Klaus_H
Hello everyone,
I have already commented on several occasions regarding Fotokemika’s roll film packaging, which (to put it mildly) leaves a great deal to be desired. Other forum users have also criticised scratches and the haphazard way in which the film base is attached to the backing paper.
At the Fineart Forum in Paderborn, FOTOIMPEX distributed ADOX CHS 100 roll films. What makes these films special is that they are packaged at the ADOX Fotowerke in Bad Saarow.
Today I exposed and developed both roll films. The results were as follows:
The films were tightly wound and sealed.
Both films were loaded into and removed from the camera in direct sunlight.
The band securing the film exposed during the exposure was precisely aligned and fastened.
In direct comparison with Ilford, Kodak and Fuji roll films, both ADOX films were attached at exactly the same position relative to the start mark (variation of 4 mm across all films). The adhesive strip was applied at a right angle to the film and secured the film over the same width as the other manufacturers’ films.
After development, it became apparent that, despite changing the film in direct sunlight (– serious users try to avoid this! –), no light had penetrated the film roll whatsoever.
After the films had dried, I examined them with a 10x magnifying glass for scratches and ‘defects’.
- No scratches were found.
- The number of areas with ‘black spots’ was pleasingly low. Out of 24 exposures, only 2 were affected in the peripheral areas.
Conclusion:
Having the roll film processed at ADOX Fotowerke significantly enhances the practical value of ADOX CHS films.
I hope that my observations are not based on positive “outliers” from the series.
Best regards,
Klaus
cfb_de
Hello Klaus,
Thank you for your extremely positive review! Even though the exact location of the film start on my Flex doesn’t matter (I’ll just say ‘spool’…), the fact that the films are now properly spooled significantly increases their practical value. It’s great to see that there are still positive changes happening in the analogue world!
Mirko, thank you! The decision to have the films hand-reeled in Bad Saarow (where they probably only shoot at property owners otherwise) seems to have been the right one.
Best regards,
Franz
Tandemfahren
€, hello, hang on a moment,
I’ve got nothing against the processing in Bad Saarow, but two (TWO?) roll films processed properly? A revolution?!
I’ve had a few more than just two rolls of Foma film processed, and none of them had any issues. That doesn’t really prove anything, though.
That said, the packaging of my 12 CMS20 120 films so far has also been flawless. Keep it up, and we’ll be able to say something about it soon.
Until then, full of hope, Frank
mdeutgen
That sounds very encouraging – has Mirko already let us know exactly how much the extra charge for the films ‘produced in Bad Saarow’ will actually be? Mirko did mention a figure elsewhere in this forum; now it’s time to get down to brass tacks.
I don’t think the films will be available at the current price; that much is obvious to everyone. It’s up to each individual to decide what the extra cost is worth to them.
Martin
Klaus_H
?, hello, hang on a moment,
I’ve got nothing against the film being processed in Bad Saarow, but two (TWO?) properly processed roll films? A revolution?!
I’ve had more than just two rolls of Foma film processed, and none of them had any issues. That doesn’t really prove anything.
Please read what this is about before making witty comments!
We’re dealing here with an upgraded product that isn’t yet available in significant quantities.
I think it goes without saying that when criticising the previous quality, one should also mention the significant improvements to the product in a positive light.
Best regards,
Klaus
Tandemfahren
Nana Klaus,
Let’s not get carried away.
I’ve obviously read “what it’s all about”, thank you. {Sarcasm mode off}
I’m also pleased when the work from Bad Saarow is good.
You said it yourself:
“I hope that my observations aren’t based on positive ‘outliers’ from the series.”
It seems we’re in complete agreement; I just want to point out the figures, otherwise I’d probably have to resort to smileys (which I never do) so that no one takes my use of the word ‘revolutionary’ the wrong way. So peace, friends, let’s not start throwing stones just yet.
Cheers to Bad Saarow
Frank
MirkoBoeddecker
We have produced around 9,000 roll films here so far.
I have taken a sample from every 100 films.
So far, there have been no complaints whatsoever.
The positioning of the adhesive joints is monitored electronically. If a film or sheet of paper is not properly bonded, the machine stops and we have to remove the relevant item (film or paper), restart the process and get back into production.
This happens about once every 3–6 minutes and is one of the reasons why our productivity is what it is and why the associated costs arise.
I still have about 300 of the CHS 100 films here. I will be adding them to the shop on Monday under item number 41110.
Depending on how well they sell, we will then expand our range.
We have already produced the following films here:
CMS 20 roll film
CMS 20 roll films for track (without CMS 20 marking)
PAN 25 roll films (may not yet be in the webshop)
CHS 100 roll films
Best regards,
Mirko
Klaus_H
Having processed 12 rolls of CHS 100 120 from Bad Saarow, I can confirm that the manufacturing quality remains consistently good. With roll films from the Balkans, I haven’t yet come across a roll film that was manufactured to perfection.
Thank you, ADOX – this is an improvement!
However, the price of the film has now surpassed that of Kodak and Fuji! This needs to be recalculated with a fine-toothed comb, and if it’s a volume issue, how about some attractive bundle deals with 50 or 100 films?
Best regards,
Klaus
PS. A 3-minute forward development with 3–4 drops of Mirasol per litre of water works wonders with CHS films.
mdeutgen
However, the price of the film has now surpassed that of Kodak and Fuji! A careful re-calculation is needed here, and if it’s a question of volume, how about offering attractive bundle deals of 50 or 100 films?
I agree with Klaus’s assessment; the film is now on a par with Ilford FP4plus. I like the idea of a 50- or even 100-pack; perhaps Mirko will take it up.
I’m looking forward to it!
Martin
cfb_de
Can in-house production become more cost-effective as production volumes increase?
Could you explain that to me...
Best regards,
Franz
CPD
Above all: why can’t this price exceed Ilford’s?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for low prices too. But why should this apply to ADOX of all companies, and not to other manufacturers?
CP
bernhardmangelsgmxde
Price-wise, it’s certainly on a par with FP4, and cheaper is always better, of course, but the CHS100 isn’t the same as the FP4. If I’d prefer a CHS100 rather than an FP4, but still want it to be properly packaged, then I’d be willing to pay the extra 70 cents per roll. And since Efke is already available in ‘traditional’ packaging, it would be nice from a consumer’s point of view if the film were also available in proper packaging; otherwise, you can always just buy Efke.
Klaus_H
The market will show whether the film can find a buyer at this price.
The packaging is now perfect. It has reached Ilford standards.
When it comes to other aspects, you can still tell it’s a Balkan product.
To be clear, I don’t want a cheap product. I’m talking about a price point comparable to Kodak and Fuji, both of which have extremely high quality standards.
I am not prepared to pay any price if there are other products of comparable or higher quality available at lower prices.
Best regards,
Klaus
PS. I have already contributed to the sales of the CHS 100 mentioned here by purchasing 30 films.
mdeutgen
I used the FP4plus as a benchmark for value for money, not as some kind of golden calf to be worshipped. Although an FP4plus is certainly one of my choices. But a CHS100 also has its place in my collection.
I think Klaus summed it up perfectly in his last post: you have to pay a fair price for decent quality.
The Balkan version of the CHS100 no longer meets these requirements for me; my preference for my next purchase is clearly the FP4plus or the CHS100 in the Bad Saarow packaging – depending on the intended use.
I am well aware that Mirko, with his production in Bad Saarow, cannot offer this at a price like Rochester, Japan or Mobberly, but he certainly can at this level of quality. (Franz, with my modest knowledge of Latin, I imagine ‘Manufaktur’ to mean handcrafted production; ‘manus’ does mean ‘hand’, doesn’t it?)
Martin
P.S. I’ve still got two Balkanese left, so let’s see what gets ordered!
MirkoBoeddecker
Franz is right. The (somewhat simplified) difference between a craft workshop and industrial production is that the craft workshop is less mechanised and relies more on manual labour. As a result, its unit costs are higher than they would be with optimal automation, but at the same time it avoids the high running costs associated with machinery.
It is in the fortunate position of being able to turn down orders that do not appear lucrative – and to produce small quantities at all.
Industrial firms are usually interested in increasing production volumes (as long as they remain within the range of diminishing marginal costs, meaning their machinery still has spare capacity – which can generally be assumed to be the case in the rest of the photographic market) because the production cost per unit decreases with every additional unit produced. They therefore chase after every additional order and are even willing to sacrifice profit margins to do so.
We are actually very pleased to be able to produce good roll films at all in very manageable quantities at a price like the current CHS 100 ‘Made in Bad Saarow’.
You can be pleased, whether you buy it now or not, that even films produced in very small batch sizes (cast batch sizes < 1000 sq m) can be manufactured to a good standard at a reasonable price. The ‘soon a film will cost 8 EUR’ spectre has a hard time haunting us this way.
We don’t really care how many rolls of CHS 100 “Made in Bad Saarow” we sell. If there’s demand for the product, we’ll fire up the machine, make another 1,000 rolls and make a small profit on each one. If not, the guy will do something else, like bottling chemicals or packing photographic paper.
Incidentally, Ilford raised its prices by 10% two weeks ago....
A pack of 50 still offers a price advantage, though, and that’s for retailers. It’s less hassle to put 50 films into one pack than 5 packs of 10. You might even be able to knock off about 10 cents per film. I’ll have a look into it.
Best regards,
Mirko
cfb_de
Franz is right.
Thanks! :spudnikbackflip:
Klaus_H
The same applies to manufacturers:
The product can be produced more cheaply if the roasting costs can be spread across a larger quantity of product.
Best regards,
Klaus
cfb_de
The same applies to small-scale manufacturers:
The product can be produced more cheaply if the production costs can be spread across a larger quantity of products.
Best regards,
Klaus
Provided there are sufficient roasting costs. However, in this case, labour costs are likely to be the determining factor, and these remain constant per unit in small-batch production (unless you get people to work faster, but then the supervisor costs extra too).
Best regards,
Franz
Klaus_H
In the meantime, there’s a 50-euro offer on the CHS 100 (Bad Saarow).
If the CHS 50 is available at that price in decent packaging, I’ll be in for at least one pack.
The CHS 100 is a bit too posh for my taste.
Best regards,
Klaus
thomas_l
I don’t think you can directly compare the prices of CHS and FP4, even though there is, of course, a certain price threshold above which people tend not to buy the film, or only buy it to a lesser extent.
If you want an FP4 and its quality, then you buy an FP4. In any case, it hasn’t occurred to me yet to buy an efke/CHS instead of an FP4 – and why should it? You buy an efke/CHS because of its special characteristics. That doesn’t mean the quality shouldn’t be as good as possible, but it’s completely pointless to pit it against an FP4.
Best regards, Thomas
