Fotokemika ...

NB23 · Aug 8, 2012

What I think Simon meant was more something like 30-40$ apiece.

What absolutely frustrates me is KODAK. Kodak was supposed to be a prime player in the whole industry, thanks to its R&D (Nasa and other companies needing a company like what Kodak "was" comes to mind). If Kodak was normally managed, by people of average intelligence, it could have easily kept all its FILM and PAPER Division Intact (IR films and Kodachrome included) just for the sake of Americana Folklore, even if that particular film division would be losing money. Kodak would have been able to afford to lose money on that division for the sake of being a leader.

But no. Martinez, I mean Gonzalez, no, I mean Perez had to turn Kodak into a shoe company. Or something like that.

Sorry for the rant.

Go Ilford!!

Roger Cole · Aug 8, 2012

Um, if he meant that why wouldn't he have said that??

Curt · Aug 8, 2012

It's like Kodak is stuck in first gear after an inappropriate downshift.

padraigm · Aug 8, 2012

Hopefully there will be some clarity on the film division of Efke and SOON. I love Efke 25 and I am ready to pull the trigger on a sizable purchase in various sheet sizes. But I refuse to buy something I know or looks like its going away. I have done that in the past and decided to not do it again, its just putting off the inevitable. I am holding my wallet for a week or so until there is again hopefully more clarity. My fav films are Kodak Tri-x and Efke. Ilford is OK from my experience, and I honestly have not spent the time to dial it in and others have undoubtedly done great work with it. So I am sure it can deliver just a question of some personal tests. But it can't be denied there commitment to film is making me seriously give them a look and sooner rather than later. The likes of Simon on here also goes miles in leading me in that direction. But I really would miss Efke 25 and not sure what film is a substitute, the tonality just speaks to me. However on the few occasions that I have shot pan-F I have seen it capable of similar tones that I like. I wonde,r if Efke goes is it unreasonable for a sheet version of panF to be a replacement??? Simon says????

Pioneer · Aug 8, 2012

I am doing the opposite. I like Efke 25 quite a bit and use it in 4x5, 120 and 35mm. Unfortunately my budget won't allow a massive one time purchase, instead I have to spread it out. Last month I made a sizable purchase of R 25. This month I'll pick up a few bulk rolls of KB 25. In September, God willing and the creek don"t rise, I'll purchase some more PL 25. In October I'll start the process all over again. It should save quite well in the freezer and eventually I'll have enough to keep me using Efke 25 film for quite a few years during which time I hope someone else comes out with a useful alternative. If not, I will still be able to enjoy this film for a while longer. Hopefully the price won't start getting too high before I get a bit laid by in the freezer.

Roger Cole · Aug 9, 2012

Ilford film and paper is all excellent. I've been using MCC110 and Ilford MGWT FB for neutral and warm respectively but going to take another look at MGIV. I'm as impressed as others with Ilford's commitment to analog and black and white and seriously thinking of going 100% Ilford except where there's a unique product they have nothing like.

Ilford is also, in my experience, very consistent. I was running low on 8x10 MGWT and used 11x14 for cutting test strips - absolutely consistent exposure from these two boxes of different sizes.

It's a bit pricey (then again, so is MCC 110) but worth it. And the film is lots cheaper than Kodak in sheets. (Well, anything is. Kodak seems determined to price themselves out of sales of sheet film.)

Simon R Galley · Aug 9, 2012

Dear Eugene et al,

Let me have a look at some raw material requirements, PE makes the most pertinent point regarding IR sensitising dye. You must remember also that IR film availability only came about as a spin off from military ( aerial ) / scientific coatings that are obviously just not required anymore.

Whilst we have the capability to coat a very small run ( 5,000m2 ) you have to remember that is still 85,000 films.

Also, you cannot coat on one base, sheet film, maniature (35mm ) and roll film are all different bases.

I have to be honest I cannot possibly imagine that it could generate a sufficient ROI, but I will have a deeper look at it.

I will come back in a week or so when I have some more information.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Roger Cole · Aug 9, 2012

Well it may not. Fotokemika has been doing it, but they're also going under, from all appearances.

Paul Howell · Aug 9, 2012

NB23 said:
What I think Simon meant was more something like 30-40$ apiece.

What absolutely frustrates me is KODAK. Kodak was supposed to be a prime player in the whole industry, thanks to its R&D (Nasa and other companies needing a company like what Kodak "was" comes to mind). If Kodak was normally managed, by people of average intelligence, it could have easily kept all its FILM and PAPER Division Intact (IR films and Kodachrome included) just for the sake of Americana Folklore, even if that particular film division would be losing money. Kodak would have been able to afford to lose money on that division for the sake of being a leader.

But no. Martinez, I mean Gonzalez, no, I mean Perez had to turn Kodak into a shoe company. Or something like that.

Sorry for the rant.

Go Ilford!!

If Kodak was a hobby then Kodak can take a loss, but Kodak is a publicly traded company and needs to make money, if Kodak cant make money then it will end up with Studabaker, Pam Am and TWA. 20 years ago Kodak was a 20B company, today less than 2B, it's scale makes it diffcult make money with small runs of paper or film. Forte and Agafa faced many of the same problems in terms of scale and they are gone. I hope that Ilford and Forma hang on, and perhaps more Fuji products become avialable in the US.

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 9, 2012

I'm really saddened by the Fotokemika news. Both Emaks and Varycon are amazing photo papers, and I was just about to embark on a printing project involving Emaks. I might still do it, provided Freestyle can negotiate a deal of last minute inventory. They are amazing for portraits, and super for lith printing too. What a shame.

miha · Aug 9, 2012

Sal Santamaura said:
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.

Thanks for this bit of info as I was looking for a smooth gloss surface for some time now. I found their 1K Warmtone to be smoother than their MG IV FB but didn't realize that the surface of Galerie is smoother still.

anikin · Aug 9, 2012

Thank you Simon for taking this seriously! I really appreciate it. It is so refreshing to have a vendor that listens. At this point my biggest concern is that the know-how might disappear if Efke stops production. Once knowledge is gone, chances of it ever being recovered is close to zero since nobody would be interested in investing into R&D for such a small volume product.

Please keep in mind that IR film is much less price sensitive than regular film. If I'm planning to shoot IR, I'll buy the film no matter what the price is, as long as it is available. Check out HIE prices on e-bay. It's already $20-$30 per 35mm roll of a very questionable expired product.

It is a tripod-only film, so format does not matter much either, if it's only 120 film, I'll take the Mamiya, if it's 4x5 or 8x10, I'll take the LF camera, it really does not matter since I'm already lugging the tripod with me. I'd say for evaluation consider it a single format film.

Anyway, thank you for considering it. I really hope we could save the knowledge of how to make it, if not the product itself.

Eugene.

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Eugene et al,

Let me have a look at some raw material requirements, PE makes the most pertinent point regarding IR sensitising dye. You must remember also that IR film availability only came about as a spin off from military ( aerial ) / scientific coatings that are obviously just not required anymore.

Whilst we have the capability to coat a very small run ( 5,000m2 ) you have to remember that is still 85,000 films.

Also, you cannot coat on one base, sheet film, maniature (35mm ) and roll film are all different bases.

I have to be honest I cannot possibly imagine that it could generate a sufficient ROI, but I will have a deeper look at it.

I will come back in a week or so when I have some more information.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Roger Cole · Aug 9, 2012

Efke may be a tripod only film because it needs an opaque #72 filter (or so I've read - still meaning to try it) plus is painfully slow with that, but HIE could and did get nice IR effects with a red #29 and was sensitive enough to shoot with that handheld in good light. Efke is making or has recently made "infrared" film but nothing is quite like HIE was.

Curt · Aug 10, 2012

I've mentioned the loss of Agfa pan 25 and Panatomic X so many times it sounds like a broken record. But to follow up here I know that they are history. We will never see them again, ever.

My one hope was that one day in my lifetime Ilford / Harmon would make a run of Pan F in sheet film sizes. Even in a yearly run. With Efke, when / if, it's announced it's over, Pan F would be the last emulsion in this speed range. If there is a god, he / she would surely listen to the voices in the forest.

Roger Cole · Aug 10, 2012

Just curious, but why do you need such a slow film in sheets? The reason for tolerating a very slow film, for me, was to get very fine grain. I don't need that when a 16x20 is only a 4x enlargement. TMX has finer grain than Pan X did, not with the same look granted, but finer grain.

I was making some 11x14s the other night from 6x6 negs cropped to 6x4.5 or so to fit. You can only see any grain if you stick your nose right against them. I'm a severe myope so without my glasses I can do that. I dare so most people couldn't see it at all without a magnifier. That's over a 4x enlargement, and it's FP4+.

Maybe you print very, very large, say bigger than 20x24?

I like Pan F and shoot it in 120. I very much doubt I'd shoot it in 4x5 even if it were available.

John Shriver · Aug 10, 2012

The infrared film business always depended on the US Department of Defense keeping huge stocks of the stuff for aerial reconnaissance, with enough inventory to handle three simultaneous wars. They probably replaced the inventory every year. They don't do that anymore, they use digital systems for that now. Without that demand base, there's not enough volume.

PKM-25 · Aug 10, 2012

Roger, I like slow films for long exposures, I am still working on a batch of 100 rolls of APX 25 in 120, I still use a 10 stop ND filter on that getting into exposures of several minutes in full sunlight, it's part of my style. But with 4x5, the best I can do is Delta 100 pulled a stop which is fine, because I can work at smaller apertures than with my Blad and not suffer from diffraction.

But I am right there with you on Pan-F, I suppose I would use it in 4x5 but I am doing just fine without it in large format for the moment. But IR film is another story, I use Rollei IR 400 a lot, fine grain and a cool, not over the top IR effect. If Ilford were to make an IR film that was more like Efke or HIE, I would use it in 4x5, but not as much as the Rollei stuff since it is my go to IR film. I have one box of IR820 I was going to give a try, I am probably going to get another three boxes as a matter of just in case...

But Ilford, we all need them to pull in nice profits every year, so I don't really push them for days gone by and instead, can not thank them enough for what are truly products I can use for the rest of my life and will...

K-G · Aug 10, 2012

If you want a low speed, fine grained film in sheet size, the ADOX CMS 20 II is available in 4x5 inch size. I think it is produced in ADOX own plant in Germany but I am not quite sure. I enclose a link to the web-site for ADOX/Fotoimpex .

Karl-Gustaf

http://www.fotoimpex.de/cgi-bin/sho...Inch<br>4x5 Inch&vendor=&pn=0&sort=0&items=30

mopar_guy · Aug 10, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Just curious, but why do you need such a slow film in sheets? The reason for tolerating a very slow film, for me, was to get very fine grain.

On more of a 35mm way of thinking, it is an aperture driven thing. From the Sunny F16 Rule: At EI 25 in sunny conditions f2=1/1600 second. At EI 100 in sunny conditions f2=1/6400 sec. The fastest shutter speed on my camera is 1/2000 second so a 25 speed film is a good choice for wide open apertures. For me a film like Kodachrome 25 or Panatomic-X would see a fair amount of use. It is a pity that Kodak doesn't think so. If I try to use a 100 speed film, I have lost what are to me some very desirable apertures on my lenses. I have been using a fair amount of Efke 25 for these situations.

Roger Cole · Aug 10, 2012

ND filters. Plus I usually want very shallow depth of field only for portraits, and I don't shoot portraits in bright sun. If I find myself there and wanting to do so, I at least find some open shade. YMMV of course - but still not in 4x5. In 35mm you do have Pan F. It's a nice film, though I shoot it at 64 in Diafine.

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 10, 2012

There are lots of great films out there. While Fotokemika have said they will continue making film, obviously shutting down their paper production is an ominous sign. But losing their incredible Emaks and Varycon papers is a severe blow to anyone that likes to print in the darkroom.

Photo Engineer · Aug 10, 2012

Kodak IR film was sold independently of any pressing or huge need by the military. It was sold as a consumer film for the first 35mm cameras sold by EK. In fact, they advertize its used with the early cameras.

PE

brian d · Aug 10, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Just curious, but why do you need such a slow film in sheets? The reason for tolerating a very slow film, for me, was to get very fine grain.

Speaking just for myself, for what I like to do it just works the best. I like to use a SpeedGraphic at antique equipment shows, usually in mid day summer sun and not a situation where I want to be messing with filters etc. and a lot of the time I'm trying to catch motion blur so high shutter speed is out of the question.
One of my photo's is in this years Steam Engine calender, shot on EFKE 25. Using the slow film I was able to catch the exact look I wanted right away without having to "set up the shot" I am certain that if I had been using even a 100 speed film I could not have got the look I wanted right then.

Pioneer · Aug 10, 2012

brian d said:
Speaking just for myself, for what I like to do it just works the best. I like to use a SpeedGraphic at antique equipment shows, usually in mid day summer sun and not a situation where I want to be messing with filters etc. and a lot of the time I'm trying to catch motion blur so high shutter speed is out of the question.
One of my photo's is in this years Steam Engine calender, shot on EFKE 25. Using the slow film I was able to catch the exact look I wanted right away without having to "set up the shot" I am certain that if I had been using even a 100 speed film I could not have got the look I wanted right then.

+1

I find that the Efke 25 films are a perfect match for any camera that has a top shutter speed ranging from 1/100 through 1/500, which includes many, many rangefinders and others from the 1930s through the 60s. Even my Fuji GL690, which was probably built in the 70s or 80s, loves Efke 25 film. Ilford's Pan F 50 can be pressed into service if need be but it will not give the same look as the slightly older style emulsions used in the Efke films.

Roger Cole · Aug 10, 2012

Ok. I'm not against it, just wondering. My own 4x5 could benefit from more speed rather than less. I normally shoot TMY-2 and that's usually fast enough but I find myself shooting near sundown, with wind moveing things I don't want motion blurred or whatever. Most of the time I could also be fine with 100 speed, but I certainly never have had a need for anything slower than 100, especially considering I normally shoot with at least a #8 and more often a #12 yellow filter already and, even if I did, modern films will not suffer the slightest from a one stop overexposure.

The above is in reference to 4x5. With handheld cameras I'd go beyond saying I never need anything slower than 100 to saying that I can rarely use anything slower. I do shoot some Pan F+ but I develop that in Diafine to get what speed I can and to tame the contrast a bit. And it's not that often I find I can use it. But I rarely shoot in bright sun.

Just goes to show, that's why even now there are many different films.

Fotokemika ...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency