Maco up100/efke pyrocat problem

[Tom Stanworth]

I have some maco up100 in 10x8 and I am really struggling to gain density. Mid tone seperation seems pretty awful and muddy. The same dev that is builds plenty of density with other films is really struggling. In a scene straight into sunlit cloud (my meter could not read it it was so hot), with deepest shadows on Z2.5 at ISO 64 ande dev'd with constant agitation at 20degs c at 2:2:100 for 13 mins............muddy and apart from the sun sphere itself, very poor density all things considered.

I'm just a bit lost here and I deliberately tried to overdevelop the film, but it made not a sausage difference. had I done this with any other film it would have been opaque in the highlights! Is Maco up100 no the same as pl100 perhaps????

Dev is fine as I am getting the goods from other films in 5x4.

A not on the orbital; dont use with this film! the convex slats that prevent the film rising up from the base cut into the emulsion. Boy this stuff is soft! Over to trays next.
Tom

 

[Donald Qualls]

I see three possible sources of your problem. First, you've got a bad batch of film and it's a lot slower than even the 2/3 stop reduction you're already giving it -- have you tested for speed, checked your shadows? Second, you've got a bad batch of film that simply doesn't have the D-max you need. Or, third, Maco up100 just doesn't like the Efke pyrocat -- try it in another developer (which would also help with the second possibility).

If the film works okay with another developer (HC-110 at high dilution would be my choice, because it seems to work with everything), then it's just that film and developer not getting along; if it still has poor D-max then it's a film problem -- and if you have no shadow detail either way, but get good highlight density in the other dev, it's lower speed and you need to downrate further (though you shouldn't have to go below EI 50 with an ISO 100 rated film, unless in something like Microdol-X stock solution).

 

[Christian Olivet]

I have some maco up100 in 10x8 and I am really struggling to gain density. Mid tone seperation seems pretty awful and muddy. The same dev that is builds plenty of density with other films is really struggling. In a scene straight into sunlit cloud (my meter could not read it it was so hot), with deepest shadows on Z2.5 at ISO 64 ande dev'd with constant agitation at 20degs c at 2:2:100 for 13 mins............muddy and apart from the sun sphere itself, very poor density all things considered.

I'm just a bit lost here and I deliberately tried to overdevelop the film, but it made not a sausage difference. had I done this with any other film it would have been opaque in the highlights! Is Maco up100 no the same as pl100 perhaps????

Dev is fine as I am getting the goods from other films in 5x4.

A not on the orbital; dont use with this film! the convex slats that prevent the film rising up from the base cut into the emulsion. Boy this stuff is soft! Over to trays next.
Tom

I know nothing about Maco. Efke at ASA 80 with the shadows placed at 4 is what I routinely do and get oodles of density.
I would try one or two more stops exposure and if the proble persists, get your money back or exchange the film.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Just printed some. Without doubt teh worst negs I have ever seen.....and they are all mine!

I would guess that in pyrocat I would have needed to rate the film at 32 or so to have had decent shadows and as for the highlights.......it took grade 5 to produce vaguely white snow and a semblence of black together.....there were clear holes in the negs where rocks had been placed at Z2.5! What makes it worse (and I know this is my fault), is that I used the stuff on a recent trip (thinking that at iso64 for normal scenes I would not go far wrong) and produced what would have without doubt been the finest image I have ever produced. However, the complete lack of shadow detail (oh and the black muddy specks within the emulsion which are not dust or dirt) has completely ruined it. Grain was also horrendous. FAR worse (in 10x8!)than FP4 plus in 5x4 enlarged to same print size. I am so cross. The crappy print I am looking at is exactly what I have been aspiring to produce for years and it is technically awful. Why did I not use my 5x4, blub, blud, blub.....


Tom

 

[Donald Qualls]

Maybe I can improve your mood some -- the J&C Pro 100 film is supposed to be quite good, respond well to expansion/contraction, and take stain nicely, and is very inexpensive. The 8x10 is priced competitive with 4x5 in other brands. I don't know if it's available in the UK, or what brand it's relabeled from (the Pro 100 in 120 and 35 mm is Lucky, but AFAIK the 4x5 and larger is a different manufacturer, because Lucky doesn't produce sheet film), but I'd suggest trying Fotoimpex -- J&C is also Fotoimpex.us, and I'd expect Fotoimpex.de to have the same or similar products (maybe even the J&C branded versions).

 

[noseoil]

Tom, did you run a film test on this stuff? At this point, it might be a good idea to work out the film's speed and range with your paper.

Try running one at iso 32 and see what you get. Try 32, 2:2:100 at 21c, 8'30", rotary development and see where you end up. tim

 

[Christian Olivet]

Just printed some. Without doubt teh worst negs I have ever seen.....and they are all mine!

I would guess that in pyrocat I would have needed to rate the film at 32 or so to have had decent shadows and as for the highlights.......it took grade 5 to produce vaguely white snow and a semblence of black together.....there were clear holes in the negs where rocks had been placed at Z2.5! What makes it worse (and I know this is my fault), is that I used the stuff on a recent trip (thinking that at iso64 for normal scenes I would not go far wrong) and produced what would have without doubt been the finest image I have ever produced. However, the complete lack of shadow detail (oh and the black muddy specks within the emulsion which are not dust or dirt) has completely ruined it. Grain was also horrendous. FAR worse (in 10x8!)than FP4 plus in 5x4 enlarged to same print size. I am so cross. The crappy print I am looking at is exactly what I have been aspiring to produce for years and it is technically awful. Why did I not use my 5x4, blub, blud, blub.....


Tom

Are you sure you got the emulsion side towards the lens? I have done this with color film and it was a disaster. I would double check!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Are you sure you got the emulsion side towards the lens? I have done this with color film and it was a disaster. I would double check!

I got this bit right for sure. I also ran some basic tests, but unfortunately chose a very flat scene and probably did not realise how far underexposed it was at iso64. I got flat prints but OK shadows (prob only Z4, and in effect prob ended up on 3 so printed OK....). Having researched what others have been doing with the film, I thought is064 would be very close. As it is it is about a stop too fast (at least). With the tests I ran I also realised that I was underdeveloping. However, when I came to increase development, it made not a sausage difference with pyrocat, nor DDX. UI used the DDX for more speed and also wondering if my Pyrocat was oxidising with the silly long times I was trying to get density. The crap results with DDX suggests that the pyrocat was not oxidising and the DDX was still not pulling out ISO 64! Would this be consistent with OLD film, poor speed and poor Dmax? This is the second prblem I have had with Maco materials. The first being paper with stains on it (yes, also present before processing and after). I am wondering if this film is the same as Efke pl100 or if I just had a dodgy pack. I usd teh same metering technique as on all my 5x4 shots and they were exposed fine and built density fine.

I had my suspiscions about the film before going (hence previous posts wondering about building density) but convinced myself that it was more likely to be me than the film.......Also, with teh first decent foray with the 10x8 I expected to achieve little. I was wrong. One shot in particular will be my 'fish that got away'. Sulking over 50 sheets 10x8 fp4 plus on the way!

Tom

 

[BarryWilkinson]

Hello Tom,

Are you based in the UK? If it would help, I could send you a few sheets of Adox CHS 100 (Efke pl100) to test. I only have it in 5x4, and I have yet to try it, so I can't help you with any process details.

Barry