor]

fomapan aristia.edu ultra

this is a link to a photo using fomapan 100.
this film is sold by freestyle as arista.edu ultra for 1.29 a roll.
after seeing this I bought 20 rolls.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2471088

 

[richardmellor]

efke sample photo

I found this photo on the efke website. it is shot with efke 100.

http://www.efkefilm.com/Efke-kb100-zagreb.jpg

 

[jandc]

As is sit here looking at the original print of the picture referenced above I can see that they look nothing alike in terms of warmth and tonal value.

I'd really like to know how anyone can determine the qualities of a film from a web posted digital scan of either the print or negative. Between monitors, scanners editing software etc the number of variables are endless. The one thing that is certain is that the picture you see on your screen is not going to look the same on mine. I can understand looking at posted pictures from a artistic point of view. Trying to distinguish any significant technical detail about how the film itself looks is a waste of time.

Not knowing anything about how the film was exposed, developed and printed further makes this type of analysis useless. For all anyone knows the film was lousy, developed poorly and then saved in photoshop. Or perhaps the film was excellent and the photoshop stage manipulation made it look worse.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'd really like to know how anyone can determine the qualities of a film from a web posted digital scan of either the print or negative.

Bottom line, you can't tell much about the differences from a scan -- even true speed can be disguised by scan exposure/levels treatment, to some extent (especially making the scan appear to have less speed then the film). Grain can look better, because a coarse scan averages it away, or worse, because of artifacting. Tonality and range have more to do with scan settings than what's actually on the film, unless the film's range is terribly narrow or the scanner very poor.

Unfortunately, it's the only tool most of us have; I've never seen a physical print from Efke 100, and only a couple from Fomapan (my negatives, printed by a custom B&W printer as straight prints, hardly better than a negative scan). The few other B&W photographers I've had face-to-face contact with don't shoot these films; they shoot TMX or Plus-X.

Honestly, I'm not sure prints will really tell me much, either -- variations in film processing and printing will swamp the differences in the films just as surely as variations in scanning.

 

[richardmellor]

there seems to be another powerful consideration.

efke... efke100 ...3.60 per roll shipped
aristia.edu.ultra .[foma100] 1.49 per roll shipped

whatever your monthly budget for film is. you would be able to shoot
more than twice as much film. you would worry less about bracketing expousure . twice as many negatives . twice the chance to get that perfect
shot.

 

[titrisol]

Agreed.
I remmeber in the 80s kodak used to send samples of their papers and films.
The prints were usually gorgeous and we were never able to reproduce the tonal range, etc.....

EFKE 100 is an excellent film, so should be FOMA. Just use them and decide for yourself

As is sit here looking at the original print of the picture referenced above I can see that they look nothing alike in terms of warmth and tonal value.

I'd really like to know how anyone can determine the qualities of a film from a web posted digital scan of either the print or negative. Between monitors, scanners editing software etc the number of variables are endless. The one thing that is certain is that the picture you see on your screen is not going to look the same on mine. I can understand looking at posted pictures from a artistic point of view. Trying to distinguish any significant technical detail about how the film itself looks is a waste of time.

Not knowing anything about how the film was exposed, developed and printed further makes this type of analysis useless. For all anyone knows the film was lousy, developed poorly and then saved in photoshop. Or perhaps the film was excellent and the photoshop stage manipulation made it look worse.

 

[Fotohuis]

@ Donald: Do you use more Fomapan film: Fomapan T200 and Fomapan 400 and do you have also Diafine data available for that films?

Best regards,

Robert

 

[richardmellor]

looking foward to trying this film.


aristia.edu.ultra.[foma100 ]

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3184671

 

[Donald Qualls]

@ Donald: Do you use more Fomapan film: Fomapan T200 and Fomapan 400 and do you have also Diafine data available for that films?

Best regards,

Robert

Fomapan 100 in sheets is the only Foma film I've used. I have used it with Diafine as well as HC-110 and (once) Caffenol; in Diafne I find it gives a very satisfactory EI 160, or a slightly tenuous EI 200, still with very fine grain and good sharpness. The Creative 200 (formerly T200) is said to be a tabular- or epitaxial-grain film, and as such likely gains much less from Diafine; the 400 is completely conventional and will likely give EI 800, give or take 1/3 stop.