Fotokemika ...

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2012

Just FYI, but EFKE emulsions in many cases derive from EK and Agfa formulas, as there was a lot of Kodak and Agfa influence in the war years and before. These can be duplicated from the war time papers such as the BIOS reports.

There are pages of B&W and color formulas that are equivalent to those used by EFKE for some products and others are published in some detail by Baker, and refined versions are given in my book.

PE

Ian Grant · Aug 6, 2012

To clarify EFKE B&W formulae were the successors to "Dr C. Schleussner Fotowerke GmbHm" who's company was bought by Dupont and later the plant was bought by Fotokemia/EFKE who made the emulsions initially under lecence.

Forte however was the post WWII state owned company that evolved from the pre-War Kodak plant which was a subsidiary of Kodak Ltd in the UK.

After WWII the Eastern block manufacturers shared Agfa technology for colour films. The Adox B&W materials were streets ahead of Kodak's emulsions when they were released in the early 1950's

Ian

Pioneer · Aug 6, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
There are pages of B&W and color formulas that are equivalent to those used by EFKE for some products and others are published in some detail by Baker, and refined versions are given in my book.

PE

Sighhh. :confused: If Efke does go down I guess I will just have to learn how to coat my own film. I do enjoy working with their black and white films, particularly their ISO 25 films.

Even more important though, I do hate to see people who make such a nice product put out of work. Much as I hate to lose the film, those people, like the many at Kodak, really are the ones who will be hurt the most by all of this.

darkroom_rookie · Aug 6, 2012

Pioneer said:
Even more important though, I do hate to see people who make such a nice product put out of work. Much as I hate to lose the film, those people, like the many at Kodak, really are the ones who will be hurt the most by all of this.

Very well put. Last time I was in Samobor, they were kind enough to provide me with a small packet of high-grade photographic gelatin without any worries about import fees, taxes, etc etc.

dyetransfer · Aug 6, 2012

I also will miss Fotokemika. We traveled to Samobor to do testing of my matrix film emulsion, and stayed a week. They were very gracious hosts. During the day, they produced test film, and we ran some matrix tests. After work Leon would show us around Zagreb. We visited his brother at his art studio which was really interesting. We had some great multi-course meals and good comradeship with everyone working on the project. My best to Leon and everyone else at Fotokemika.

Regards - Jim Browning

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2012

The Kodak plant formulas were accessed by the Germans during WWII and made available to all Axis countries including Japan. Thus Konica and Fuji both used Agfa and "captured" formulas. At the end of WWII, the BIOS and FIAT reports reversed that "exchange" and made all Axis formulas available to the Allied countries.

Adox formulas in 1945 were no more nor less "good" than the German formulas, nor were they better than Kodak formulas. The basic advantage of the Agfa formulas was the use of Gold + Sulfur. Adox did not use that in 1945. Kodak was on the verge of discovery at the time the Agfa use was revealed.

Agfa used many chemicals which they refused to disclose and thus they are essentially lost now.

I have made several Agfa formulas in my own darkroom. It can be done. I encourage others to try.

PE

clayne · Aug 6, 2012

My favorite paper, gone. Not happy.

kb3lms · Aug 6, 2012

Photo Engineer said:
I have made several Agfa formulas in my own darkroom. It can be done. I encourage others to try.
PE

Out of curiosity, can the BIOS / FIAT reports be read online?

Photo Engineer · Aug 6, 2012

The BIOS and FIAT reports are not on-line AFAIK. They probably can be had at a local library. The KRL Library has copies. I have read them both and have copious notes. In terms of today's formulas, the formulas in them are incredibly simple. Bu also, to an extent, incomplete. They didn't tell all.

Reading is not that far from Rochester. Come to a GEH workshop!

PE

clayne · Aug 6, 2012

It's sad to see good graded papers die. I don't need all the multigraded complexity all the time. Guess foma and ilford are all that's left.

zsas · Aug 6, 2012

clayne said:
It's sad to see good graded papers die. I don't need all the multigraded complexity all the time. Guess foma and ilford are all that's left.

I believe, could be wrong, that with Fotokemika exiting paper, that would leave only Slavich as the last maker of graded matte paper (Ilford adn Foma dont do matte)....and getting matte graded it in the states is getting harder, looks like Laser Reflections in the state of WA is the last importer of matte graded paper....

Photo Engineer · Aug 7, 2012

Most don't realize how difficult it is coating Baryta (FB) paper, especially with one coating machine.

The paper creates quite a bit of dust and chaff due to the Baryta, and thus the machine must be separate from film or if film is coated on the same machine, the room and the machine must be cleaned of debris before coating film.

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

Simon R Galley · Aug 8, 2012

Dear Zsas,

Whilst its true in Galerie FB we have not made Matte for years we do make Glossy grade 2 and Glossy grade 3 and in RC ILFOSPEED we make Glossy and Pearl ( granted its not a matte ) in grades 1 to 4.

Dear Ron:

Coating FB : Baryta base is still the same....dusty and chaff generating, as we coat every substrate on one machine ( M14 ) we obviously have a full pre-clean, but since the introduction of on-web ultra sonic cleaners we actually have virtually no coating loss due to dust, just the usual base imperfections....and the odd join! But you are absolutely correct, the clean up is the longest of all change overs.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Photo Engineer · Aug 8, 2012

Simon;

Thanks for the reply. Yes, Ilford has a very modern facility and can turn around rapidly. Some companies don't have that capability and therefore if paper sales decline it is much more economical to cease paper production in the face of the massive cleanup job.

At Kodak Rochester, we never had the problem. There were 6 machines in 3 rooms with 4 operational at any one time. The other two were undergoing refit and cleaning. Of course, these were the most modern. There were also other coating machines. There were two separate buildings devoted to film.

PE

Sal Santamaura · Aug 8, 2012

Simon R Galley said:
...Whilst its true in Galerie FB we have not made Matte for years we do make Glossy grade 2 and Glossy grade 3...

Readers please note that the surface of Ilfobrom Galerie, while called glossy by HARMAN, differs from the glossy surfaces of many papers, including other Ilford fiber based products. It is very smooth, lacking any surface texture which can interfere with fine image detail or detract from even sky appearance, and exhibits far less of the surface reflectivity that makes illumination angle so critical when viewing prints on typical fiber based papers.

I am anxiously awaiting delivery of whole plate Delta 100 from this year's special order run (hopefully) next month. In preparation, I've been calibrating my negative exposure/development and printing workflow using 5x7 Delta 100. Having just dry mounted the final resulting print from that effort yesterday, I can report that this is the most exquisite, straightforward materials combination I've worked with in nearly 45 years. Beside looking wonderful, no darkroom heroics are necessary to achieve very fine results.

In my opinion, those who lament the cost of Galerie compared to (disappearing) alternatives ought give this combination a try. It's possible that ease of obtaining excellent prints will substantially offset the paper's price. Even if it doesn't, HARMAN's commitment and manufacturing agility in a world of diminishing options are themselves worth a premium.

Try not to be someone who knows the price of all things and the value of none.

Simon R Galley · Aug 8, 2012

Dear Sal,

As always : Thank you for buying, using and valuing ILFORD Photo products :

Its why I print on GALERIE... hope you enjoy your wholeplate DELTA when it comes.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

anikin · Aug 8, 2012

Simon,

Is there any way for Ilford to discuss acquiring know-how of Fotokemika's infrared emulsion? It's the last remaining
extended IR emulsion on the market and it will be a great loss for all our community if it disappeared like HIE did. Any chance of that happening? Please?

Eugene.

Simon R Galley · Aug 8, 2012

Dear Eugene,

Firstly, whilst we see lots of rumours etc we actually do not know what is the status of FOTOKEMICA, so lets hope all of this a purely 'academic' discussion, and the products that you use from them will continue to be available.

As to IR emulsions, you are spot on, each film has great value, especially to those who use it. The problem with IR emulsions is that just not enough people use them I'm afraid. We are more than technically able to develop, coat and produce a full IR emulsion, the problem is that we would never get a return on our investment in developing the product and the time sourcing and approving the raw materials required, ask yourself this, would you pay $ 15 to $ 17 + for a single film?

IR is also especially difficult to sell through the supply chain, as it has a shorter date life than conventional emulsions and really needs proper storage.

We do sell an extended red film in SFX, in 35mm and in 120 and yes, it is not IR, but this product is part of our current portfolio and therefore is part of our commitment that we will not discontinue any product in the current portfolio.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, sorry.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

anikin · Aug 8, 2012

Simon,

I'm afraid I expected that answer from you.

My concern is that it is more than academic discussion. Hearing from a friend in Croatia who went to the plant just yesterday, it's more than just some papers - they are considering shutting down film production as well.

Anyway, those of us who still shoot infrared are already painfully aware of the cost. The IR film is already $13 a roll, so $15-17 is really not much more than that. I realize that IR is not a good product for a supply chain because of its short life. At best, I was hoping for an on-demand production once every two-three years, maybe bundled with the custom large format runs. Anyway, my freezer is getting full with very expensive film that is known to not last very long. Ouch

Eugene.

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Eugene,

Firstly, whilst we see lots of rumours etc we actually do not know what is the status of FOTOKEMICA, so lets hope all of this a purely 'academic' discussion, and the products that you use from them will continue to be available.

As to IR emulsions, you are spot on, each film has great value, especially to those who use it. The problem with IR emulsions is that just not enough people use them I'm afraid. We are more than technically able to develop, coat and produce a full IR emulsion, the problem is that we would never get a return on our investment in developing the product and the time sourcing and approving the raw materials required, ask yourself this, would you pay $ 15 to $ 17 + for a single film?

IR is also especially difficult to sell through the supply chain, as it has a shorter date life than conventional emulsions and really needs proper storage.

We do sell an extended red film in SFX, in 35mm and in 120 and yes, it is not IR, but this product is part of our current portfolio and therefore is part of our commitment that we will not discontinue any product in the current portfolio.

Probably not what you wanted to hear, sorry.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Photo Engineer · Aug 8, 2012

Eugene;

IR sensitizing dyes do not keep well either, and are very costly. So, the raw material must be purchased at great expense, and then must be used in a given short period of time. The dye gradually decomposes in storage and thus gradually changes the quality of the film made for it at any given time, just as the raw film changes sitting on dealers shelves.

PE

Brian C. Miller · Aug 8, 2012

Simon R Galley said:
raw materials required, ask yourself this, would you pay $ 15 to $17 + for a single film?

Per roll for real IR? No problem. I've been paying $15 per sheet of Kodak Portra 8x10. What I'll miss is IR in sheet film. Again.

When Konica was making IR film, they made it in a run once a year, not the year round. That could be a valid model for Ilford, too. When the Konica run came out, it sold out fast. You bought your film for the year, and that was it. Another thing to consider is how many people would put up money in advance for the yearly run. Kieth Canham takes preoders for custom cuttings of Kodak sheet films. What about taking a preorder for a master roll of IR? Like a Kickstarter project? (I don't mean actually using Kickstarter, just that sort of a model.)

The one thing that bugs me about this "no profit in IR" is that Efke apparently was making a profit with it. Why else would they have been making it? And available in 8x10 sheet film, no less. Did they have some sort of extra-cheap IR dye? Or was is producing the dye a labor-intensive process, so it's economical to produce in eastern Europe? I dunno.

Curt · Aug 8, 2012

Now can we hear from the Elephant in the room? EK.

Roger Cole · Aug 8, 2012

Indeed. From Freestyle (some other sources may be cheaper) Efke IR820 and IR820Aura are $12.99 a roll in 35mm and 120, a bit over $2 a sheet in 4x5 (I did not know they made it in 8x10 and can't find that listed at B&H either.)

So would I pay $17-$18 for a roll of true IR film with Ilford quality control? You bet! Likewise, I'd probably pay $3 a sheet for 4x5, especially if it was faster, deeper IR stuff like the old Kodak HIE. That would be awesome. Hell, I'd probably pay $20 a roll and $5 a sheet, at least for some of it. I wouldn't shoot a ton of it at those prices, but I would probably buy a couple hundred bucks worth if it were offered yearly. Should keep a year in the freezer without issue, I'd think.

kb3lms · Aug 8, 2012

Although I have to admit I have no experience with IR film, I think $17 to $20 a roll for a specialty film is OK. You don't go out and blow a roll of this stuff for vacation shots, after all. And I would not see one or two runs a year as a real problem either. If it's possible to make shorter masters or coat IR onto the end of a regular production run, that might also be a consideration.

I surely want to see Ilford continuing to make the great products they sell to us at reasonable prices, but I can see where some additional specialty items (IR films, special color products, whatever), understandably sold at a premium price, could be a good adder to their product line.

Roger Cole · Aug 8, 2012

Of course I don't want Ilford to do anything that would be risky enough to endanger the great products they already make. But if additional products can be profitable - IR film would be nice. Even if Efke sticks around the QC has not been good and the IR response is limited compared to the old HIE.

Fotokemika ...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency