Why are old negs so good?

Mark Antony said:

I thought Efke 25 and 50 were ortho-panchromatic, in other words reduced red sensitivity.
Fotoimpex have some info
http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Filme/ADOX_CHS_Filme/ADOX_CHS_25 /ADOX_CHS_25.html
Its in German which I don't speak but the end of the first paragraph seems to suggest reduced red sensitivity...

Click to expand...

The charts linked to above indicate quite otherwise. Pretty typical of panchromatic films.

srs5694 said:

I ran some informal tests of this a while ago. I shot the same scene with objects of various colors, including a red frisbee, with several films, in the same light and from the same angle. The Efke 25 did produce a darker result than most other films, but this effect was dwarfed compared to the results of Tasma MZ-3L, which produced something that looked completely black for the frisbee. Your brickwork example, by comparison, is dark gray (except for a few areas in deep shadow). Unfortunately, I don't have scans of my test scenes handy to show for comparison.

I suppose another way to test to see if a film is orthochromatic is to expose it to a red safelight and see if it fogs. I can't say that I've tried this particular test with any film, though.

Oh, and I just went Googling, and found this page with spectral sensitivity graphs for Efke's 25 and 50 products. These shows sensitivity clearly into the red region, although without any comparison graphs for other products it's hard to draw conclusions.

Click to expand...

Hi everybody:
It is true about EFKE 25 and KB50 - this are orthopanchromatic films, which with reduced red sensitivity, but it is still sensitive to red. Also Fotokemika - the maker of this film, claims that it is "produced with very high silver content about 2 g/sq.meter", which promises rich tonality.
And everything said is almost true.
You may take a look at my sample from this film:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28444963@N06/2652020605/
This sample has blown out highlights due to overdeveloping, which was done in Hubl paste, but the range is good, and modulation is very different from modern films.

But there is no silver in EFKE in comparison with Tasma type 17 films. This russian films for aerial imaging have about 8g/sq.meter of silver. This combined with high resolution (about 200lines/mm) and high sensitivity (normally 400ISO, but the best results in art photo are at 200ISO).
The sample is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28444963@N06/2795599061/
Take a look at skin tones and overall tonality of the image.

Considering Tasma MZ-3L - this is real ortho film, but this is film for making lithographic images or microfiches. With extremely high contrast, giving only black and only white, without gray tones. It is too hard to make it artistic. Also the sensitivity is low. For now -out of production.
Another film from this series is TASMA MICRAT-ORTHO, also ortho film, for lith negatives, ISO is only 3 (three).

For art photo there are several other Tasma films: A-2 (old, thick!! emulsion films from 50s), KN-1, KN-2, KN-3, HK-2. All of them are cubic (non-T) grain films, panchromatic, but unlike A-2, these are modern, used for movies.

I personally use type 17, which is the best thing for portraits I ever saw (it is not good for landscapes due to narrow latitude, but if you put the right exposure, the result will be outstanding). The only problem - it is available in 35mm format only. Another widths are 80mm, 190mm and 320mm. So if somebody has a machine to cut it and pack into rolls, I'll be happy to make the business out of it.
A-2 is grainy and easier to use due to it wider latitude. Better works for general shots and specific grainy images. I'm also going to try it for reversal.
AND forgot to say - A-2 gives really old looking images - it is the only old film in the production today, was developed in the end of 40s, right after WW2 under the control of Stalin, and first produced in 1950, still in production since that times. Sensitivity is 400 ISO, but many people use it up to 800 - 1000 ISO with very good results.

Also note: Svema (Ukraine) made the same types of film before, but if you see one, do not take it - quality is outstandingly bad, you may even find dust inside of emulsion or absence of the emulsion on some parts of the film. They do not produce films any more.

Total Development

Jim Noel said:

The developer was replenished each morning by bring the total up to a line with D-25.

Click to expand...

Hello everyone,

The digitaltruth website says about the D25(R):
"Replenishment rate: For D-23 add 22 ml per each 8" x 10" processed (3/4 oz per 80" sq.), discarding some developer if necessary."


If I'd discard some developer, i'd discard the silver also,

if I'd replenish with lesser amount of D25, I'd loose the consistency,

and finally if I would not discard the developer, I'd get drowned in the bath. :rolleyes:


Please help me Jim with clarification.

Paul Verizzo said:

The charts linked to above indicate quite otherwise. Pretty typical of panchromatic films.

Click to expand...

From where I'm sitting they seem very like ortho pan. They just look like ortho with a small amount of extended red sensitivity, the texts say that they are orthopan, but I guess they could be wrong?

babel fish trans
"Red tones are tendentious more darkly shown by the smaller Rotempfindlichkeit (darker lips) which makes very beautiful clay/tone values unnecessary into the Portraitfotografie the use of a green filter and produced.
The CHS 25 belongs to the class of the so-called Orthopan of films. That is called he drops within the red range suddenly.
Not least this sensitization provides for it that pictures you with a CHS 25 makes a completely own characteristic has"

My bet is on orthopan.

Nice photos, Mark Antony. Plenty of classic glow to my eye.

Having recently taken a number of photos on a c.1935 Agfa folder with modern film I'd say the lens plays a great part. (The film itself could well play a part also, but you can easily see a different look with the lens the only factor).

catem said:

Having recently taken a number of photos on a c.1935 Agfa folder with modern film I'd say the lens plays a great part. (The film itself could well play a part also, but you can easily see a different look with the lens the only factor).

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you load that folder with Efke film, and process in Rodinal or ATM49, you'll notice an even greater difference. If you print in your own darkroom, Fomatone paper 333 Velvet with LPD developer (I use 1:7), will complete the look, and give you the most realistic "vintage" modern photograph you'll have ever seen.

Rolleijoe

ps, or if you can afford it, Fomatone 542 paper is the finest "vintage" paper made today.

Rolleijoe said:

Absolutely. If you load that folder with Efke film, and process in Rodinal or ATM49, you'll notice an even greater difference.

Click to expand...

Rolleijoe, which Efke film do you suggest and what dilution of Rodinal should be used please?

Sam H.

Basically every EFKE film from 25, 50 and 100ISO will look the same (except grain size). Rodinal maybe used 1+50 or 1+100, development times can be found on www.digitaltruth.com

In my opinion, Rodinal is not a best choice for EFKE - it gives huge grain, even with 25 ISO film.... Want to have the most vintage look? Use Hubl Paste as developer at 1+60 dilution. Development time for EFKE maybe in range of 15-20 minutes. I tried this and it gives the most vintage look ever. See here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28444963@N06/2652020605/

The only thing: Hubl paste is not commercially available, and you have to do it yourself, but it is not very difficult to do.

BTW, Hubl Paste formula:
hot water 150 degrees: 500ml - only distilled water should be used
sodium sulfite 165g
glycin 135g
potassium carbonate 625g
water to make 1 liter

It is not easy to dissolve all this, but use very hot water (90-95C), put it in thin walled glass, and put components in order given - stirr very well. Do not put next until you dissolve previous, in the end you will have some kind of liquid.

Uhner, I saw the message befor it was deleted, but:

Yes, it is 135g of Glycin (you will need a lot of effort to dissolve it ) - Actually Hubl paste is one of the most concentrated developers ever made. The recipe is very old, I think it comes from 19th century.
But this is very good one - it gives excellent tonal range, except such in shadows (shadows are not the strength of Glycin), and clear work without fogging (have you noticed the absence of antifoggant?)

You may use it from 1+10 to 1+200 dilutions. In dilutions lower than 1+20 it ca be used as paper developer, especially for "hi key" prints. (But the problem is Glycin - which is expensive for paper, or here in russia, there are no new glycin at all, and we use very old dark brown stock, which stains paper, but not films).

The grain will be very similar to D-76 in size.

Did I say that you need to heat up the glass when you make hubl paste during stirring? Otherwise Glycin will not dissolve completely. And one more: there will be precipitate in the final solution, which will contain crystals and brown stuff. You will need to shake the bottle very well to make it homogenious before you take the stock (do not expect crystals to dissolve), you may take couple of crystals also from the stock to make working solution.

Developer is relatively slow, and at 1+60 it may take 20-45 minutes to develop the film depending on the film you use. It is not suitable for push processing, but it will give you nominal ISO of the film up to 400 (never tried more).

Samuel Hotton said:

Rolleijoe, which Efke film do you suggest and what dilution of Rodinal should be used please?

Sam H.

Click to expand...

Either Efke 25 or Efke 100. Rodinal 1:50 for 10min @ 20ºC will do the trick. NO, THEY DO NOT ALL LOOK THE SAME as stated by "Pavelt2tk0" (who seems to have a very narrow view).

Efke 25 Will have reds appear darker, while Efke 100 is more straight panchromatic. Grain is not a problem with either. I've got 16x16 prints I made hanging in the living room, and even when people stand next to them, they can't tell the difference in grain structure to a 4x5 negative print that's hanging there as well.

Efke & Rodinal are legendary, as if practically made for each other. I have a set of negatives from a friend in Berlin which I'm printing some 16x16s for him, and he used ATM49 (not sure Freestyle carries this yet). And it gives a beautifully elegant look, which combined with the Zeiss glass he was using in a 1930s folder, and the Fomatone 333 paper I'm printing them on.......let's just say it's fooled more than a few serious photograohers.

Getting the result you're looking for isn't that hard, and you need not mix up a batch of "silly putty" in your underground lab to get vintage looking results. I'll never understand why these people take such a long way to get somewhere when it's not necessary.

Good luck and have fun!

Rolleijoe

Sorry, Rolleijoe, I forgot to mention that I use 35mm negs, where the grain is very important thing. Using EFKE films and Rodinal with 35mm is bad idea, even 8x10'' prints show HUGE grain. But I'm completely agree with 4x5 negs, where this is not so visible.

BTW, if you want to make ortho film without red sensitivity, it maybe a good idea to put it into pinacryptol yellow solution before exposure and then dry. This will desensitize it in the red range. Ofcourse it may shift the whole ISO and spectral sensitivity - a question of experiments.

Anyway - who tries will get his own right result. There are a lot of ways to go.

pavelt2tk0 said:

Sorry, Rolleijoe, I forgot to mention that I use 35mm negs, where the grain is very important thing. Using EFKE films and Rodinal with 35mm is bad idea, even 8x10'' prints show HUGE grain. But I'm completely agree with 4x5 negs, where this is not so visible.

BTW, if you want to make ortho film without red sensitivity, it maybe a good idea to put it into pinacryptol yellow solution before exposure and then dry. This will desensitize it in the red range. Ofcourse it may shift the whole ISO and spectral sensitivity - a question of experiments.

Anyway - who tries will get his own right result. There are a lot of ways to go.

Click to expand...

No problem. Although when shooting 35mm in the past, I used Agfa Studional and had no problems at all. with grain. Now I shoot 90% medium format and 10% 4x5. So with those sizes, grain is no issue.

Rolleijoe

pavelt2tk0 said:

Uhner, I saw the message befor it was deleted, but:

Click to expand...

At first I thought that 135 grams of glycin was bound to be a typo. Then I remembered reading the formula for Agfa # 72 that also contains large amounts of the same chemical and decided that my question was unnecessary. Reading your answer I’m glad you caught me

Sounds like an interesting developer, but given the prices of glycin I don’t think I will be trying it anytime soon.

The price is not an issue for this developer: the best results for films when using it diluted 1+60 and more. So you actually can use only 13,5g of glycin to make 100ml of the developer and this will be enough to process say 15-30 films. It is very like rodinal in economy. Also you may get an old glycin stock, which stains paper, but this will work fine for film.

Result are really different from "modern" developers.

I've never found the grain to be huge with a combo of EFKE and Rodinal, even in 35mm.
Here is a test of EFKE 25
Adox film test
Here is a portrait on that combo

EFKE 100 in Rodinal on 35mm film
*debunking the myth that Rodinal gives large grain*
Mark

Mark,

I don't know why, but I have much different results from such combo.... I'll scan it today and put on flickr to show.

Regards,

Pavel

Pavel
Rodinal is a 'love it or hate it ' type product. I often hear 'Rodinal is a grainy developer' and I'm sure that with some films especially fast ones that's true. But not on EFKE/Adox 25, I can make quite large prints without grain from that combo.
In fact when pushing Delta 3200 to 6400 recently I ran out of Microphen so I processed a few rolls in Rodinal, yes rodinal Delta 3200 pushed to EI 6400 on 120 film.


Now I'm willing to accept that I could have got better results with DDX/Microphen or possibly even D76 but the Rodinal is far from the golf ball size grain most suggest, I like to feel it tells it as it is.
YMMV
Mark

I actually like Rodinal, and use it often, with Foma and Rollei films, Agfa APX100. I think my issue with other ones is 35mm format, which is too small What I really love in Rodinal - tonal range, which is one of the best.

Your Delta 3200 in Rodinal is very good, and it is not surprising - you used Russian Standard Vodka as grain eliminator

Ok. I think we spoke about different negative look. BTW, another reason of vintage look maybe thick emulsion, which adds more light diffusion inside of emulsion than modern thin one.

I'm going to test russian Tasma A-2 thik emulsion film, which comes from late 1940ies and still in production. Next month will aquire 400ft of this film. It is intended for cine production, but most people here use it for photography as high speed film - can be processed well as 400-800ISO and as reversal also.

It's been good to read such interesting info on film developers and those old 'magic'* developers that seemingly produced highlights which never blew out and whose shadows were loaded with detail. I wonder why manufacturers stopped making them - perhaps later developers offered some other advantages such as shorter process times, easier mixing or something that made them a more commercially attractive product to the manufacturers ?

I'm still tempted to think there is some Callier-style effect produced by the thickness of the negative. In a highlight area, where the negative density is greatest, the unfocussed grains must be scattering light above and below the planes of focus: more so than would occur in shadow areas where there is less grain. In a modern, thinner negative this scattering effect must be negligible. Would this lead to glowing highlights, still with sharp details, but with a 'softar' effect?*

The biggest single reason for the different look of the old negs IMO comes from the fact that those films were polydisperse emulsions and had tone curves that "humped" in the middle giving more contrast in the mid and lower mid tones than the straight line curves we have today. The old films were also more responsive to development changes than today.

Super XX would give me a good N-2 atleast and a good N+2 but Tmax 100 does normal ok and N- not well. Even Verichrome Pan looked nicely different depending what you processed it in. Tmax looks like Tmax no matter what.

That "replating" of the silver (a phenomenon already mentioned by Ansel Adams) could have the same effect as the stain provided by pyro developers?

Personally, I think it's because only the good ones were kept. (Where are the funny faces when you need them?)