TeeGee
I’d deliberately bought this film to get that much-hyped 50s look. At the weekend, I decided to load it into my Mamiya, opened the can and the silver paper, and then, as usual, scraped off the adhesive strip with my fingernail... whoosh!!!! Suddenly, almost the entire roll of film unravelled – it was wound so tightly onto the reel! After a quarter of a second of shock, I managed with some effort to grab hold of it quickly before it had unravelled completely. With further effort, I pulled it halfway tight and let the camera motor do the rest, which was audibly struggling. At the end of the film, it behaved quite normally, although I went into a pitch-black, interior bathroom in the hotel just to be on the safe side.
Today it came back from PS 13 developed and is completely ruined by a light leak and the partial rewinding! Perhaps you at Impex should put a warning label on the canister stating that these films have not been wound by machine and are therefore not flawless, but have been wound in a workshop with the associated tolerances!
That was probably my first and last ADOX; there were some irreplaceable shots on it, so I’d rather stick to Kodak or Ilford, even if they are more expensive.
zensusa
Hello TeeGee,
Actually, if you’re ‘deliberately buying’ a film, you really should make a point of finding out in detail about the ‘specific characteristics’ of this material, especially as you don’t seem to have used it in your practical photography work so far. This really applies to all materials you’re not yet familiar with and haven’t worked with before. It is therefore advisable not to use film stock (this also applies to cameras, lenses, chemicals, etc.) for important shots that cannot be repeated if you are not familiar with the strengths, weaknesses and specific characteristics of that material. Had you taken this to heart, you would have come across a wealth of information regarding the properties, processing and specific characteristics of this film stock; - namely in various forums, on the websites of manufacturers and suppliers, and in the technical ‘data sheets’ etc., and you would have been spared a great deal of frustration.
1. All films – not just the ADOX CHS film series – that are cast onto a PET base (e.g. all ADOX CHS roll and sheet films; EFKE roll and sheet films, most Rollei roll and sheet films, etc.) should be held centrally when loading them into the camera to prevent them from springing open, as PET bases are considerably more robust than the familiar old film bases and therefore develop a momentum of their own!
2. All films on a PET base must be wound onto the camera or loaded with particular care to protect them from light. That is to say, no bright light sources or direct exposure, as the clear PET base is a ‘very good light conductor’. Which, in this case, is of course undesirable. Even 35mm films should therefore be treated in this way, as a strong light leak occurs on the ‘film leader’ and is transmitted into the cassette, ruining the first few exposures.
3. ADOX CHS films, which are based on EFKE films, should – like these and all films sharing the same manufacturing basis – be developed at low temperatures and under no circumstances in the developing machines of a large-scale laboratory. This almost always goes wrong!
4. The splitting of your film therefore has nothing to do with a manufacturer’s production tolerances (these tend to manifest as variations in base coating, emulsion fluctuations between batches, or manual damage to the emulsion layer, etc.), but is more likely due to an inappropriate method of loading the film onto the spool that is unsuitable for the film base.
5. The ADOX CHS 50 is a Rectepan film (orthochromatic film). This means its speed ends just above 600 nm, in contrast to Panchromatic films (e.g. Kodak TRI-X, Ilford HP 5, etc.), which extend much further into the red spectrum, or even super-panchromatic films (e.g. the old, now defunct Forte/Classic Pan 400). Incidentally, this is what gives ADOX CHS film its ‘1950s look’ – the ‘darker’ rendering of red tones; in other words, the overall grey-scale reproduction differs significantly from Kodak or Ilford films, almost all of which, whether classic silver grain or flat crystals, are Panchromatic in nature. There are therefore no comparable films in the Kodak or Ilford ranges. Even Fuji’s Acros, which is also (in terms of its specifications) a Rectepan film, differs from the CHS 50 in its tonal range.
The CHS therefore differs enormously from other films, both in terms of tonal range and handling. I myself have been using EFKE/ADOX roll films ever since the days when they were still cast on acetate bases, and although they have always been somewhat more fiddly to handle and the emulsion has also changed somewhat over the decades, the ADOX CHS and EFKE films are still among my favourites, as their tonal range is unrivalled (only the Maco PO 100c or the new Rollei Retro 100 Tonal, which is actually the old PO 100c) have the same wonderful tonal range; after all, they are also Rectepan films based on classic silver halide.
So TeeGee, if I were you, I’d give it another go! Good luck!
TeeGee
Thanks for the technical insights; I’d actually done my homework on the film, including checking the Impex website. I’ve read almost everything you’ve said there, though they’ve deliberately left out the mention of the tight winding. I also don’t think it should be necessary to have to trawl through every photography forum just to find out about a film before you can use it. Impex has already produced quite detailed data sheets; they could easily have included a mention of the light-piping and the ‘tight winding’ there as well.
According to information in other forums, the overly tight winding is definitely linked to the fact that it’s manufactured in a workshop.
zensusa
Hello TeeGee,
Could it be that you’re offended? By the way, if you’re going to make comparisons, please use “technical prose” (meaning: “straightforward”) and not “...technical poetry...” (which implies a more poetic form, such as verse, etc.); however, I haven’t made anything up, nor have I written any poetry.
Otherwise, films on PET reels must be wound with particular care, as a light leak must be prevented from the edge; as already mentioned, PET films have inherent tension; in plain terms, if they are wound poorly or loosely, they push apart and a light leak occurs from the edge!
When you write "... According to information in other forums, the film being wound too tightly is definitely linked to the manufacturing process," this statement is simply incorrect, as it has nothing to do with the manufacturing process, but solely with the PET film base, which requires even, tight tension!
As for ‘light-piping’, this is clearly pointed out in the film characteristics of the ‘ADOX Art Series films’ (see http://adox.de/ADOX_Filme/page47/page47.html), for example.
Best regards and no hard feelings – after all, I don’t want to upset you; my post was actually intended as a (friendly) reminder. Unfortunately, forum posts are often misinterpreted emotionally.
TeeGee
Hello TeeGee,
Could it be that you’re offended? By the way, if you’re going to make comparisons, please use ‘technical prose’ (meaning ‘straightforward’) rather than ‘…technical poetry…’ (which implies a poetic form, verses, etc.); however, I haven’t made anything up, nor have I written any poetry.
As for what prose means, you’d better have another think about it... (just this much: I’m a Germanist!) The term ‘lyric’ was definitely meant ironically, but even that doesn’t always come across.
Otherwise, films on PET reels need to be wound with particular care, as a light leak from the edge must be prevented?
Exactly! And by ‘winding
carefully’, I mean something quite different from a ‘Rollmops’!
Klaus_H
And by ‘careful winding’, I mean something quite different from a ‘Rollmops’!
Even with roll films on PET backing, there is no need to compromise on perfect packaging. A company in northern Germany is marketing an “infrared” film that was (or is?) packaged by a British firm. With this product, there is neither a light leak at the film edge nor the “Rollmops” effect.
Packaging simply requires skill.
It is to be hoped that future roll film processing in Bad Saarow will meet international quality standards (Kodak, Fuji, Ilford).
There are already enough “sloppy” processing jobs about.
Best regards,
Klaus
Patrick
Hello,
I’ve also had the film suddenly roll up when loading it into the camera with other films, particularly with Fuji Arcos films. I’ve been using the CHS 50 for years and am very happy with the results I get from this film; I’d really miss it if it were no longer available. I also think that anyone who takes medium-format photography seriously will probably have more than just one type of film in their bag. I wouldn’t take this incident too seriously, and would simply give the 50 again a go, just make sure to take enough with you this time... The results are well worth it once you’ve taken a really beautiful photo with it.
With that, I wish you lots of fun with your photography once again!
Patrick.
TeeGee
I reckon anyone who’s serious about medium-format photography will probably have more than just one roll of film in their bag. I wouldn’t take this mishap too seriously, and would just give the 50mm another go – only this time I’d make sure to take enough film with me.
Funny answer! So you wouldn’t be annoyed if a roll of film with irreplaceable shots went to waste? Of course I had more than one roll in my bag, but that doesn’t help much if the shots were on the other roll. I’ve never had this problem with Fuji Acros; even a Shanghai GP3 – surely the most exotic film you can put in a camera – is better made.
thomas_l
Well, everyone should make sure the film is properly spooled; a company in northern Germany might even need to check the film’s width is correct...
I do understand that it’s annoying when something like this happens. I don’t actually particularly like PET backing, regardless of the film. I use the Efke 50 quite often (sometimes as ADOX CHS, but mostly as Efke – do they have the same packaging?) and haven’t had this problem before. So generally speaking, it’s never happened to me with any film.
I’d still be interested to know, though, whether this was perhaps just a random fault or whether you generally need to be more careful with films like this, as I’ve never really paid attention to that sort of thing before.
Best regards, Thomas
TeeGee
From what I’ve read on other forums, it seems quite likely that this will happen later on in the film.
Gast
Hello,
I also use Adox CHS films from time to time, and so far I haven’t noticed any faults with them.
I think it’s rather rash to judge the quality of ADOX’s packaging based on just one roll of film.
And given what’s written in forums these days, I’ve become very cautious.
I’ve also found packaging defects with North German and British companies.
Best regards,
Wolfgang
P.S.: Nevertheless, a faulty roll of film like that is obviously annoying!
sputnik
Without wishing to take sides for or against ADOX films: I, for one, simply wouldn’t have used a roll of film that unravels when you tear off the leader (certainly not for ‘once-in-a-lifetime shots’) and would have preferred to open a second one – taking the necessary precautions. It’s actually quite obvious that quickly re-tightening the film doesn’t help. After all, you can’t really squeeze the light that’s already got in back out again :-)
Kryschtof
That’s just how it is, even if it is annoying to have to throw away an unused roll of film.
I once used Kodak Portra and Fuji Neopan 400 alternately whilst on holiday, and learnt that film spools from different manufacturers can vary in width. Unfortunately, the Neopan wasn’t wound tightly enough onto the Portra reel, which may have been partly due to a pressure roller that wasn’t firm enough. There was a light leak when I opened the camera, which ruined half the film.
The 400 film is no longer available, but as a precaution I now make sure to use the correct empty spool even with the 100 Acros. Learning by doing.
Intellectual academics might wish to take heed of some advice from their peers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwIPB6DcSZs
Best regards
Christof
AchimBauer
A lot of fuss over a botched film!
I’ve botched my whole life and I’m not whingeing about it.
Best wishes, Achim
TR
From what I’ve read on other forums, it seems this is something we can definitely expect later on with this film.
I’d like to see some specific sources (links) on this. I’ve never heard of this before, and I’ve never encountered such a problem with my CHS-120s (including the 50 series) so far.
TeeGee
@T.R: try entering the film name as a search term on the relevant forums (l-camera-forum, aphog, gamborang); you should find quite a bit there.
Urnes
Here’s another one for you, on the subject of camera malfunctions:
So there I was, in the middle of India on a camel farm, and I was really keen to take some analogue photos. I’d loaded a fresh roll of film – an Ilford Delta 400, 24 exposures. Then came the shock when, on the 11th shot, the camera reeled the film completely back. That was the end of the camel photos. No spare film, no digital camera, nothing. I was already panicking that the camera had gone wrong. Film in, film out, ran it through again with the lid on... but it always stopped at the 11th shot. Later in the hotel, I worked out how long a 24-exposure film should be and, quite bravely, pulled an unexposed film out of the canister. The length was right. But I had to ponder it for quite a while before I realised that the DX coding on the film cartridges was wrong; there were 40 films in total. I then covered the coding with a plaster. You see, even the big names make mistakes.
Regards, Sven.
TR
You can see that even the big players make mistakes.
Of course, because there everyone initially assumes the fault lies with themselves rather than the product (which isn’t to say that
TeeGee has done anything wrong). If people then dare to accuse the product of being generally unsuitable, this can quickly become entrenched in such forums and turn into a defining characteristic – at least for certain types of camera.
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello TeeGee,
I’m sorry to hear that your film has split, but it’s really hard to understand why you went ahead and subjected it to exposure anyway. Surely you must have realised that the images might be partially exposed.
We do, after all, specifically warn against the light-piping effect and supply the black tins so that the film isn’t exposed to light even when tightly wound.
With all films on PET base (and unfortunately, this will soon apply to all films), you have to expect a slightly higher tendency to split than with triacetate films.
However, triacetate also has a certain, albeit lesser, tendency to split when wound.
I’ve always held my films tightly until the camera’s spring does it for me.
But I’m happy to take up the suggestion and see where we can add this as a ‘usage note’.
The base’s tendency to ‘resist’ winding up cannot be influenced by how it has been wound. In that respect, it has nothing to do with variations in manufacturing. A roll film must always be wound tightly. If it were wound loosely, there would be light leakage at the edges.
In the past, with the old acetate base, everyone used to complain about the poor flatness after development.
Now that we use a base that lies as smooth as a baby’s bottom after development, there are suddenly complaints about the base’s tendency to warp before development....
Just to clarify, I would therefore like to point out that none of the CHS films were manufactured in our factory, but are, as can be easily seen on the film box, ‘Made in Croatia’.
We assemble the products much better here in Bad Saarow. In principle, we wouldn’t need to supply black tins at all if we assembled them here. Unfortunately, however, labour in Germany is so expensive that we would no longer be competitive against imports from Croatia, and since photographers always look at the price first, we unfortunately have to be just as poor (and cheap) as the cheapest alternative supplier for this material.
The situation is different with our premium products. That is why we have the two product lines: “Art Series” for materials at rock-bottom prices (e.g. CHS films) and “Premium Line” for the more quality-oriented products that are not subject to such fierce competitive pressure (currently only the CMS 20 among roll films).
However, we are considering whether it might make sense to offer the efke again in its original form (to satisfy the budget-conscious customers) and, alongside this, to offer a film under the ADOX brand that has been retrospectively checked for defects and perfectly packaged at a higher price (sorting out and discarding defects = more material used; packaging in Germany = more expensive).
We would be interested to know whether there would be a market for this.
Best regards,
Mirko
TeeGee
Mirko,
You always make a mistake the first time round, and the film hadn’t completely unrolled, but it had unrolled enough to be ruined. I grabbed it quickly, hoping I’d caught it in time, but unfortunately, it was too late.
I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one who’d appreciate a warning about this on the packaging.
