My 2¢ on Efke/Adox 100

[rwboyer]

I am a newbie to Efke/Adox film as I am usually a Kodak film user but have an 8x10 project I am working on and plan to shoot a lot of 8x10. Not a big deal for a couple sheets a month but a considering I can get Efke 8x10 at about half what Kodak costs me I figured I would give it a whirl.

I ordered a bunch of the 120 just to get a baseline calibration for it and a feel for using it vs my old standbys. Shot and processed a roll yesterday and had a couple of impressions that I wanted to confirm and share as well as a question or two for avid Efke 100 fans.

Here are a couple shots off the first roll souped in Pyrocat HD about N - given it my first guess (maybe 10% off - will see with the rest of the 120) strait scans with base adjustment to true black. I am impressed with the mid and upper mid separation on this film.

My impressions - still forming given it is my first shot are:

- Slower than TMX and PXP as measured in Zone III, won't go into exact ISO given equipment variations etc.

-Less red/orange sensitive than TMX or for that fact TX.

-Idiotically flimsy base material and really really curly - not a big deal for my sheet film plans but holy crap I cannot seem to flatten this stuff out after 12 hours. My scans are horridly out of focus due to this.

-I have heard that it is fragile but I am always very careful and saw no issues with my normal processing procedure.

Can others confirm some of this and share the secret to get the roll film to flatten out without a hydraulic press for a month?

RB

 

[sepiareverb]

Less hardener in the fixer should help. I've used Adox 120 films in my standard fixer (Sprint) with half the hardener called for- some curling but nothing horrendous.

 

[rwboyer]

Less hardener in the fixer should help. I've used Adox 120 films in my standard fixer (Sprint) with half the hardener called for- some curling but nothing horrendous.

I am using NO hardener (TF-4) fixer.

RB

 

[rwboyer]

Less hardener in the fixer should help. I've used Adox 120 films in my standard fixer (Sprint) with half the hardener called for- some curling but nothing horrendous.

After thinking on it some - maybe it is the Pyrocat HD and the tanning of the emulsion that is acting like hardener?

RB

 

[michaelbsc]

I am using NO hardener (TF-4) fixer.

RB

I too use no hardener in the fixer (Ilford Hypam), and I am using the 127 since it's about all you can find without rolling your own.

It does curl, but no no worse than some of the other odd brands like Shanghai. (It's better film than Shanghai, too.)

I lucked into a commercial film drying cabinet a couple of years ago, and when I hang and weight the 127 rolls in the dryer it is noticeably better after the cycle. I guess the interior temp during the drying cycle (60 min) is about 110F. (It never occurred to me to *MEASURE* the temp. It is noticeably warm, but not alarmingly hot.)

I could reduce the drying time and still get film dry, but it seems to me that the heat helps the curl. The air is well filtered, so there's no dust issue. The 60 minute cycle comes from the fact that I use a mechanical heat lamp timer - like you see in motel bathrooms - as my controller. There's no real science behind that choice. I was standing in the aisle looking at them, and the choices were a 60 min timer and a 12 hour timer. 12 hours seemed absurd, so I got the 60 min timer. I made this decision after leaving it running all night a couple of times. Duh!

MB

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

I reverse roll the Efke/Adox 120 format film on my developing spiral for 24 hours after I dried the film. It flattens well-enough for me after that.

 

[Bosaiya]

It's a curly film in rolls. Consider it the price for greatness.

 

[rwboyer]

I reverse roll the Efke/Adox 120 format film on my developing spiral for 24 hours after I dried the film. It flattens well-enough for me after that.

Sounds better than a hydraulic press - I will give it a try.

Thanks

Have you found it slower than TMX and PXP?

RB

 

[rwboyer]

It's a curly film in rolls. Consider it the price for greatness.

I take it you like the stuff?

RB

 

[Bosaiya]

I take it you like the stuff?

I really like the tones I get from it. For me it's like falling in love every time I use it.

 

[Alexander Ghaffari]

Sounds better than a hydraulic press - I will give it a try.

Thanks

Have you found it slower than TMX and PXP?

RB

I develop with 1+100 Rodinal, using normal agitation. I like it shot at around EI 80 or so. PXP I liked around EI 100. So I suppose that it is a wee bit slower in the same developer.

 

[Stan160]

After a few weeks in a negative file page, stored flat in a ring-binder, there's no more curl than Ilford or Kodak films.

Ian

 

[mhanc]

After a few weeks in a negative file page, stored flat in a ring-binder, there's no more curl than Ilford or Kodak films.

Ian

I agree - after several days in a negative file page the curling is negligible versus Kodak.

I have noticed that it damages somewhat easily during development, so extra care is definitely warranted.

Just a really nice film.

PS: If anyone knows of a characteristic curve for this film or any of the other of the CHS films, I would love to see them.

 

[AndreasT]

Hi,
I have written something about the Adox 100 before. I hate this film. I have used the Adox 100 and 50 film. Using Rodinal 1+75. I got an Iso rating of 40 for the 100 film and 32 for the 50 film. Hardly any difference.
I also found the curve to have a strong S shape. Resulting in flat shadows and flat lights. For me this film is difficult to enlarge. The mid tones seperate nicely.
Personally I would say rather stick to the Kodak or Ilford films. The films may be cheaper but you may need more paper in the darkroom to get good results.

 

[rwboyer]

Hi,
I have written something about the Adox 100 before. I hate this film. I have used the Adox 100 and 50 film. Using Rodinal 1+75. I got an Iso rating of 40 for the 100 film and 32 for the 50 film. Hardly any difference.
I also found the curve to have a strong S shape. Resulting in flat shadows and flat lights. For me this film is difficult to enlarge. The mid tones seperate nicely.
Personally I would say rather stick to the Kodak or Ilford films. The films may be cheaper but you may need more paper in the darkroom to get good results.

Thank you,

As I go through the rest of my testing and calibration I will see where the highlights start to level off and go flat. That is very important to me. I didn't see that in the first roll of testing but used a different developer than you did.

The long toe doesn't bother me that much in large format and especially the projects that I plan to use this film with (upper mids and highlights are the important part to me).

So far the film does seem a lot slower than my usual TMX in the same developer at a similar CI - I wonder why the Adox site warns so strongly against overexposure (maybe the shoulder you were talking about - I will test - that might be the killer if true, Zone VII - VIII separation is pretty important to me for this project)

RB

 

[AndreasT]

It could be that something went wrong when I tested these films. Just as a warning. You never know.
The films just don`t have a good seperation higher up so a overexposure doesn`t bring a good seperation up there.
It has often been reported that these film vary a bit from charge to charge so you or I may get different results from pack to pack. I have only brought these films once so I can not say anything to this.