Fotokemika ...

[renes]

Fotokemika was plagued with qc problems but it seems people forgot it.
I will not miss Fotokemika's Efke...

I had some problems with Efke 25 film (adox CHS 25), mostly I got many white spots after developing, but when I changed the water on destiled, all spots have gone.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Hello PE. This is interesting, do you know if this is the case of Foma films too?

I have no idea. Sorry.

 

[Ian Grant]

Who? I spent maybe 20 mins googling Jim Brownlow and didnt get too far??? Does this Brownlow gentleman post here? Are these pictures in the Gallery here?

Sorry, my mistake it's Jim Browning who goes by the name Dyetransfer here on APUG

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ian

 

[Bertil]

Just bought the last 4 50 sheets CHS 50 5x7" (and 1 50 sheets CHS 25 5x7") from FotoImpex, Berlin - probably just to make sure that at least some of my prints are made from this quite famous emulsion.

/Bertil

 

[Andre Noble]

If so that makes it much worse. I really like MCC 110. (

Roger, MCC 110 WAS the Bomb!

I can't believe a superior product like that is up and gone. I wonder if Fotokemika (Efke? - or whoever is going under) was managing their business properly. Something doesn't seem right.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, MCC 110 WAS the Bomb!

I can't believe a superior product like that is up and gone. I wonder if Fotokemika (Efke? - or whoever is going under) was managing their business properly. Something doesn't seem right.

It isn't and won't be gone. I'm not sure where in the 37 pages Mirko explained, but MCC and MCP are coated in Germany and are just fine. It's the Adox Vario papers that were coated by Fotokemika and will be gone.

 

[Andre Noble]

So, I suspect a decline in FB paper and then RC paper, encouraging people to move to a hybrid process where they print using a digital printer.

PE

No! Over my dead body.

 

[Andre Noble]

It isn't and won't be gone. I'm not sure where in the 37 pages Mirko explained, but MCC and MCP are coated in Germany and are just fine. It's the Adox Vario papers that were coated by Fotokemika and will be gone.

Roger, That's good to here. Very good. But we should all be buying big freezers just in case. That MCC 110 is the best B&W I has ever used.

Iford Multi Grade IV Fiber is very nice too, and built like a tank. I hope it also stays around.

 

[Roger Cole]

I'm a little torn on that one right there. I tried MCC 110 when I came back to photography and really like it. But I'm hard pressed to choose between it and MGIV FB. I do use MGWT FB when I want a warm tone and it's possibly the best paper I've ever used, but for my neutral tone prints I prefer the MCC 110. I think MGIV goes cooler in selenium and I like that versatility. I can happily use either paper really. But I want to support the black and white powerhouse of Ilford for all they do for black and white and for us, an I also want to support Fotoimpex and Adox for reviving old wonderful formulas like the MCC paper and the impending Polywarmtone and to support a small maker of black and white products.

I suppose I should just use whichever I prefer and not worry about that. Right now I have MCC 110 in stock so that will be it for a while. But the fact it doesn't come in larger quantity boxes means I have no great store of it. I have maybe a 24 sheet pack of 8x10, 30 sheets (five or so left plus an unopened pack) of 11x14 and one unopened but soon to be opened and used 25 sheet box of 16x20.

They are both excellent papers.

 

[Ektagraphic]

It seems like older equipment like that would be more serviceable and individual parts would be a little bit more replaceable than on something modern...I could be completely wrong though....Do we know what the problem actually is?

 

[Brian C. Miller]

The problem is that even if they fix the machine, the declining market and end-of-lease is too much for them to cope with it. Somewhere back in the thread, it was posted that even if the fix was completely free, they would still be shutting everything down.

 

[Trond]

Sorry, my mistake it's Jim Browning who goes by the name Dyetransfer here on APUG

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ian

They must have had a huge maintenance backlog for quite some time judging by the photos. Even if they made the repair this time, it seems likely that something else would have broken down sooner rather than later.

Trond

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The problem is that even if they fix the machine, the declining market and end-of-lease is too much for them to cope with it. Somewhere back in the thread, it was posted that even if the fix was completely free, they would still be shutting everything down.

Yes, they are unable to sell their finished product at a profit.

 

[JPD]

A point you miss is that the EFKE 25 uses an old emulsion formula which gives results similar to ISO 100 films of today from Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. It is just a matter of testing the film / developer combination to find the best one for your application. Quit moaning and start testing. And, don't forget that most of these modern ISO 100 film can be overexposed at 50 and 25 with very good results.

There's more to it than only "good results" seen from an engineers perspective. The look and the feel . A film like Tmax 100 may be excellent, but to me it feels too "digital". It's difficult to describe the feeling Efke 25 and 50 have for me. The clearity and the way they "see" colour.

That said, I do like Kodak Plus-X (now gone) and Tri-x, as well as Ilford Pan F+. Different films that have different "feelings" attached to them, and for me they are like the cameras I use. On one day a Rolleicord with Triotar lens and Pan F+ feels right, and on another day a Kodak Retina IIa with Efke KB 25.

 

[Photo Engineer]

JPD;

You are missing my point! I said "results similar to" not "good results". In fact, some of these substitutes may be as good or better for tonality. You are the one to decide that, as I also said.

Although if it does not satisfy you, then it does not.

Generally, a modern film with the right "tone" will have higher speed at the same grain and sharpness or better grain and sharpness.

And I do know what you mean because after all, we had a motto oft repeated at EK, "We sell pictures, not curves".

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Efke 25 is orthopan for one thing. It's significantly finer-grained than TMX etc, yet with excellent edge acutance. And it has a very long contrasty straight-line, unlike anything else in slow speed.
But the antihalation backing is rather primitive, and one has to be damn careful loading or unloading
120 film. A buddy and I just walked two weeks with heavy packs over some pretty steep mtn terrain,
and both shot Efke 25. I was using a 6x9 back on a 4x5 view camera, and was mainly looking for just
one really good shot of a particular mtn. Well, I got it, and had the insanity to print about a 24-inch
wide print from that tiny 6x9 neg. No other film would have gotten the detail combined with the
extremes of lighting - shadow differentiation way, way down, brilliant clouds all alive with backlight.
Normally I'd do that kind of thing with 8x10 and something like Bergger 200 or TMY400. So it's a film
I'll miss, though it would be nice for someone to actually improve upon the formula. In the meantime,
I've got a reserve of it in the freezer. Don't need much - I mainly shoot sheet film.

 

[PKM-25]

Good to hear Drew. I ordered 140 rolls of it for my 6x12 back. How tough was it to print from in terms of curl? I ask this because using a glass neg carrier on a delicate emulsion like that makes me wonder. Also, how has the QC been recently, I think I tried a roll in 2008 and was not pleased with some of the messiness overall...

Cheers,

Dan

Efke 25 is orthopan for one thing. It's significantly finer-grained than TMX etc, yet with excellent edge acutance. And it has a very long contrasty straight-line, unlike anything else in slow speed.
But the antihalation backing is rather primitive, and one has to be damn careful loading or unloading
120 film. A buddy and I just walked two weeks with heavy packs over some pretty steep mtn terrain,
and both shot Efke 25. I was using a 6x9 back on a 4x5 view camera, and was mainly looking for just
one really good shot of a particular mtn. Well, I got it, and had the insanity to print about a 24-inch
wide print from that tiny 6x9 neg. No other film would have gotten the detail combined with the
extremes of lighting - shadow differentiation way, way down, brilliant clouds all alive with backlight.
Normally I'd do that kind of thing with 8x10 and something like Bergger 200 or TMY400. So it's a film
I'll miss, though it would be nice for someone to actually improve upon the formula. In the meantime,
I've got a reserve of it in the freezer. Don't need much - I mainly shoot sheet film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew, TMX is nomianlly a 400 speed film. A 100 speed pan film can be made into a true ortho film by using a cyan filter which should lose you 2 stops making it an ISO 25 ortho film. A tad of overdevelopment done right will give you a touch more contrast. What I am saying is that you can turn a loss into fun and in the end, into a gain. And based on other reports here, you will gain more repeatability with Ilford, Fuji or Kodak.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

No way, Ron. First of all, nothing in that speed range has the capacity for detail like Efke 25. Put a
cyan filter on it and you've got light scatter = loss of definition over distance, and something like
ortho, not orthopan, which is a very different nuance in practical terms. Any of these other films need "minus" development to get the range, which blocks up the midtones (there's not enough
straight line on any of them - not until you get up into something distinctly grainier like TMY, which
would be horrendously salt and pepper enlarged 8X. Trying to fake the 8X10 look with anything as
tiny as 6x9 is tricky enough; and so far, this is the only film I've found capable of it. Wouldn't have
chosen roll film at all except that my pack was stuffed to capacity, and I wanted a little more of a
"panoramic" aspect than 4X5, which would have had to be cropped anyway. Either use the last of
my Quickloads (ACROS is also orthopan), or take a changing tent, which would have been a hassle
given the temper tantrums of the weather - get over the passes fast, take only a few priority shots,
then hunker down for the afternoon drenching and lightning storms. It all worked logistically; but I'm
no youngster, and these longer treks have to be done while I still can carry LF gear the distance!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, I should add ... I inevitably lost a few shots to edge fogging, no matter how careful I was to
change film in the shade. My companion lost quite a few using Contax roll film backs. But he also
dunked a lens in the creek, broke two legs on his Gitzo carbon tripod, and took a pretty good scuff
himself. When way off trail days on end, I carry quite a bit of extra food (= extra wt) just in case
we got trapped by the storms or someone twisted an ankle. Just think I'll convert to ACROS for roll
film too. Love it in 4X5 in the mtns, but it lacks just a pinch of detail in the prints. Or maybe I'll con
someone younger into carrying some of my sheetfilm holders! A dozen years ago I would have scoffed at the idea of carrying any pack as ridicuously light as 65 lbs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew;

All good points. However, much of the argument about filters and sharpness is negated by the antihalation mentioned in posts above in this thread. A film with good antihalation and a filter can equal a film with mediocre antihalation and no filter. Oh well. You are your customer. Do what works for you. And have fun hiking. I have not been hiking for about 5 or 6 years.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

I generally shoot it with a 25 red, which really makes it slow. But about no difference in sharpness
with or without the filter, except to the extent a filter is one more optical element in the lightpath,
and to the extent it might or might not cut haze. The problem with Efke 25 is the risk of edge fog
when changing the rolls. It is also rather fragile in development, though this doesn't generally apply
in simple tanks. Still, it's been a popular film and one would think there would be a demand for a
replacement product by someone. The formula is certainly old-school. Pan F is nice when the scene
contrast is more manageable, but way too much of an S-curve for real high-contrast work. And in
color, Ektar gives opportunities for roll film that I would have turned my nose up at not long ago.
Micro films have never appealed to me due to bland tonality. Still, roll film is a pain in the butt in the
darkroom compared to 8x10 or even 4x5. I only use it when I have to.

 

[subsole]

I've found this on the ADOX website today :

+++ PAN 400 is ready for production but due to the sudden changes at Fotokemika who manufactured the CHS line of films for us we had to prioritize and decided to invest in the remanufacturing of a 100 ASA material at first+++

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX-PAN-400/PAN400.html

 

[djkloss]

...So, I suspect a decline in FB paper and then RC paper, encouraging people to move to a hybrid process where they print using a digital printer.

This is indeed sad to see.

PE

I suspect that I for one will be learning to coat my own Japanese Rice Paper and/or watercolor paper and doing contact printing using one of the alt processes, at least for fine art. commercially, well that's a different story. I will not be defeated! As for film, that's a more difficult problem.

This is indeed sad.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I coat glossy baryta, canvas, watercolor, velour and smooth papers. The prints look just great n these surfaces. They are all discontinued B&W paper surfaces now, but can be hand coated by those desiring to go to the effort to do it. Erie is just about 150 miles from Rochester. Come join us for a workshop sometime.

PE